Now THIS is truly offensive!!! Obhrai needs to apologize and retract this male bovine excrement IMMEDIATELY!
I didn't want to believe it, I really didn't. I thought no MP would make such an irresponsible and contemptible comment as Obhrai was reported to have said. I heard yesterday a little something about this but I lacked any details. Thanks to the Globe and Mail article referenced that is no longer the case.
Let us first examine the case Obhrai makes for his claim. He stated that he told the Ethics Commissioner that if he were to pursue an investigation because it was a sensitive family matter that could lead to "deadly consequences". First off, this is a stupid argument to make to stop an investigation period. I wonder if the next time anyone has any legal investigation it will be seen as acceptable to request the end of an investigation because it is a sensitive family matter that could lead to deadly consequences, somehow I do not think this will fly with the investigating authorities whomever they may be. So to expect this to stop an investigation is idiotic right on the face of it. To expect it to be sufficient to even prevent the interview of a witness is just as moronic, particularly when that witness appears to be a central figure in the matter under investigation in the first place.
Now, let us examine the next part of this "complaint". This brother in law of Obhrai's is already someone suffering from some sort of mental instability/disorder/issue, what exactly I have yet to see precisely defined. We do know his family considered him unstable. We know that this man was interviewed in August of last year regarding this investigation. We know that on Feb 26 of this year this man killed himself, and did so without leaving any note/explanation as to why. Is this a tragedy? Yes, especially for that family. Is there any basis whatsoever to conclude that the Ethics Commissioner and his investigation had any role in this suicide? Not in the slightest, at least not as made public as of this writing. When Obhrai made this comment " When someone is warning him that there are deadly consequences and you chose to ignore it, and it happens, then what? He doesn't commit suicide just because." it is rather difficult to take this as anything other than Obhrai laying at least partial responsibility for the suicide directly upon Shapiro. Yet there appears to have been a full six months from the interview by Shapiro to the suicide, absolutely no note left to explain why, and yet Obhrai feels he has a basis for laying the responsibility even in part off on the Ethics Commissioner for doing his job?!? Now that is sick.
It is also clearly his using the death of his brother in law for partisan political purposes when he ties something from six months prior to the suicide to that event when there is zero corroborating evidence to do so. I have known several people that have tried to kill themselves and more than a few that succeeded in my lifetime. In almost every case the straw that broke the camel's back was something within the last few days to weeks at most, it was not something that happened much longer than that. There was in one case a much longer problem related to his sexual orientation which built up over time before he killed himself, but even there there was a recent event which finally caused his snapping. The idea that an event six months ago can be stated as having anything to do with this suicide when there is no other evidence provided, when the person in question was known to have mental instability to begin with, when there was no suicide note explaining why this person killed themselves is not one that holds credence. It is interesting though that while the suicide was two weeks ago it wasn't until the flap surrounding Harper and the Ethics Commissioner that this suddenly is made known. I make that comment because if there had been clear evidence that the investigation by the Ethics Commissioner had played a role in this suicide then one would have expected to hear about it immediately after the suicide.
No, this looks far more likely to be an attempt by the CPC to protect Harper from being investigated by furthering the campaign the CPC has waged against Shapiro since he first announced this investigation. At every turn we see the CPC and Harper's office doing their best to attack the credibility and authority of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner rather than comply with an investigation. Now we have an MP linking the suicide of his brother in law to this Office and Officeholder despite there being ZERO evidence provided to the public for this claim yet the CPC wants to claim it is everyone else that is playing partisan politics with this issue but them?!? Got to love the chutzpah involved, but not the lack of accountability, transparency, integrity and honesty. This was an absolutely disgusting allegation to make, and not one that should have been made UNLESS there was something substantial to support it. So far that appears to be missing.
Now we come to this lovely comment by MP Obhrai as a follow-up on his smearing the suicide of his brother in law onto the Ethics Commissioner without any evidence to support it, a comment offensive and hateful to most civilized human beings in this country to be receiving and especially sickening when applied to someone that is Jewish. "An Ethics Commissioner was appointed by us to look at our ethics. We did not appoint a Gestapo chief." I realize that exaggeration is inherent in political rhetoric but this was clearly overstepping the lines for any elected official to be making, let alone making on the clear absence of any evidence supporting Obhrai's contention that the Ethics Commissioner played any role whatsoever in the suicide of his brother in law.
Clearly the only ethical thing for Obhrai to do is apologize for the Gestapo comment and unless he has evidence he has not as yet provided to make this connection appear valid that he also needs to retract and apologize for making any suggestion whatsoever that the Ethics Commissioner played any role whatsoever in the suicide of his brother in law. Given what he has provided to date the only conclusion that I can come to is that MP Obhrai is using the suicide of his brother in law to further attack the Ethics Commissioner in an attempt to prevent any investigation into the Harper/Emerson issue, and that he is doing so by smearing the credibility of the Officeholder with this sordid and contemptible unfounded and unsupported contention of his.
This is a level of attack and smear politics I have not seen in this country until the Harper/CA/CPC started importing these tactics from their American counterparts, movement conservatives. It is this kind of politics that I have been worried about from the CA/CPC and especially Stephen Harper. I find it difficult to believe given the tight media management Harper has been running since he was elected PM that Obhrai made these public statements without either permission beforehand or at a minimum a willingness to allow it to continue once Obhrai made these public comments. At this point it is as much Harper's responsibility to have this MP retract and apologize for these comments UNLESS Obhrai has actual evidence to support this contention he has made. What has been provided to date certainly is insufficient to make this allegation, so either prove you have evidence or retract, no other behaviour is acceptable in this smear job and exploitation of a personal tragedy for partisan political purposes by an MP of the PM's party in the defence of that PM from investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. If there is no evidence provided then not only is retraction required but a full apology by Obhrai for this despicable act of using personal tragedy for partisan political purposes, in this case the prevention of an investigation by an Officer of Parliament with the legal power and responsibility to conduct said investigation.
If it wasn't already clear enough from this post I find this specific act well beyond what is considered acceptable politics, regardless of party or parties involved. This was a nasty smear job without evidence supporting it, and the Gestapo Chief comment on top of it was just insane. Then again, thinking it is a good idea to exploit such a tragedy in such a manner given the dearth of evidence supporting the allegation being made to protect the PM from investigation is also insane. It is certainly not something one would have wanted to see from anyone elected to public office. I also think this MP deserves to lose his position as MacKay's Parliamentary Secretary for this despicable act, but I will be shocked if that actually happens given the absolute lack of personal accountability in the CPC. After all, whenever something goes wrong for them it is always someone else's fault or responsibility, never their own. It is always the work of a partisan media, partisan political opponents, incompetent staff (see Communications firings by Harper as one example), never the CPC leader or his party always someone else is the "real" culprit not the poor victimized and persecuted CPC and Harper. For the sarcastically challenged, the preceding sentence was loaded with sarcasm.
Well that is all I have to say on this for now, I sincerely hope this insanity is retracted and apologies extended, because unless some real evidence to support this outrageous allegation is provided then such is the only responsible, ethical and moral choice open. Which seeing as the CPC has ranted for years about the need for such ethical and moral leadership leaves them looking yet again like hypocrites that have a double standard, one for them and another for everyone else. It seems the CPC borrowed another GOP tactic along with the smear and destroy approach, IOKIYAR, also known as It's OK If You Are Republican, or for Harper it is IOKIFAC where all are the same except the "C" is for Conservative. Just what Canada didn't need.
Let us first examine the case Obhrai makes for his claim. He stated that he told the Ethics Commissioner that if he were to pursue an investigation because it was a sensitive family matter that could lead to "deadly consequences". First off, this is a stupid argument to make to stop an investigation period. I wonder if the next time anyone has any legal investigation it will be seen as acceptable to request the end of an investigation because it is a sensitive family matter that could lead to deadly consequences, somehow I do not think this will fly with the investigating authorities whomever they may be. So to expect this to stop an investigation is idiotic right on the face of it. To expect it to be sufficient to even prevent the interview of a witness is just as moronic, particularly when that witness appears to be a central figure in the matter under investigation in the first place.
Now, let us examine the next part of this "complaint". This brother in law of Obhrai's is already someone suffering from some sort of mental instability/disorder/issue, what exactly I have yet to see precisely defined. We do know his family considered him unstable. We know that this man was interviewed in August of last year regarding this investigation. We know that on Feb 26 of this year this man killed himself, and did so without leaving any note/explanation as to why. Is this a tragedy? Yes, especially for that family. Is there any basis whatsoever to conclude that the Ethics Commissioner and his investigation had any role in this suicide? Not in the slightest, at least not as made public as of this writing. When Obhrai made this comment " When someone is warning him that there are deadly consequences and you chose to ignore it, and it happens, then what? He doesn't commit suicide just because." it is rather difficult to take this as anything other than Obhrai laying at least partial responsibility for the suicide directly upon Shapiro. Yet there appears to have been a full six months from the interview by Shapiro to the suicide, absolutely no note left to explain why, and yet Obhrai feels he has a basis for laying the responsibility even in part off on the Ethics Commissioner for doing his job?!? Now that is sick.
It is also clearly his using the death of his brother in law for partisan political purposes when he ties something from six months prior to the suicide to that event when there is zero corroborating evidence to do so. I have known several people that have tried to kill themselves and more than a few that succeeded in my lifetime. In almost every case the straw that broke the camel's back was something within the last few days to weeks at most, it was not something that happened much longer than that. There was in one case a much longer problem related to his sexual orientation which built up over time before he killed himself, but even there there was a recent event which finally caused his snapping. The idea that an event six months ago can be stated as having anything to do with this suicide when there is no other evidence provided, when the person in question was known to have mental instability to begin with, when there was no suicide note explaining why this person killed themselves is not one that holds credence. It is interesting though that while the suicide was two weeks ago it wasn't until the flap surrounding Harper and the Ethics Commissioner that this suddenly is made known. I make that comment because if there had been clear evidence that the investigation by the Ethics Commissioner had played a role in this suicide then one would have expected to hear about it immediately after the suicide.
No, this looks far more likely to be an attempt by the CPC to protect Harper from being investigated by furthering the campaign the CPC has waged against Shapiro since he first announced this investigation. At every turn we see the CPC and Harper's office doing their best to attack the credibility and authority of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner rather than comply with an investigation. Now we have an MP linking the suicide of his brother in law to this Office and Officeholder despite there being ZERO evidence provided to the public for this claim yet the CPC wants to claim it is everyone else that is playing partisan politics with this issue but them?!? Got to love the chutzpah involved, but not the lack of accountability, transparency, integrity and honesty. This was an absolutely disgusting allegation to make, and not one that should have been made UNLESS there was something substantial to support it. So far that appears to be missing.
Now we come to this lovely comment by MP Obhrai as a follow-up on his smearing the suicide of his brother in law onto the Ethics Commissioner without any evidence to support it, a comment offensive and hateful to most civilized human beings in this country to be receiving and especially sickening when applied to someone that is Jewish. "An Ethics Commissioner was appointed by us to look at our ethics. We did not appoint a Gestapo chief." I realize that exaggeration is inherent in political rhetoric but this was clearly overstepping the lines for any elected official to be making, let alone making on the clear absence of any evidence supporting Obhrai's contention that the Ethics Commissioner played any role whatsoever in the suicide of his brother in law.
Clearly the only ethical thing for Obhrai to do is apologize for the Gestapo comment and unless he has evidence he has not as yet provided to make this connection appear valid that he also needs to retract and apologize for making any suggestion whatsoever that the Ethics Commissioner played any role whatsoever in the suicide of his brother in law. Given what he has provided to date the only conclusion that I can come to is that MP Obhrai is using the suicide of his brother in law to further attack the Ethics Commissioner in an attempt to prevent any investigation into the Harper/Emerson issue, and that he is doing so by smearing the credibility of the Officeholder with this sordid and contemptible unfounded and unsupported contention of his.
This is a level of attack and smear politics I have not seen in this country until the Harper/CA/CPC started importing these tactics from their American counterparts, movement conservatives. It is this kind of politics that I have been worried about from the CA/CPC and especially Stephen Harper. I find it difficult to believe given the tight media management Harper has been running since he was elected PM that Obhrai made these public statements without either permission beforehand or at a minimum a willingness to allow it to continue once Obhrai made these public comments. At this point it is as much Harper's responsibility to have this MP retract and apologize for these comments UNLESS Obhrai has actual evidence to support this contention he has made. What has been provided to date certainly is insufficient to make this allegation, so either prove you have evidence or retract, no other behaviour is acceptable in this smear job and exploitation of a personal tragedy for partisan political purposes by an MP of the PM's party in the defence of that PM from investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. If there is no evidence provided then not only is retraction required but a full apology by Obhrai for this despicable act of using personal tragedy for partisan political purposes, in this case the prevention of an investigation by an Officer of Parliament with the legal power and responsibility to conduct said investigation.
If it wasn't already clear enough from this post I find this specific act well beyond what is considered acceptable politics, regardless of party or parties involved. This was a nasty smear job without evidence supporting it, and the Gestapo Chief comment on top of it was just insane. Then again, thinking it is a good idea to exploit such a tragedy in such a manner given the dearth of evidence supporting the allegation being made to protect the PM from investigation is also insane. It is certainly not something one would have wanted to see from anyone elected to public office. I also think this MP deserves to lose his position as MacKay's Parliamentary Secretary for this despicable act, but I will be shocked if that actually happens given the absolute lack of personal accountability in the CPC. After all, whenever something goes wrong for them it is always someone else's fault or responsibility, never their own. It is always the work of a partisan media, partisan political opponents, incompetent staff (see Communications firings by Harper as one example), never the CPC leader or his party always someone else is the "real" culprit not the poor victimized and persecuted CPC and Harper. For the sarcastically challenged, the preceding sentence was loaded with sarcasm.
Well that is all I have to say on this for now, I sincerely hope this insanity is retracted and apologies extended, because unless some real evidence to support this outrageous allegation is provided then such is the only responsible, ethical and moral choice open. Which seeing as the CPC has ranted for years about the need for such ethical and moral leadership leaves them looking yet again like hypocrites that have a double standard, one for them and another for everyone else. It seems the CPC borrowed another GOP tactic along with the smear and destroy approach, IOKIYAR, also known as It's OK If You Are Republican, or for Harper it is IOKIFAC where all are the same except the "C" is for Conservative. Just what Canada didn't need.
posted by Scotian | 7:18 PM
22 Comments:
Bombastic stupidity from a CPC MP? I'm just surprised it took this long. Expect more.
"What has been provided to date certainly is insufficient to make this allegation, so either prove you have evidence or retract" I am still waiting for your retraction of stating with absolute certainty that Emerson was bribed by Harper. Oh wait, you have evidence right? That silence you spinning your wheels. Don't be a hipocrite. You are totally right in this post. I couldn't agree more, prove it or shut up. Be very aware though that you put yourself in the same category as Mr. Obrai with your unproven attacks.
On a side note, do you think you can write one post without blaming all the worlds maladies on the GOP?
Scotian, as a once, long ago, multiple attempts suicide, I can personally attest to your analysis of the situation.
My own situation was due to long term, undiagnosed depression from a childhood molestation, which went untreated, cause one's parent's didn't acknowledge those things in those days. It was exacerbated 8 years later by an ugly little incident that involved another molestation. Both were "family friends". It was further compounded 7 years later by rape, by a stranger and a pregnancy scare. The molestation situations occurred before I was 15 years old. I could have blamed my childhood molesters or my rapist, but it's much more complex than that, which you have pointed out quite well. The seeds are sown, they take root, then it only takes one last little item to drive one over the edge.
As of now, I'm totally disullisioned with the CPC (I honestly did have hope before, but this is getting ridiculous!). How dare they try to appeal to the people on this basis. As mentioned before, Peter MacKay has a lot for which to answer.
John, stuff a sock in it. I have no idea what your personal issues are, but they are getting quite boring and tedious. If you have a blog, then publish your issues on that blog, but I for one am tired of reading your accusations and your, to my mind, muddled, blatantly partisan thinking. P.S. I am not a liberal or an NDP supporter. I'm just one of many Canadians who are getting tired of attack, smear and retreat. Get a grip.
John:
Leave all the comments you want, after this I doubt I am going to waste my time with you given the history you have already accumulated here previously. As for the evidence regarding Emerson, I laid out what I have, I have asked for any evidence to show any other reason for the Emerson floor crossing other than his unwillingness to leave his Cabinet perks behind him, any issue where he was in conflict with his party and to this date there has been no such information/evidence provided. Therefore I stand by my assessment that Harper bought Emerson with his offer of a Cabinet position.
Emerson made it clear that the only reason he crossed was to be in Cabinet, the fact that he claims it was because he feels he can better serve his riding in a Cabinet does not change the underlying fact, that without a Cabinet seat he would not have become a member of the CPC. Now, if you can provide evidence that without the Cabinet seat there was any indication that Emerson would leave the Liberals and join the CPC then bring it forward, otherwise give it up already.
You really seem to have this thing about trying to nail me as a hypocrite, yet you have failed each and every time. You seem to believe in this idea that there is a simple rule/pattern/standard to follow in categories, whereas I am one of these more complex individuals that actually takes every case in context, and what I might wholeheartedly support in one context I would oppose strenuously in another. That is why you keep falling into the pitfall of miscategorizing and mislabeling me.
Now, until and unless you actually have anything useful to contribute this is the last time I am responding to this topic with you. You clearly disagree with me regarding Emerson and the evidence to support my contention he was bought with a bribe of power from Harper, and that by doing so Harper gained a vote in a minority Parliament which contrary to Conservative thought is actually worth something of value especially in a minority government.
Incidentally, my problem is not with people crossing the floor when there is a matter of principle involved or there is a clear disagreement between that MP and their party/leader. None of this existed in the case of Emerson. Indeed he spent two whole months stating how opposed he was to the leadership and policies of the CPC in the election campaign, and he made no such issues over anything in the Liberal campaign. He had no conflict with the leadership of the Liberals nor did he have any issue he was opposed to that was supported by the Liberals. If he had crossed and explained it by stating he left over a principle or difference of leadership and then made clear what that difference was, then he would not be in the hot water he is nor would Harper.
That though was not what happened nor why he crossed to the CPC side of the House. That this is something you are having so much difficulty comprehending does not speak well for your critical thought capabilities nor your understanding of Parliament, Parliamentary history, and that of the history of floor crossing generally. Frankly you have discredited yourself repeatedly in your attempts to show why I am the one in the wrong. As I said before, I do not mind honest disagreement but I have no time for dishonest disagreement. You are welcome to continue talking to yourself here I will not stop you, but this is the last time am spending any time responding to you until you improve your ability to reason.
Have a good life.
GoodGrief:
Thank you for your insights into the dark world of suicidal behaviour. Like yourself I tried that route in my youth because of some serious personal issues, including but not limited to sexual abuse/molestation as a child. I took what should have been a lethal overdoes of an anti-coagulant and went to bed. I got up the next day and while feeling very ill I was still alive. By midday I was taken to hospital from the high school because it was clear that something was seriously wrong with me. When I told the doctors what I had done and how much I had taken they did not believe me, because at my size/weight it was more than enough to cause massive internal bleeding throughout my body, in other words I should already have died.
They continued to disbelieve me right up until they got my blood results back. Then they freaked. It wasn't for several years that I found out why I was still alive from that one serious suicide attempt I have ever made. Turns out I have a genetic blood disorder which has as one of its primary features hypercoagulation. In other words my blood clots way, way, waaaaaaay too easily. When I was growing up this was an advantage, I didn't bruise and I healed really quickly, which given I was truly accident prone was a handy thing. However, once I hit my 20s and my body went from constant regeneration into the long slow decline of aging that tipped the threshold from this being an asset to a real danger. Suddenly I was throwing clots for no reason.
It wasn't until the mid 90s that I finally was able to find out why this was happening to me, and that was thanks to the human genome project. As it turned out I have a mutated gene in one of the blood factors that controls coagulation. So I have always found it very ironic that the disorder that will most likely kill me as an adult at some point was the reason why I was not able to kill myself as a teenager, how is that for irony, eh?
So like yourself I understand the mindset of a suicide from inside as well as from the outside as I noted in my post. This is why I couldn't believe Obhrai had said this, I had to see/hear it for myself. When I found out the dearth of evidence to support this claim and the six month difference from interview to suicide and a lack of any note, well that was what motivated the post. This is something too serious to be abused like this, and quite honestly for anyone to exploit a personal family tragedy for partisan political purposes for themselves is bad enough, to use it to protect their leader like this is truly repulsive.
I did not have hope for Harper and the CPC, unlike yourself, but I would have been quite happy to have their actions prove my worries to be wrong and groundless. Alas though so far I have been meeting Cassandra's level of accuracy and left on more than the odd occasion feeling like her as well.
Again, thanks for your comment and your sharing of your experiences in this area, it is most welcome.
Scott in Montreal:
I wish I didn't feel the need to expect more, but given the track record of the last two years, let alone the last two weeks to do otherwise would be the height of foolishness. Unfortunately.
Scotian, it is so easy for people who have never been through trials of this nature, or who continually deny the existence of these issues in their lives to throw around rhetoric, which they know will galvanize others.
Having said that, I will probably die from liver disease, from all the years of excess drinking, or fall down and break something really important from all the years of smoking and forgetting to take that Osteoporosis medication and calcium supplements. Cancer is another possibility, but I choose to live for today, as I know you do. Life is too short to let these bandits get away with their crap. Thanks for giving me a voice.
I suspect that my brother was also molested, although when we were talking, he vehemently denies it. He went on to an illustrious career as a drug addict and dealer (to support his habit). This from a certified, many times tested, Genius - IQ above 180. What a loss.
BTW, who is this John, how old is he?
Keep on trucking - may I call you friend? It will probably be a race to see who goes first, but let's make it one hell of a ride.
Scotian and gg:
Well this has certainly become a heavy, though fascinating, thread. I am so sorry to hear the trials you have both been through. At the same time I feel a similar strength and determination from both of you that I imagine is a result of surviving and pressing on. I hope I'm not extrapolating too much here, and forgive me, but I would bet that having faced death, you and are no longer afraid, aren't you? There is a beautiful and fierce quest to make the most of every day once you've reached that point.
I know I have seen it in my dear Aunt, who has had to bury five or her six children in two separate tragedies. Nothing is taken for granted. No wonder your voices each have such unique courage and vitality. As Winston Churchill was quoted during a dark period: "We must KBO". "KBO?" asked his bewildered friend. To which Churchill replied grandly: "Keep Buggering On".
Scott:
The only thing I fear about death is leaving my wife alone. Once one has been told one was a walking corpse a few times as well as surviving an accident where the last six cars that went off the road in the exact same place killed everyone in the vehicles, especially when you walk away basically unharmed, without a scratch even it becomes a bit old hat I suppose. That one was rather creepy as the driver and I were wondering why nobody in the houses alongside the road had come out to check on the accident so we went up to the nearest one and knocked on the door. We shocked the residents and then found out the history of that stretch of road over the past couple of years. Of all the near death experiences I have had the reminder of that one always makes me smile because of that reaction. Here we are in shock fro the accident but otherwise unharmed and our being so sent the locals into as much shock that we were.
I suppose you had to be there to really understand why it is such a humourous memory given the car was totaled and how lucky we were. The police and ambulance people had much the same reaction when they showed up as well, and that was definitely a bit on the weird feeling side of things.
As to how I look at life, well it is very simple. Since I do not live in a world of absolutes I am aware that even in the worst of tragedies/negatives there is at a minimum at least one positive aspect to it somewhere. So I look for it and incorporate it into my perspective on life and do what I can to gain the most benefit I can from a negative situation, especially in those over which I have little to no control over. Conversely of course I recognize that nothing can be such a positive that it has no negative element in it somewhere, and so I watch out for that as well in things that go well. I also tend to look at life as an ocean lapping up against a beach and the best way to manage the waves that are caused, especially in the storms of life, is to try and surf them. One still wipes out, but it takes less out of one than fighting them head on, and one can occasionally make the momentum work for you instead of against you.
So much of coping with living comes down to attitude and perspective and perception. With a healthy attitude of not fearing to face things as they truly are warts and all combined with the perspective of being a human being with all that it entails and the perception to see this for the gift that it is and not the burden so many paint it as one can lead a life full of joy and satisfaction even in the most limited of circumstances.
I grew up with many universes in my mind, from the subjective ones we each have to the objective one we all live in to the fictional ones from the authors I loved reading. I have never been able to simply look at things from one perspective and be content. I try to see things from as many perspectives as I can, and I always recognize that I never see everything, no one does. We all have our blind spots, the best we can do is be aware of this and try to remember what they are when we find them out. One may not be able to remove them entirely but one can certainly limit the damage/interference that they can cause. The downside of this though is I cannot be simple and straightforward in my thinking nor my writing. The way I write really does match the way I talk. I had to learn such language capability just to makes sense of the complexities I have always been aware of even when I didn't understand what they were or where they came from.
GoodGrief:
You are welcome here as long as you like. You have never given me any reason to feel otherwise, either here or at any of the other blogs where I have read your comments. I set this up mainly to express my opinions and have a central place for them as I had been commenting on blogs for a couple of years before I had, but I also set it up for others to leave their thoughts that wished to share them so long as they were of a serious and thoughtful nature. Well yours have certainly been both, and there is nothing like the insight derived from hard experience tempered by wisdom, and from what I have seen of your writings you certainly fit that description.
As for John, well I really do not know his age or anything about him other than what I have seen from him here and at Cathie from Canada's blog. I do not understand his fixation with me, nor do I understand why he has such a hard time actually debating what I actually say instead of what we have seen. Personally I say it is his loss, although it is mine as well, an honest opponent always helps keep ones thinking sharp.
As for wishing to call me friend, I certainly have no objection to that, you certainly strike me as the kind of person I tend to become friends with, both in the experience side of life and the philosophical side of living with it. Not to mention a strong sense of empathy, something I find missing in far too many people these days, especially online but far from limited to it. Perhaps that is John's problem, a lack of sufficient empathy, either from lack of exposure to the harsher sides of life and/or an inability to face it if he has and has retreated into this artificial constructs as a means of coping.
Scotian- read your comments on Zerb's blog re: comments please. Couldn't agree with you more. While there is a lot of satire going on on my site, I refuse to allow or condone that kind of mean-spirited crap. The blogosphere needs more of us, and less of those too lofty to participate in commentary on their own posts- or those who, by doing nothing, give megaphones to idiots.
K-Dough's Canada
Scotian, just because you haven't been provided with the evidence does not mean it is not there. I don't understand how you can be so damn ignorant here. You have no idea what my thoughts are on Emerson crossing so I would appreciate you not speaking for me. So to clear the air here they are. I think it stinks. I think when Belinda did it and when Emerson did it, it stinks. I think it betrays the voters who voted for them. I think it should be a mandatory by-election.
That is not my issue here. My issue is that you rant and rave about people not having solid evidence to make claims (Grewal, Obhrai) yet you do the exact same thing. I don't care what your logic is surrounding why you think the way you do. In fact, I think you make a very rational explanation. However, until you have facts (hard facts, not just suppostion and what you want to beleive) you are being hypocrital. You just don't seem to see that. Again, your thought train is irrelevant, you need fact to support your claims. FACTS, not just "well the only reason I see it making sense is..." that is not fact. Can you not see the difference?
Your forum here is preaching to the converted, so don't have a huff when somebody new actualy challenges something you write.
I will ask again, do you have any FACT to support your claim that Emerson was bribed by Harper, if so what is it? That's all, real simple.
John, don't waste your breath. ScotiCan is a Liberal hack. Always has been. She wears rose colored bifocals and views the world through self imposed blinders. It's kinda pathetic, really. But also good for a chuckle :)
"Leave all the comments you want, after this I doubt I am going to waste my time with you given the history you have already accumulated here previously. As for the evidence regarding Emerson, I laid out what I have, I have asked for any evidence to show any other reason for the Emerson floor crossing other than his unwillingness to leave his Cabinet perks behind him, any issue where he was in conflict with his party and to this date there has been no such information/evidence provided. Therefore I stand by my assessment that Harper bought Emerson with his offer of a Cabinet position.
Emerson made it clear that the only reason he crossed was to be in Cabinet, the fact that he claims it was because he feels he can better serve his riding in a Cabinet does not change the underlying fact, that without a Cabinet seat he would not have become a member of the CPC. Now, if you can provide evidence that without the Cabinet seat there was any indication that Emerson would leave the Liberals and join the CPC then bring it forward, otherwise give it up already."
I was just rereading your post and was just wondering this: From your point of view, are people arrested considered guilty or innocent before they have their trial?
Ah I see one of the Canadian blogosphere's court jesters had decided to grace my blog with his presence. I hope he enjoys talking to himself here when he addresses me because he can expect no more interaction here than I give him anywhere else. Incidentally Jeff, whenever you call me she all you are doing is demonstrating misogyny, because to be insulted by such is to consider being called a woman an insult, which in turn implies there is something inherently inferior about women and something inherently superior about men. It works the same when someone calls someone gay like was being in the SSM debate by many in the blogosphere for supporting SSM even when it was clear these people where not only not gay but were already married in the standard heterosexual marriage. To be offended/insulted requires finding such condition being an insult, otherwise it has no sting to it other than basic mislabeling/identifying someone or something and all that does is show the person doing so for the fool that they are being.
Incidentally Jeff whenever you mangle someone's alias like you chose to do so with mine all you are doing is again demonstrating immaturity, for that is something most people stop doing once they get out of elementary school, if for no other reason because they have learned how to be insulting in a more clever/sophisticated/adult manner. The fact that you showed up and your first comment in this thread was what you left also shows you have no interest in being anything other than a "shit disturber" and all that will get you is talking to yourself or at most the other people of like mindedness.
*FOR ALL TO READ PLEASE*
One of the only things I ask of those that comment here is not to talk to those that refuse to provide meaningful dissent/debate, and thank you very much Jeff for providing me with a good example of what that sort of thing looks like. John for all my issues with his criticism is at least bothering to try in a serious/substantial manner, the fact I do not think he is doing it well does not change that fact. Whereas Jeff can only be bothered to make personal insults, sneer, and provide nothing meaningful at all. It helps define the kind of post I will let people leave but encourage others to disregard. If my blog is going to have people trolling they are at least going to have to use better bait then this sort of bile, and the best way to have that happen is to ignore the cheap bait entirely. This is my only comment to Jeff until and unless he does leave something actually meaningful, although even then in his case I will probably pay him no mind given the history he and I have from other blogs including but not limited to Section 15.
P.S.
Jeff, you can take this as a sign of your "victory" all you want in this refusal to respond to your tauntings, however like so many of your other "victories" it will only be a manufactured one. Personally, I do not care what you and your friends may think of my choice of action here, for your and their opinions have been demonstrated over the last year to not be worth being concerned by. I have confidence in myself and my thinking and also have confidence in my readership (as limited as it is and likely will always be) to recognize the difference between being afraid of someone and ignoring someone because they are not worth the time nor effort. I may be long winded, I may be prone to fancy language and fine distinctions in my writing/thinking, however I am not afraid of anyone that thinks personal insults and childish insults like misspelling someone's name/alias constitutes meaningful criticism, nor do I think anyone whose opinion I would respect would have any trouble understanding this nor seeing it for anything other than the good sense that it is.
Have fun Jeff, this is the only "walkies" for you here.
I think that was a back handed compliment? Not really sure but doesn't matter anyways.
Either way, you have still not shown anyone any fact to support your accusation. I don't want you to use Jeff as your escape from this discussion. Please provide fact or retract.
Still waiting.
Well..just when I thought blogs were little more than repositories for silly insults and the flotsam and jetsom of people's interior lives, Whammo! Coherent thoughts, interesting commentary, the development and fierce defense of viewpoints. Impressive indeed. The thrust and parry between Scotian and John needs a scorekeeper!
Good on you, Scotian. I may not agree with everything I've read but you've provided a forum that aims to engage on a higher level. Raising the bar is a worthy goal, indeed. Goodness knows the level of debate in the blogosphere could stand to be raised a notch or two.
That's all for now, but I look forward to pronouncing on related topics here again in the near future.
Cheers-- idlehands
Scotian, Excellent response, and that's why I keep coming back. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether I find the posts thought provoking, which they are, and whether I'm comfortable enough to make comments, which I am. Keeping civil discourse alive in these days of hit and run smear is so very important. Thanks, friend.
John:
Keep waiting, as I said on this issue I have nothing more I wish to discuss with you. We shall see on other issues as they come up. Incidentally, this is MY blog not yours, therefore it is MY decision whether to respond to what a commentator writes, NOT yours. You want to "hold me accountable" you set up your own blog and do just that, no one is stopping you and since one can do so for free there should be no fiscal issue for you either. As for hiding behind Jeff, for you to even make that comment demonstrates a reason why I find your comments less than worthy of responding to at the moment.
Indeed, I am only writing this one to make clear that expecting a response from me on a topic I have already concluded we are in disagreement with and unlikely to reach any agreement on and have stated so accordingly is foolish. As I said before feel free to continue leaving your comments, just do not expect further response on that issue anymore. You seem to be under this idea that I have a responsibility/requirement/obligation to respond to anyone that comments at this blog, especially a critic. Too bad that notion is completely within your own mind, as I have every right to chose to respond or not respond as *I* see fit, not how *you* see fit. Don't like it? No one is forcing you to stay here, no one is preventing from setting up a blog to monitor mine and critique it, so deal with it.
This is the very last time I am making this clear to you John, if you continue to act like you have been to date you will end up talking only to yourself, which is about all you have been doing lately anyway.
Idlehands:
Thank you very much for your kind words. I do not blog with the expectation that everything I write will be agreed with by even those that do in general hold similar views to my own let alone those that there is a wider spread between views with. As to your comments about trying to raise the tone of the dialogue in the blogging world, that has been something I have endeavored to do since I first started commentating, let alone with my own blog. It is far too easy to do personal attacks, vitriol, profanity, and all the other less than attractive nastiness that has become so prevalent in the blogosphere. While I read many people decrying this conduct, I see far less effort being made by many of those voices to lead by example instead of just carping about it. I may be many things, I but I do try to practice what I preach, hypocrisy especially knowing hypocrisy really tends to get under my skin.
I hope you find this blog maintains itself in that manner, as well as in leaving thought provoking commentary, both from myself and from my commentators, indeed especially from my commentators is my wish. One thing you will find I am not adverse to is accepting I am wrong about something when that is done by actually showing why I am wrong instead of simply declaring it or by simple appeals to authority. What I will not do is accept being told I am wrong without such precisely because that is something that is passed off as "constructive/substantial criticism" when it clearly is not. It is not enough to say someone is wrong, one must explain why one thinks another is wrong and demonstrate a logical consistency in doing so as well as relying on actual verifiable facts (unless the matter under discussion is a hypothetical or some other blue sky discussion where such is far harder to provide) to do so with.
I hope you find you are able to view this blog for a long time to come, I like your attitude and format myself from what I have seen of your elsewhere in the blogosphere. I should warn you though I can be a sporadic blogger because of health issues and other personal matters out in the real world as opposed to the online one, which is why this response is so delayed.
GoodGrief said:
"Scotian, Excellent response, and that's why I keep coming back. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether I find the posts thought provoking, which they are, and whether I'm comfortable enough to make comments, which I am. Keeping civil discourse alive in these days of hit and run smear is so very important. Thanks, friend."
Thanks again for your support my friend. You grasp that what is underlying what I am interested in is not so much finding people that agree with me so as to have a nice little echo chamber as some have decided they prefer, but rather a place for thought provoking (as opposed to emotional provoking of which there is already more than enough of in the blogging world) commentary, both hopefully from myself and from my readers/commentators. One of the reasons I do not do multiple posts daily is because I chose topics that I feel I need to comment on, especially if there is an aspect I feel not getting enough attention. What I do not do is jump on bandwagons simply because they are there. When I blog something it is because this is how I feel about it and because I think it is important enough to comment on.
If all I wanted was to run a partisan political blog pumping out anti-CPC rhetoric that would be easy enough. I would rather though my anti-CPC posts actually have issues of substance and be thought out even though that is harder to do than simply pumping out heated rhetoric as too many political partisans of all stripes are inclined to do.
I call myself a partisan because I am anti-CPC, at least as it currently exists and is configured. I do not trust its leadership, nor do I trust its integrity, especially after the Grewal fraud and the doing everything possible to pretend there never was any CPC unethical conduct in that matter despite the clear reality to the contrary. That gets taken by too many CPC supporters online as “proof” that I am a Liberal operative or at the minimum a Liberal party partisan. Which just goes to show the limited ability of those people to see beyond a binary configuration in our politics, which is one of the main concerns I have had about the CPC and its supporters since the days of Reform.
As I am also a strong social liberal in my beliefs that also puts me at serious odds with the social conservative element that is so strong within the CPC, far stronger there than in any other party. For example the social conservatives in the Liberal caucus are not the ones with the influence within the party, they are the ones with minimal influence. Whereas those social conservatives in the CPC, especially the longer term ones like Vic Toews and Stockwell Day are in senior Cabinet positions and have clear influence on the leadership of the CPC and the policies it embraces. So this argument/defence many Conservatives use about the Liberals being no better on this matter is clearly bogus on its face, yet this also is "proof" of my being a Liberal political operative by some.
One of the things I most fear about a CPC government is the tendency of Conservatives to oversimplify things into a binary configuration, which makes it very easy to cast things in an either you are with us and therefore are good/friend or you are against us and then clearly your are bad/enemy. Thing is though reality rarely fits that configuration, ESPECIALLY in the world of politics and human governance and particularly in the Canadian political context both historically and currently. So this will lead in turn to misrepresentation of not just positions but problems as well, and the "solutions" such “thinking” will tend to come up with will not work precisely because they are designed to address a problem that doesn't actually exist in the manner it has been described. In other words the reality does not match the rhetoric describing it nor will the solution to the problem as defined by the rhetoric work because it didn't address/match up with the reality either.
Well, I hope you find yourself comfortable here for a long time to come, I know that I certainly would like you to be. Thanks again!
There is no disagreement Scotian. You make a claim you cannot support. That is fine, uninformed and ignorant people do that all the time. My concern is that you say one thing and then do another. You have no credibility. You are a political hack. You will smear the right any chance you can get whether it is justified or not. You are dangerous to society because you spread lies and create anger when none need to be created. Bottom line, you are a scared little person who is so filled with hate and anger that you can't see beyond your own bias. You pretend to have intellectual debate but the minute someone who disagrees with you challenges what you say, you run off and hide claiming you do not have to defend yourself. That is fine, we all see it for what it truly is. Yes, you are a hypocrite, but more importantly, you are and angry hyprocite. Hopefully one day you can learn to see past whatever has cause you so much hurt that you feel you constantly need to lash out at those around you. I am sure you will dismiss this as pure political rhetoric but this has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with someone slandering another for no other purpose than to create anger. You complain that the CPC creates an us versus them feeling which is exactly what you do in all your posts. Example, I challenge you on you claim and all of a sudden I am a political supporter of the CPC? You have no idea who or what I vote for but with you anger goggles on, you can only see someone who disagrees with you as the enemy.
I don't need my own blog but I will continue to challenge you, and anyone I see of using pure hypocrisy to further their own personal agenda for no other reason then to create hate. Take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself why the same standards you demand of others don't apply to yourself as well. Life is short, don't waste all of it being angry all the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home