Saundrie

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.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Sorry about the disappearing act

This is just a short post to apologize for my unexplained absence from this blog over the last 6 weeks. At first the problem was that I could not access it because Blogger was acting up a lot, then I couldn't even see it, which was around the time the "test post" was created, I was hoping I might be able to see it. Unfortunately I was not able to for several more days. Then some matters related to my wife came up along with a few other examples of Murphy's Law running amok in our lives. Finally this was topped off with one of my wife's grandmothers becoming seriously ill and finally dying at the beginning of this week. With the funeral finally past and hopefully everything else is finally settling down I should be able to resume my periodic missives/tomes for those of you that actually enjoy wading through my writings for more than just ways to try and misrepresent what I am saying. While I am spending the weekend out at my parents while they are away I may not have much time to post much but I will be trying.

While I have not been doing much commenting I have been doing my best to stay on top of current events both nationally and internationally. At the current moment the thing that has caught my attention the most is the excellent work being done by Meaghan Walker Williams at Somena Media regarding the serious questions of undeclared political contributions of 1.7 million dollars as a result of their last convention. Why do I see this as so important? If it is true among proving their hypocrisy on political donations and their holier than thou routine of the last few years being what many of us always believed it was nothing more than faux outrage for the purposes of scoring political damage against their opposition what it proves is that the last election campaign was fought by the CPC with undeclared resources. That is something very fundamental to our protocols/regulations/laws regarding how political parties fight election campaigns and is easily as scandalous as using sponsorships to try and influence the voters of a Province. Indeed, if true this is something that shows a serious corruption at the core of the CPC and a clear belief that the rules for them and the rules for their opponents are not the same and that they deserve/require special privileges. Which is the very definition of elitist IMHO, something I believe the CPC denounced as a bad attitude the Liberals were the representatives of, or did they forget that along with their other promises of standing up for Canada against those that would take advantage of it like in not getting all the money back in the Softwood lumber dispute and not selling out the NAFTA dispute resolution mechanism to do a deal. After all the next ruling would actually have been the last one, there is no appealing after that so either America would have complied or Canada would have been able to point to it as evidence that America does not honour her trade deals even when it is considered the law of the land and has been properly adjudicated in the courts when the ruling is against America.

In any event I intend to be discussing this in greater detail soon enough, along with a reference or two to things like the insanity currently unfolding in the Middle East (via liberal catnip), the civil suit the Wilsons have launched against the Bush White House for loss of earnings and other various things like placing them and their kids in harm's way, etc. I also intend to continue following the current dustup between Robert McClelland and Steve Janke, especially if as it appears to be doing widens to include other prominent Blogging Tories. Until then I hope my readership will be kind enough to accept my apologies for not just being gone for so long but also for not providing an explanation as to why until now. It was just too difficult to do much serious detailed analysis and writing due to events in my real life.

7 Comments:

Blogger Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

thanks for the compliments scotian. Is there a way we could email. I am working on something and I could use your input -- tiddlypum@gmail.com is my email. best regards as always

Fri Jul 14, 11:22:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...

MWW:

Already done, as of a few minutes ago.

Fri Jul 14, 06:15:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

"If it is true among proving their hypocrisy on political donations and their holier than thou routine of the last few years being what many of us always believed it was nothing more than faux outrage for the purposes of scoring political damage against their opposition what it proves is that the last election campaign was fought by the CPC with undeclared resources."

Classic Scotian, "if" followed up by a full out conclusion based on a predetermined assumption of guilt. If you would like to write honest pieces and be taken seriously, sort out your facts before you draw your conclusions. Remember, first horse, then cart. Glad I could help.

Mon Jul 17, 08:01:00 PM 2006  
Blogger CathiefromCanada said...

Glad you are back, Scotian

Wed Jul 19, 11:22:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous CuriosityKilledTheCat said...

The sixty four dollar question is: will the Bloc will oppose the softwood deal?

Methinks the Bloc will side with Harper and vote the softwood deal through, in return for some additional deal from Harper, or just because they are afraid of an election now.

Fighting Harper's New Tories on his failure to deliver the socalled "federal balance" is one thing – it is clear: Harper promised to shovel lots of money from the federal government to Quebec, and to give Quebec greater powers of taxation. Not delivering on this promise is a winnable issue for the Bloc, and they would chomp at the bit to unseat the Tories and have an election on t his.

But selling out the country and the softwood companies? That is not so clear cut.

The only way the Bloc would be persuaded to vote the Tory government out of power on the softwood issue is if the Liberals (lead by Bob Rae) managed to frame the issues in such a way that the Bloc would lose votes in Quebec by not throwing the rascal Harper out, and so could not afford to side with Harper on the softwood agreement because they would lose seats to the Liberals and NDP come the next election, early next year.

How should the Liberals frame the discussion of the softwood sellout in such a way that the Bloc is forced to vote against Harper or lose seats? My suggestions:

• Start now – frame the issues now, so that the pressure on the Bloc gathers force over the next three months – if the LPC and NDP wait until the vote, they will fail and the Bloc will vote to keep Harper in power;

• Personalize the harm - hammer on the number of Quebec employees who will be harmed (state numbers, consequences) – make it personal;

• Guilt by association - make the Bloc defend itself against joining Harper in selling out these Quebec voters if its sides with Harper on the vote;

• Sovereign capitulation - hammer on the attack on the sovereignity of Canada which Harper has agreed to in his deal with Bush – this is a diminution of the powers of Canada and of the provinces, by giving the Americans the right to interfere in our internal affairs. If the Bloc supports Harper, it will be supporting a giveaway of sovereign powers to another state – a tough position for the Bloc to defend. Liberals will score points with federalists and with separatists in Quebec with their defence of sovereignity.

• The Softwood Five – reduce the message to Five Points and repeat the title and points in all the messages. This ties in nicely with the Five Priorities of Harper. It also focuses the message and makes it more effective. Even better if you cast the Softwood Five in negative terms, such as: Harper's Softwood Five Sellouts.

Thu Jul 20, 04:19:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Public Static said...

John,

I realize this is a waste of time but if is a conditional clause.

As in

IF x is true THEN y

And do you comprehend what that also means?

It means:

If x is NOT true THEN y is not true.

This is referred to as the inverse of the conditional clause.

So now with this simple logic lesson let us revisit your little rant.

Scotian said:

"If it [At the current moment the thing that has caught my attention the most is the excellent work being done by Meaghan Walker Williams at Somena Media regarding the serious questions of undeclared political contributions of 1.7 million dollars as a result of their last convention.] is true..." - this would be x in the above equation.

Now if you remember from above we had another part of this equation, y.

Y is this statement:

"...among proving their hypocrisy on political donations and their holier than thou routine of the last few years being what many of us always believed it was nothing more than faux outrage for the purposes of scoring political damage against their opposition what it proves is that the last election campaign was fought by the CPC with undeclared resources."

So we have now determined x and y.

Now what would be the inverse of the conditional clause in the sentence you had your little fit over? Take your time and show your work.

Thu Jul 20, 09:55:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

You missed the point public. Although thank you for the refresher in logic, never a waste of time. He is leading the reader by implying that this is the only outcome therefore there is no chance X can be wrong. Just because you throw an "if" at the start does not mean you have presented an honest comment. Think about it. If the media wanted to run a certain story that was total bullshit all they would have to do is start by saying that "it may have been reported" followed by a, for example, ten minute peice on how Tom Cruise is gay. The "if" is lost by the barrage of assumption and unproven fact. That is what most refer to as tabloid journalism. The kicker is that Scotian rants and raves about being honest and having "internet credibility" where he doesn't have to back up his statements because of who he is. Exactly what Grewal did. Is that honest?
Another example. When a friend tells you "now don't take offence to this" and then goes on to slander you. You should take no offence right because they precluded their attack with "don't get mad at me".
It is not what he says but that he states his opinion as a matter of fact. That is where he becomes dangerous because not everyone can determine (or is willing to take the time to try and determine) if what he says is opinion or is fact. I have seen the effects of this first hand and it is quite scary just how easily people can be convinced of something as fact when it is not true at all.

Fri Jul 21, 11:05:00 AM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home