After much prodding by other bloggers, I set this up for my own writings. The name is in honour of the two women that mentored me throughout my life on politics and intelligence issues, as well as being wonderful family members, now alas deceased. I hope to live up to their standards at this site.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Warning: light posting ahead

There may be less blog entries here than I might have preferred over the next few weeks. Unfortunately my wife has been getting some rather serious health news herself and this is taking a great deal of my attention, for obvious reasons of course. While I hope to be able to continue reading the blogs, or at least some of them and leaving the odd comment or two during that period I do not know if I will be blogging much here. This is because I prefer to do in depth blogging here as opposed to simple and short posts. I really was hoping to be able to do a post on the Ethics Report on Emerson-Harper, but while I have it to read I haven't been able to really get my mind into reading through the language and feel comfortable I am absorbing it. I do hope to have an in depth post up before the end of the week, but really I am not sure. I will say this much about it though, this was the outcome I expected. While I consider what Harper offered and Emerson accepted as a bribe I knew from reading the relevant codes that it would not be treated as such. It wasn't until it looked like Harper wasn't going to be investigated by the Ethics Commissioner that I thought he actually might have broken the ethics code. That said, just because it wasn't seen as unethical according to the rules of Parliament as established by Parliament does not give it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for ethics on the Emerson crossing, nor does it change the ugly reality that the only reason Emerson became a CPC MP was to remain at a Cabinet seat. To date there is still zero evidence that Emerson would have crossed without the Cabinet seat offer, nor that he would have left the Liberals if they had formed government. He may well have "noble" motives for staying in Cabinet, he may well have the needed qualifications for Cabinet, but those are not the issue. The issue is how can a man that had zero problem with the leader and policies of the party he started out as a Minister in, spend two months arguing that the CPC and Harper are dangerous to the country, have very bad policies for Canada and cannot be allowed to become government which clearly shows significant issues of conflict, then 48 hrs after the election be willing to consider a CPC invite to Cabinet and exactly two weeks to the day from the election is sworn in as a CPC Cabinet member and is the newest CPC MP.

Floor crossing typically occurs when there is an issue of conflict on principle or leadership between an MP and his/her party and/or leader. None of this existed for Emerson. Emerson himself made it clear that he crossed because he felt he could do more for his riding as a member of Cabinet, nothing more and nothing less. Well, any MP is inherently able to do more for their riding if they are a Cabinet member that is axiomatic, yet until Emerson I cannot recall another example in our history where this was the sole reason for someone crossing parties. Nor have any of the defenders of this cross ever been able to point to another example of such. Instead we hear about Churchill and how crossing the floor has a noble and rich history, which while true does not fit in this case because all those other cases had some sort of conflict of principle or leadership direction involved. Indeed the Bloc Quebecois was formed under such circumstances. So clearly there is no other example of someone crossing solely to be in Cabinet let alone immediately after an election. If there was evidence of conflict like there was in Stonach's case from prior to the crossing happening then one might be able to argue there was a principle of conflict not mentioned, but there is not.

So my opinion of what this is has not changed. I will credit Harper for cooperating with the investigation as he was obligated to do, unlike his failure to do so last year in the Grewal investigation. Which makes his loath comment on the matter all the more perplexing. By being so loath to cooperate he made this story that much bigger, and that much more negative for him and the CPC itself, and he and the CPC spent a couple of weeks being lambasted for this, so why didn't he make it clear he had cooperated instead of allowing that much more damage to be done to the CPC reputation for honesty, transparency, ethics, and moral authority to govern? Not smart politics at all.

Well, hopefully I will be able to get back to this matter and others sooner than I fear, but I did not want those few readers I have that like my work to be left wondering what was going on. As for those that do not like my work, enjoy the break but remember it is only temporary, and that when I return my policy of ignoring those that do not argue honestly will remain even while still allowing them to post their comments. Something I think most people need to understand about me, I respond online the same way I do offline to attitude from people. Come at me with hostility, disrespect, contempt and I ignore you. Come at me with courtesy and civility while you are disagreeing with me and you will get a considered response. One of the greatest powers trolls have is the ability to disrupt. Well my way of dealing with them is to let them have their say but to not respond, and at this blog I am hopeful that others can manage the same. After all it only requires skipping over their entries to read the ones with substance and there is nothing more infuriating to a troll than having their bait ignored. That to my mind is one of the ways to raise the tone of discourse online, censorship only gives them an argument to make whereas ignoring them while they spew their bilge demonstrates a willingness to face contemptuous bile with dignity and civility which only further underscores the negative conduct of trolls. It is always better to let someone hang themselves with rope they themselves created, at least I find it so.

Well, hope to see people sooner rather than later around here. I do know I am taking the weekend off and the wife and I are going to enjoy a dog show, we both could use the stress relief so I won't be leaving anything earlier than Sunday evening, I hope everyone has a nice weekend.


Anonymous john said...

By choosing not to read those opinions that conflict yours, you are in effect sensoring yourself and thus only responding to half an argument (ie, partisan blinders). Ignoring a very reasonable request to provide fact to badk up your accusations is not taking the high road, it's smear and run. Just some stuff to think about while you enjoy your time off. Best to you wife.

Wed Mar 22, 06:55:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous Ian Scott said...

While I don't comment here often, I do enjoy reading your thoughts as you share them.

Hope your wife gets healthy and you can get back to a good blogging schedule again.

Wed Mar 22, 07:45:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scott in Montreal said...

Best to you and the Missus, Scotian. I thought Shapiro's summary was astute, and served to point out the ways in which the Ethics Code is still wanting. I agree the Emerson crossing was a double-crossing to his constituents, as his political conversion was suspiciously lacking in impetus.

The greater truth is that even if Emerson is the best man for the job, this experience is only going to add to cynicism and voter apathy. The people of Vancouver-Kingsway spoke and will now be denied a representative vote in Parliament on potentially controversial, high impact new policies. If I were a first-time voter, the lesson I would be forced to take is that the fix is in and my vote is pointless.

Wed Mar 22, 10:42:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...



The Emerson cross is something that was inherent by its nature going to increase cynicism in the political system especially MPs. Indeed how can it not? As I said it was unprecedented in nature to all other floor crossings, if there had been some signs of conflict between Emerson and the Liberals/Martin then maybe this could have been sold as a move of principle even given the close timing to the election. Maybe.

I thank you on my wife's behalf as well as my own for the well wishes. I hope I am not offline for too long but I just do not know. If for no other reason than being distracted like this makes it harder for me to read through material and actually absorb it. I discovered I was having that problem when I tried to read the Ethics Commissioner's report on Emerson and discovered I was reading without retaining. Very frustrating, but understandable given the circumstances so I can comfort myself with both understanding the problem and the source of it. I may pop in tonight or tomorrow evening but I have no idea whether I will or not, it depends on circumstances.

Ian Scott:

Thank you. I have enjoyed reading your work as well, even though I comment rarely there. Ever since last summer when I first encountered your blog I have enjoyed it and your style of writing. I am very gratified to know that you find my own work to have merit. AS in with insults compliments are also something where one must consider the source which makes your compliment one of real weight. Again, thank you and I hope I am wrong in how much I am going to be limited, but since for a change I have forewarning I thought I'd let everyone know. Especially since I know it is already known that I have serious health issues...I wouldn't want people thinking it was something that happened to me and wondering. For some reason there are those online that actually seem to think me and my commentary is wroth having around, go figure.


Learn to read. I said nothing about ignoring all opinions that conflict with mine, again you are projecting your own meanings into my writings instead of responding to what I actually wrote. This is exactly why there is no point in arguing with you, you keep arguing against positions I have not taken, you have projected your own interpretations onto what I write and claimed that it was the real meaning. That is making dishonest arguments, which is what I have claimed you have done previously and is why I have decided to ignore you in specific.

You keep making claims I am saying such and such when I am not. Again you demonstrate your inability to understand distinctions and context. You have decided it is your "duty" to follow me to other blogs to chastise me for my "hypocrisy" despite the reality that you are the one with credibility issues. You even have no e-mail or website where you are willing to expose yourself to such examination and criticism. Yet you feel you have the authority to do so with my writings. Not only does this indicate arrogance it indicates cowardice may be driving it. Give it up already. Most of my readers are more than intelligent enough to actually go through our exchanges if they wish to, see for themselves which of us has been acting the fool, and decide for themselves which of us is acting childish about all this.

Give it a rest and stop digging that hole you are already in on this matter any deeper. As I said before it is not your prerogative to decide for me whom I will respond to and whom I will not. Incidentally, I did not state I skipped over the comments, I read them all. I was pointing out that for others coming here that this is a way to deal with trolls instead of swallowing their bait. What I do not do is respond to all. I respond to whom I chose as I chose as is my prerogative as this blog's operator. You really have got to watch all this assuming you keep doing along with ascribing positions and arguments to me that I have not made. This is why I see little point in continuing to respond to you especially when you are repeating yourself after I told you I will not discuss further something with you.

Your arrogance knows no bounds, both in terms of your belief that you actually understand what I mean better than I do and in your belief you have any credibility to be doing so. You want to have problems with me, go right ahead, but I would caution you to not be taking it to other blogs. In the end it will be yourself that comes out the worse for doing so. I may be long winded, but I also have established credibility in actually understanding what I am talking about, being a fact based person, and generally tending to practice what I preach. Whereas you John are not an established person, you do not stand behind your words at all, instead you prefer the world of anonymous sniping with no repercussions and see it as a moral duty of yours to correct the hypocrisy of others. Well deal with the log in your eye before you deal with the speck in mine.

Fri Mar 24, 01:51:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

"You keep making claims I am saying such and such when I am not."
You claimed that Emerson was bribed by Harper. I challenged you on your facts behind such a claim. You could not provide any and chose to not respond. You claimed that when Obrhai and Grewal made claims without concrete fact that it was the "scandal of the century". These are all your claims, not mine. So I simply asked you to back up what you had claimed as you found people that make bogus, unsubstantiated claims to be scandalous and wrong. You couldn't do that and instead of dealing with the issue, you ran away. This is where I call you a hypocrite. I have asked numerous times for you to prove me wrong here but you talk round and round in your circular thinking while all the same time avoiding the issue at hand.
I have made no claims against you which you have not said yourself. I am not a coward as I am not the one who refuses to defend my statements. We may not always agree on what we say but you should have the back up for what you are saying if you wish to form an honest argument.
How can you claim credibility when you refuse to back up what you say? It's just that simple. You could solve this all right now but providing the proof you have that Emerson was bribed by Harper. I don't understand why you just can't show me the facts? Why would you keep that secret? You ever hear that expression that the proof is in the pudding? Where's your pudding Scotian?

fyi, my email is
Feel free to write anytime as you will always get a response.

Fri Mar 24, 02:41:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous GoodGrief said...

Scotian, So sorry to hear that your wife is also in a health crisis situation. Of course, you must spend your time tending to those issues - far more important in the grand scheme of things. I wish you and your wife all the good things in life and a speedy recovery. Take all the time you need. I'll keep checking back - you don't lose loyal readers easily.
John, your sense of empathy - or lack thereof - is impressive. My dog, had he lived after his cancerous tumour burst, would have been bigger and smarter than your dog.
Scotian, take care of your wife, and yourself.
May the road rise to meet you,
May the wind be always at your back,
May the sun shine warm on your face,
The rain fall softly on your fields;
And until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of His hand.
I don't believe in God, but this has always touched me. Take care.

Fri Mar 24, 06:59:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

GG, what the hell are you talking about? Your dog is smarter than my dog? I am not empathetic to Scotian because why? Please explain.

Fri Mar 24, 07:15:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Dave said...

Well, I'm getting this in a little late, but have a good weekend.

I hope your wife's condition is temporary, short and passes.

We'll look forward to seeing you back.

Sun Mar 26, 12:38:00 AM 2006  
Blogger WeWillWin said...

hey it's one of the posters from the Cathie blog.........seems like a good place for "parrot droppings............enjoy........

Hi Scott,

It wasn't (at all) surprizing that I was eventually booted from the Cathie site, even though I was more polite than anyone there and discussed topics in an honest and open manner. While you were somewhat willing to engage in discussion, the others easily recognized that dealing with rational fact-based argument was a losing proposition. You soon came to that realization and started calling for banning. I think that your ability to see gray, clouded your seeing that what the others quickly recognized. Eventually, honestly presented fact and rational interpretation of same, would become untenable for the inmates.

I truly feel sorry for ideologues like you. The jaundiced filter that you view world events through will leave you behind in the dust bin of history. (along side such luminaries as Chamberlain, Jimmah Cahhter and Noam Chomsky .)

I won't proclaim victory even though I know that I swayed some on the site(if ever so slightly). At the same time, we both know that the circle jerk of backslappers at Cathie's site have lost. And will continue to lose.

John's words are most wise:

Wow, that was like a left wing gang rape. We have Scott labelling him by his profession (what if he had said taxi driver? still want to go down that road??) and pale trying to be funny with his walmart and franklin mint comments. The best way to shut him up is to prove him wrong. But then again, debate doesn't always mean that there is one winner and one loser. Perhaps the best part about debate is that people learn more about the other side of the argument. Stifle that and you encourage ignorance.
You portray yourself as nuanced and able to see the gray areas, and yet you are unable to discern what is cold, hard fact. I'm sure some of it must be swiped to the side and dropped in the memory hole as "inconvenient".

I'll leave you with a couple of tidbits(before you ban me and delete this post)

1. research on the last part of my posting name (dhimmi)
Lots of scholarly (unpartisan) information is available.
2. Reality trumps fantasy. :)

take care,

Mon Mar 27, 12:19:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...


Consider this your only response likely to come from me. I do not delete posts outside of spam. I do not edit posts, nor do I ban users, at least I have not as of yet. However, just because I permit people to post here does not mean I have any obligation to respond to them, and given your history to date you are ending up in the same category as John with me as not worth the effort. You want to see that as proof of your victory or moral superiority go right ahead, I don't write here out of some need to win battles, I write here to put forward my thoughts, flaws and all.

Frankly, I could care less whether you think of me, you already established at Cathie's that your facts are not exactly solid, your arguments rely on weak premises and assumptions, and your attitude generally is one of an intellectual snob. So please, feel free to leave your comments secure in the knowledge that the only ones actually likely to respond to them are fellow travelers of yours down the great Right way. The rest of us, especially myself will in all likelihood at most chuckle at your antics trying to get attention from someone you clearly disagree with. Like John I would suggest you need to consider why it matters to you what someone you consider to be delusional in their thinking to begin with thinks in the first place, why you feel this need to be seen as a victor by said person you think is wrong, and finally what it is in your nature that requires attention so desperately even from those that you think are out of it and whose positions you clearly do not have any respect for.

So please feel free to demonstrate your personal issues regarding attention and insecurity, I do not mind one bit. Just don't expect me to be inclined to bother responding to you, nor most of the regulars here once they see you for exactly what you are, a juvenile personality so desperate for attention that they haunt a blog with a readership of maybe a couple of dozen. If I was a big name then this might make some sense, but since I am not all it shows is your insecurities and fear of differing opinions and interpretations of reality than your own. You really need to consider why you are bothering far more than you need to waste your time around here.

Mon Mar 27, 05:43:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

you realize that through all your posts, you have still yet to back up your argument.
"Frankly, I could care less whether you think of me, you already established at Cathie's that your facts are not exactly solid, your arguments rely on weak premises and assumptions, and your attitude generally is one of an intellectual snob. So please, feel free to leave your comments secure in the knowledge that the only ones actually likely to respond to them are fellow travelers of yours down the great Right way." Yet you still hack on others for making assumptions that are without fact. Can you not see the hypocrisy in your actions? And you don't see the immaturity of then stating you don't have to respond because you don't care what people think. That is simple cowardice. I however, think you do see it but are just too embarassed to admit a mistake or let it be known that you post only to throw mud. You must ask yourself why? Perhaps it is not I who is insecure and in need of validation but perhaps the man in the mirror?
You ask why it is important to me. I'll tell you again why. Because people that fabricate lies with no other basis than to slander another are hurting society. Not everyone takes the time to get informed so if all one person hears is one of your unsubstatiated "facts", then that person has nothing else to believe but what you have told them. Then they tell someone and so on and so on. Before you now it, you have created a complete misrepresentation about the character in question. And you do it all knowingly with the objective of creating hate. It is no different than people telling "stories" about how gays spread AIDS on toilette seats. No factual basis but look at the fear it created.
You claim you arguments have merit. That's fine, let's just hear the merit. Reconcile your position. This is still not about left and right and you have to stop thinking of the other as the enemy. It only further intensifies your partisan blinders. We are all Canadians wanting the best for the country, don't ever forget that.
So I will ask for the fourth and last time, where is the fact behind your accusation that Emerson was bribed? If you choose not to answer,I think we can take your silence or refusal to answer as the fact that you have none and you have been extremely hypocritical in they way your write your blog and that your arguments are dishonest.

Mon Mar 27, 06:51:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Apollo 13 here. My best wishes to your wife and to you. Glad to see you have a blog. I've bookmarked it and will check in on a regular basis.

Say, funny thing. Just saw a few minutes ago on another one of Drum's thread someone using the term, "trolletariat." And here you are the original author!

All my best to you and keep up the good work. See ya soon.

Mon Mar 27, 11:23:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...

Apollo 13:

Nice seeing you here, at this rate my readership might top the quarter century mark...:)

I've noticed the term trolletariat turning up at places where I have never used it before the last year or so. I wonder if I managed to start a word that will eventually end up becoming adopted as part of the language. Man now wouldn't that be hilarious. Well, thanks for coming by and we will see you around. I should add incidentally that you are one of the people I am referring to when I said this at the top of the blog "After much prodding by other bloggers..." so you are in some ways responsible for this place being set up. Now, whether one sees that as a good or bad thing is something entirely dependent on perspective...:)

Mon Mar 27, 11:59:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home