Radical Good Sense

The “Fight for Canada”, did not happen in 1812, since Canada did not exist as a nation for decades later in 1867. The Department of “Canadian Heritage” ought to be ashamed of its atrocious rewriting and dumbing down of Canadian history by calling the War of 1812 a fight for Canada. Who wants to bet that the winning Canada Day “1812: Fight for Canada” entry will have a Canadian flag on it, even though that flag didn’t come into being until 1965? Where historical accuracy loses to artistic license, that art becomes propaganda.

==

The not-so Honourable Minister of Natural Resources has kicked up Harper’s attack on environmentalism. Fortunately there are some real journalists out there still to hold his feet to the pyre he’s hoping to toss us onto.

Creekside’s Alison has the hilarious transcript of our Minister acting like a jackass on air, being caught with the plain truth. If non-Canadians with money for the oil patch want to spread money around for political purposes, it’s fine, but if non-Canadians want to spend money with the idea of protecting humans from pollution, then they are radicals.

The Globe dug up a few of those local Canadian “radicals” who probably voted Conservative last election.

Mr. Oliver was quite forceful, warning that such groups “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.

There could not be a more hilarious case of an old pot calling a (stainless steel) kettle black. Oliver described the Conservative party’s corruption of our democracy to make radical ideological changes on their well known “secret” agenda (ending: CWB, gun registry, Insite, all without logic or facts to back up their position soundly).

==

What I find amazing in this article is that an NDP leadership candidate is proposing something I proposed the NDP, Liberals, and Greens try before the next general election: joint nomination meetings for key disputed ridings. If only 30 of these are successful, that should give the Conservatives some measure of defeat in the 2015 election.

Note that the article headline would also be true if there were at least 15 ethical Conservatives left willing to put their country before their party, and vote as independents, apart from the Conservative caucus. Sadly “ethical” and “Conservative” do not belong in the same sentence anymore I fear.

I can’t find my original article with my idea when I first pitched it, but it may be prior or perhaps after this comment toward the end of the comment thread. It could have been after 2011’s election I brought it up, or maybe only on Facebook for some reason.

Basically the Liberals, NDP, and Greens would agree to run only one candidate, the most successful party at organizing the largest nominating group would run the respective candidate. That way each party gets a chance to run their candidate, and the vote splitting falls away long enough for election reform to pass.

About these ads

2 responses to “Radical Good Sense

  1. Pingback: Canada Lacks Political Immune System – #RoboCon | Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff

  2. http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/federal-science-minister-not-commenting-on-fundraising-letter-labelling-some-scientists-radical-ideologues/

    “OTTAWA – The federal minister responsible for promoting scientific research isn’t commenting on a political fundraising letter that allegedly suggested some scientists were “radical ideologues” out to get him.

    The letter, reported on by iPolitics,

    “While the scientists’ opinion piece criticized Rickford for failing to publicly denounce the Harper government’s decision to stop funding the water research facility, the fundraising letter said the criticism “was written by the same group of radical ideologues who have (led) a campaign about misinformation about Greg’s work to protect the Experimental Lakes Area.”

    Rickford’s office was not able to provide any examples of his work to protect the facility, which previously received about $2 million in annual federal funding until cuts announced following the 2012 federal budget. The minister’s office referred questions about the letter to the Conservative party, which did not respond to requests for comment.

    ““Nobody likes being called a name,” said Britt Hall, an associate professor of biology at the University of Regina and a co-author of the opinion piece that criticized Rickford’s record. “I’m not surprised, but (allegedly) linking us to a fundraising efforts in the guise of making sure that we are defeated is a little bit rich.””

    “In a separately leaked letter to a constituent, dated July 8, 2013 and signed by Rickford, he wrote that he always “understood the importance of, and supported, the research done at the ELA.””

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s