Lack of traction
You can't help but pity Canada's far left. They seem to have a real problem with traction.
Consider the opening post to this thread:
Hello, all: this is my first post, good to be here with you all.
Here is my quandry: Something that I have been wondering since Stephen Harper first appeared: is he wealthy? Comfortable? Middle-class? One has to assume that, as a defender of private privelege and power, he must be well-off and have investments (proabably in energy and security?) in order to justify his Machiavellian devotion to The Rich. Or is it just pure power?
Has anyone ever heard of what he is worth? I know he was a lobbyist for the NCC, but I cannot find anywhere a report of how much he's worth. It would be a lot easier for me to criticize Harper if I knew whether he is simply rich or not. [emphasis added]
Thanks!
Now what difference would it make if Stephen Harper was successful in private life? Arguably, wouldn't you rather be led by a man who knows how to save a penny and make smart choices?
But for some people, success, especially financial success, is a red flag. It shows you're not of the people. It suggests this "bduffy" is planning some personal attacks on Harper the person, in addition to Harper the policies.
Now it doesn't require me to point that out. Rabbler "lucas" takes bduffy to task:
Maybe we can dig up some dirt on his kids while we are at it.
Attack his policies, despise his politics, criticize his approach... lord knows there's enough material there to stay busy for years... but looking for dirt by diggin through his personal finances?
Let's try to keep the political discussions above ground.
Good point. But lucas fighting a losing battle. People like bduffy will thrive. Not because their type of personal attack is easy (he justifies his muckraking by saying Harper's wealth, if he has any, puts Harper in the ranks of the poor-oppressing wealthy elite), but because the left has had a real problem with traction. You can see it in Question Period, where many of the attacks are aimed at the Liberals instead of the Conservatives. You can see it in the polls, where support continues to grow despite some of the tough decisions this young government has made (canceling the Liberal daycare program, backing out of Kyoto, etc).
That must be frsutrating. You can understand why the attacks on the person are going to be more popular.
Still, the more level-headed on the left continue to try:
Stephen Harper lives in a modest neighborhood in a modest home in Calgary...as does Ralph Klein. Their 'official' governmnet-provided residences are not of their choosing.
Harper is a decent fellow. One can disagree with his politics but he shovels his sidewalk like everyone else.
Well, this calls for a Nazi parallel from our friend bduffy!
Sure. The guy who pulled the lever at the gas chambers also went home and played with his kids. Could've been a perfectly nice guy.Harper is a decent fellow. One can disagree with his politics but he shovels his sidewalk like everyone else.
I think you're missing my point. I know what he makes as a Prime Minister. I suspect he's tied into a larger network of investing and corporate welfare that is or will make him wealthy. Hence the policies about "cracking down on crime" (private security industry), "War on Terror" (Military Industry). I would think these grateful companies will thank the PM one day, as N.Beltov suggested.
I don't get it: I thought Rabble.ca was a leftist/progressive sort of place?[emphasis added]
Well, bduffy, rabble is a progressive sort of place. I can always tell I'm in the company of progressives when they allude to the Nazis and the Holocaust when talking about people who have a different point of view.
bduffy takes a few more hits. Others explain that Stephen Harper is not in it for the money, so he responds with this:
Thanks, BlawBlaw - helpful stuff. I was just trying to figure out if money was a motivation, and, frightenly enough, it's not. He actually is a fascist.
Yep -- we're deep in progressive country now.
Well, some people continue to give bduffy a hard time over his analogies and the way he throws around terms like "fascist" without considering the true meaning of those terms. Does bduffy reconsider his approach?
I'm beginning to think this is a CSIS hangout or something...
That's right, bduffy. The fact that some people on the left are still into debating ideas and considering facts instead of slinging insults and spreading lies is proof that the forum has become compromised by government agents. Thank goodness there are people like you who can still fight dirty.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I will be the first to admit that I'm a bit of a Lefty and probably always will be. That fact, however, does not preclude me from seeking out the facts and forming opinions based on the merits of the arguments made. That's why I visit "Angry" every once in a while, because I feel it's a pretty good snapshot of the quality of arguments being made by those on the political right.
And so I'm incensed at Steve's misrepresentation of Left-leaners as simple-minded Harper-slayers, as if we have nothing in the bag but mud to sling. Yes there are those over at Rabble who possess a rather limited rhetorical arsenal, but I would be quick to point out that ugly, personal attacks are diffuse across the entire political spectrum. Some of the respnses on THIS board are just as pathetic, or worse, as the one used here to infer generalizations about the Left.
Overall this article is a disappointing waste of space, well below the standards I've come to expect from this source.
Posted by: at May 13, 2006 01:03 PM
Even though bduffy put his ignorance on display, it's nice to see there are those on the left that can come to the defense of reasoned debate.
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2006 01:42 PM
I guess that's one anon person who missed the point, Angry. From the bit I've read on rabble, I'm surprised anyone redressed bduffy. Granted, I don't got there often as I find the discussions inane.
Posted by: Mac at May 13, 2006 01:45 PM
Well mister anonymous, read the last paragraph of what Steve wrote...
"The fact that some people on the left are still into debating ideas and considering facts instead of slinging insults and spreading lies..."
And you say that Steve misrepresents the left as having nothing but mud to sling?
Game over. Please try again.
Posted by: Surecure at May 13, 2006 01:47 PM
The Rabble corp help to remind us all why decent Canadians with any sense of history must be vigilant about the Left. It's amazing: at the same time that they rabblerouse about Nazism and fascism where it utterly doesn't exist, they refuse to own up to their own horrifying legacy in the last century. And even now, they keep trying to start that same fire, over and over again.
Lucas and others similarly endowed with decency are certain to move to saner ground in the long run.
Posted by: EBD at May 13, 2006 05:35 PM
I did not mean to post annonymously, sorry for that.
Surecure, I certainly haven't missed the point. Steve is simply saying that "the Left" has "lost traction." If I were to paraphrase that argument it would go something like this:
'the Left is now so desperate (in facing the rising popularity of a certain Conservative PM?) that they have abandoned reasoned argument and must resort to slinging mud'. His point was not 'here's one crazy Lefty from the Rabble crowd', which I think would have been a more accurate portrayal.
This article was written to generalize the Left as desperate and incapable. Steve CHOSE to zoom in on one example, to guide his readers down this path. Steve's acknowledgement "that some people on the Left" are still interested in proper debate is a mere footnote and besides his point.
Posted by: Aaron at May 13, 2006 10:31 PM
So, you have Steve J -- a rational person on the right -- pointing out a far-lefty who is so utterly hopeless that even the people on the left think the guy is out to lunch. He then commends those on the left who take the guy to task for being ridiculous.
Aaron, I've yet to see an NDP or other far-left blog that has ever given even a graceful footnote to somebody on the right or acknowledged when their opinions were horrible wrong (*cough* *cough*... McLa-La-Land... *cough*).
So what are you complaining about exactly?
Posted by: Surecure at May 13, 2006 11:23 PM
As an impartial judge, it seems Surecure has thouroughly nailed that coffin closed.
There must be numbers of inteligent and ethical liberals who tear their hair out over the ranting sloppy factions in their group.
The stigma of fraud and general lack of ethics is going to be tough to clear away for honourable Liberals.
I suggest there could be more focus on an essential Liberal code of ethics for the liberal party and less on the crass scramble for the driver*s seat.
As a conservative minded person, I worry that without the liberals for an NDP foil,[vote splitter], the National Dipstick party would enjoy a lucky windfall advantage. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 14, 2006 01:22 AM
Occasionally I try to wander through the lefty blogs and can't take it long, simply because I run in to bduffy types quite quickly. Leaving me to run screaming for the exit.
To be shown that there are folks looking to make reasoned aurguments is encouraging. To know they are not all raving lunatics bent on destruction of the world as we know it. Requiring a call to one of the double oh's to save us from another megalomaniacal super villian bent on world domination.
Earlier Kinsella pipes and says I made a mistake makes me consider there maybe hope left for the left. I have to thank Mr. Kinsella for that and say after a half generation of Liberal government
nonsense, some honor and responsiblilty coming from that quarter is nice.
I may one day learn to use a comma too. My own confession since we are on the subject.
Posted by: Jeff Cosford at May 14, 2006 02:00 AM
I'm complaining that Steve, who's intrepid research and presentation I generally admire, has posted a poor argumentative piece generalizing the Left, based solely on the rantings of a lunatic. Now there are plenty of Right-ish loonies out there as well, but I know (as Steve know's the same is true of the Left), that they are not accurate reflections.
Oh, and Tony Guitar, thanks for your "impartial" judgement. Give me a break.
Posted by: Aaron at May 14, 2006 03:41 AM
"It would be a lot easier for me to criticize Harper if I knew whether he is simply rich or not."
I'm curious to know if this made it easier for the person to criticize Jean Chretien or Paul Martin knowing that they were wealthy.
Posted by: CanForce 101 at May 14, 2006 04:03 AM
I think the "Raving" fellow we're talking about here simply came to the wrong website. He belongs over at NDP land.
Neither the Liberal nor the Conservative parties preach the evils of capitalism and wealth.
How could they when some of the wealthiest people in Canada support the "big two".
Somebody tell him about Paul Demerais.
Posted by: dmorris at May 14, 2006 10:33 AM
What amazes me is why no one on the Left was asking about Chretien's personal wealth or, for that matter, Martin's, when the Librano$ were in power. I don't recall the MSM ever questioning the affluent lifestyles of either Chretien, Martin or their offspring.
Good grief. Compared to PMSH's modest lifestyle, these Librano$ live like Sultans. I've always wanted to know how De peti'gar from Shawinigan became such a wealthy man. As PM, I think he made a salary of less than $200,000 a year, and yet he lives in palatial splendour when he's in Florida, and always lived a swell life in Ottawa. Paul Martin, it goes without saying, is a multi-millionaire, while paying less income tax than most of his fellow-Canadians because he flies other countries' flags on his fleet of ships.
So, how come bduffy is asking questions about PMSH and doesn't show curiosity about the opulent lifestyles of Chretien and Martin? How come the MSM didn't bother to delve into the Librano$' private wealth?
It's the strangest thing. The cardinal sin in the minds of lefties is private wealth and private property and, yet, most Librano$, Dippers, and CBC journalists are living very comfortable lives--far more comfortable than my family--presumably with healthy bank accounts and fully paid off homes in tony neighbourhoods.
Librano$ and their entourages, when they were the government, had perks and entitlements galore. Jack and Olivia: DINKS: Double Income, No Kids. I think they live very nice lives, but I don't hear anyone on the left or MSM journalists questioning their lifestyles.
More double standards, more nonsense, more hypocrisy, more dirty tricks. No wonder PMSH is holding his cards very close to his chest. It doens't matter what he does or says; he's a villain in the eyes of moonbats: Either he's wealthy and cadging off the rest of us, or he lives modestly, which automatically makes him a fascist??? Come again, bduffy?
PMSH can't win for losing with these guys. So he's playing the game his way, by his rules. He's winning in our eyes, though, seeing as ordinary Canadians are TOTALLY fed up with the left-lib-MSM-Moonbat mentality which condones the Librano$' robbing us blind and laughing all the way to the bank, while we work hard to scrape enough money together to pay off what we owe on our homes and send our kids to university.
bduffy and all bduffy clones: Wake up, grow up, and take a good look at what's really happening in Canada. PMSH and his government are doing triage in the ER. Someone needs to do the cutting and stiching necessary to fix this very wounded body politic known as Canada, and PMSH and his team are doing a great job.
Posted by: new kid on the block at May 14, 2006 12:30 PM
Did you see this yet?
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Israel to bomb Iran?
Posted by Picasa Israel will hit Iran in the next few months: Israeli official
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next “month or two or three,” an Israeli official has been quoted here as saying.
http://TonyGuitar.blogspot.com
OK, Aaron, free country, take a break if you wish. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 14, 2006 12:33 PM
Lifestyles of Jack and Olivia? Before they made the jump to federal politics (insert your own Jumping Jack joke) they were both municipal councillors in Toronto, making a combined income in the low six figures.
In June 1990, a MSM journalist discovered and published the fact the couple were living in a CMHC subsidized housing cooperative, paying rent which was estimated to be half of what the market value would be for an equivalent apartment.
Shortly after their scam was revealed, the couple bought a house in Toronto's China Town.
Funny how the bduffy types choose to ignore the shortcomings of their own while searching for dirt on others...
Posted by: Mac at May 14, 2006 01:35 PM
Using the Rabble forum or the Free Dominion forum as blog fodder is equivalent to a drunk licking spilt beer up off the floor.
Posted by: Robert McClelland at May 14, 2006 05:28 PM
"bduffy" is the most obvious agent provocateur I've run across for a while. Could even be mine host, Janke-ing the Babblers' chain.
As for Mac, he's either ignorant or a liar:
Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income. Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada M*rtgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. Average Toronto market rent in 1989 was $782 per month, although the Vancouver Province newspaper claimed a comparable dwelling would have been worth $1,500.
In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing, and later that month, Layton and Chow left the co-op and bought a house in Toronto's Chinatown together with Chow's mother, a move they said had been planned for some time. Former Toronto mayor John Sewell later wrote in NOW Magazine that rival Toronto city councillor Tom Jakobek had given the story to Tom Kerr.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Layton
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 14, 2006 05:29 PM
Whether or not the story about the Layton/Chow subsidized housing issue is factual, they did move shortly after the story surfaced AND they, nevertheless, are DINKS, a status that very often means you're not plugged into the reality that most Canadians live from day to day. I know that my life changed exponentially--as, I think, any parent finds out--the moment I held my first child.
Oh my God. I'm responsible for this little person. You definitely begin to see the world in a different way.
Layton and Chow have never seen the world from this perspective. It's easy to be a "Rosedale/Forest Hill/wherever Socialist" when you have only your adult--I didn't say grown up--selves to worry about.
Posted by: new kid on the block at May 14, 2006 05:37 PM
PS--If you're Jack and Olivia, you don't have to worry about anything. They're managing swimmingly when it comes to finances, and when you're suggesting, as they do, that taxpayers foot the bill for every social ill, every self-promoted "victim," every child in Canada who "needs" daycare because, in many cases, both parents "have" to work (sic) to support their high-flying lifestyle, you really don't know what the H___ you're talking about. You don't have a clue how oppressive the tax system is to families who pull their own weight--heck, who more than pull their weight--and then are asked to pay for every ne'er do well in Canadian society.
But, suggesting that we do this makes Jack and Olivia feel very good about themselves. They are do-gooders, don't you know: Easy when you're glad to spend OTHERS' money to make donations to charity and then to take all the credit yourselves.
See what having no kids does to your thinking?
Posted by: new kid on the block at May 14, 2006 05:45 PM
Dr. Dawg, as always, you're a class act.
Look at that lovely Wiki-reference which seems to agree point-for-point with my post. Are you suggesting my local newspaper lied to me? Shocking!
Posted by: Mac at May 14, 2006 07:42 PM
The Wiki entry doesn't agree at all, of course. There was no "scam," Layton and Chow's rent and supplementary payments far exceeded the average Toronto market rent at the time, and the only source claiming that full market rent wasn't being paid was a Vancouver newspaper--based on what, we can only imagine.
As noted, it's time to retire this particular smear.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 15, 2006 08:37 AM
From his post, it's apparent the kid is at odds with his father - A Conservative and a Christian.
It seems a little Jack Layton in the making - A socialist and an idiot.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 15, 2006 12:49 PM
Hmmm, let's see. $120K per year, living in a housing cooperative, bought house in Chinatown and moved immediately upon disclosure of same in media. Yup, that doesn't sound like a scam at all.
Perhaps the $1500 estimate was based on Vancouver rental market, Dr. Dawg? The article, to my recollection, didn't say how it was reached.
How's the new "not-so-rabble" website going? I read a few threads and I couldn't see much improvement from the old rabble but I might be a bit biased.
Posted by: Mac at May 15, 2006 02:08 PM
Moved several months afterwards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and all that. The Vancouver rental market, as always, exceeds Toronto's by a few pence.
I prefer the new website out of principle. But, as was the case with Babble, I don't expect to be posting there much--too much like Usenet, even if politically friendly. No doubt Steve will mine that place too when he's low on story ideas.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 15, 2006 02:27 PM
Rabble will always be the extreme when it comes to politics, notice that they are on the left as well. Not surprising from a place that was accepting taxpaying dollars and when found out, stopped it. Not surprising from a place that insults the Pope and every Catholic out there. Extremism is thy name.
Posted by: None at May 15, 2006 02:53 PM
Several months? According to your Wiki-blurb, the Star article was published June 14th, 1990. The city solicitor cleared them of any wrongdoing in June 1990 and the couple moved later that month. June has 30 days so "later that month" doesn't sound like several months to me; it sounds like within two weeks. I hope you'll excuse if I don't get all Latin about it. I'm not so populares plumbeus as you.
Posted by: Mac at May 15, 2006 03:07 PM
June has 30 days so "later that month" doesn't sound like several months to me; it sounds like within two weeks.
You are correct. The "March" I was thinking of was when they began paying a supplement to their rent. Silly me, if that isn't too infra dignitatem of me.
But: there is still no counter-evidence to the claim that the two had been planning for some time to move into a house of their own. Nor, for that matter, that the amount of rent they paid for their co-op lodgings was "subsidized" or below market rent.
As I said, time to retire the smear.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 15, 2006 05:12 PM
Aren't housing cooperatives, by their nature, subsidized? Isn't that what makes them housing cooperatives as opposed to standard multi-family dwellings? If not, why the different nomenclature?
Why would Jack & Olivia have to pay a supplement from March until June if the housing wasn't subsidized in the two years prior to that?
According to your Wiki-reference, the average Toronto rent was $782, that would include all rental properties- lofts, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, you name it, regardless of location or condition of said rental dwelling.
They were in a 3 bedroom apartment and I expect it wasn't in a shabby part of town, plus I doubt it was in poor condition. That means fair market rent was much higher than the $800 they paid.
When they paid a supplement, their rent went up to $1125. Now that's still within a housing cooperative. So is that the actual fair market rent? If it was a standard multi-family dwelling (ie: rent for profit), might the rent be higher still? Suddenly the $1500 in the Sun doesn't seem so outrageous.
Although I disagree with your assessment that this is a smear, if it's time to stop talking about Layton's scam, the next time I hear some leftie misquoting from a speech PM Stephen Harper made back before he was the leader of the Alliance, let alone the Conservative Party, can I tell them Dr. Dawg says there's a statute of limitations?
You know, for a guy who likes to try to impress people by spouting latin, your arguments are sure full of holes. Maybe you should save your latin for your Dipper friends and try using some logic?
Posted by: Mac at May 16, 2006 01:01 AM
No, housing cooperatives are not public housing. They are cooperatively-run properties with democratically-elected boards, setting rents, deciding on the mix of market vs. subsidized rental units, etc.
CHMC pays a m*rtgage subsidy, however, to co-ops which are just starting up--it's supposed to be an encouragement to the private sector to get co-ops up and running. It was their share of this subsidy that Layton and Chow decided voluntarily to pay back, well before Tom Jakobek (q.v.) planted his media smear.
Basically, Layton did nothing wrong. But opponents more interested in personal attacks than serious political discussion (just check out this very thread) will seize even bogus opportunities. If Layton had chosen to live in Rosedale, there would have been an ooze of smears in that case, too.
You know, for a guy who likes to try to impress people by spouting latin
Well, mea culpa.
your arguments are sure full of holes.
You haven't found one yet.
Note to Steve: why is the word "m*rtgage" banned by your filter? My imagination has been running wild.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 16, 2006 07:58 AM
Anyone else think Dr. Dawg's arguments are all hot air?
Posted by: Mac at May 16, 2006 10:07 PM
 
|
|
