Modeling Journey

Barbara Yaffe ends the year of 2007 with her column today about political challenges in 2008. She describes Bob Rae as a "cunning politician", and touches on one area which could be a huge political bonanza for the Liberals, and another which still poses problems for the LPC.

First, about Rae's political cunning:

" Which means Canadians will be charged with choosing new MPs either next spring or fall.

That, of course, is bound to clarify the situation for the beleaguered Grit leader. Worthy and earnest as Dion is, if he cannot catch a wave in coming months, he is likely to surf right into oblivion.

And in the coming year his most significant rival may prove to be, not deputy leader Michael Ignatieff, but Bob Rae. The one-time NDP leader, by 2008, will be more welcome within the Liberal ranks. And, as an orator, as a cunning politician, as an endearing sort, Rae has it over Ignatieff."

Then she talks of the issue with is ripe for the Liberals to use:

" Domestically, Ontario is well positioned to keep peddling the message in 2008 that it has become the piñata of Confederation.

Prospects are excellent for continuation of a major fuss over federal legislation that will shortchange Ontario by 20 seats as part of a shift of MP numbers in the Commons.

That issue, and pressure on Ontario's manufacturing sector, resulting from a strengthened loonie, will enable Ontario to cry poor with some legitimacy."

Yaffe is right: Ontario is a blind spot in the mirror of PM Harper, probably because he has never spent enough time in a big city to understand big city dynamics. His policies towards Ontario and the big cities of Canada are of death-wishian magnitude.

He and his fellow right wing "new" Tories just don't get that province, or big cities.

And that opens a big hole for the Liberals in the next election, if they are prepared to pounce on this issue and ride it all the way to a majority government.

But it will take more than simply admonishing the Tories for their bias; it will be necessary for the Liberals to offer Ontarians an alternative which means most Ontarian voters will choose the Liberal policy rather than the Tory one.

Liberals will have to spell out exactly what they want with respect to Parliamentary reform, and how this will benefit Ontario (fairness benefits that province), and affect the rest of the country.

Finally, the weakest spot in Liberal policies:

" The one confederation constant in 2008, of course, will be a continued attempt to appease Quebec."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=e4500ee9-6300-4201-b645-906d23f9eadb

It is in this area particularly that the Liberal Party as a whole - and not just Bob Rae - will need the utmost "political cunning". Despite having a leader from Quebec, the Liberal Party has no discernible traction in that province, and seems locked into a small Anglophone ghetto, with the mainstream Francophone constituency simply ignoring it.

The Liberals can form a government even with limited support from Quebec, but it is not politically healthy to have such poor drawing power in such a large province.

Fresh from decking the halls with boughs and holly, Canadians are now being asked to clear the decks to end Harper's folly. Stephane Dion says the "psychological" threshold (two years of minority government) has now been reached, and he feels Canadians are ready to go to the polls again this year.

Of course, it takes three to tango for this minority government to fall, and so the views of the other two opposition parties are equally important.

Jack Layton, fresh from quaffing eggnog, says he is ready for battle. Stuck in the polls at around 15%, with the Greens nipping at his heels, Layton now has a slightly different take on what voters will do. Right now, he says, the polls cannot be taken to reveal what the intention of Canadian voters are. Voters are "parking their intentions". I guess he hopes that they will slip their votes into first gear come election day, make a sharp left turn, avoid the Greens, and once again "lend" him their votes...

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/289170

Fat chance. Layton helped Harper bring down the Liberal government because he threw the dice, and lost. He thought he would end up with enough votes to be a player, the tail that would wag the Tory dog, but this did not happen. Having lent him their votes once before, voters are more likely to dock his tail and vote Liberal.

And the Bloc?

They are poring over a delayed Christmas shopping list, busily writing down a long, long list of goodies which they will present to Santa Stephen. We are for sale, says the sign they are preparing. Pay our price, and you can stay in power ...

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=35165e66-4936-4f0c-a029-05ea35f06a4d&k=50403

So, what will Santa Stephen do?

He has enough cash on hand compared to the Tories and Dippers to allow his party to swamp the others with TV blitzes come election time, but he must be a bit discouraged about the inability of the Reform Party in the Tory wolf clothes to persuade more than about 30% of Canadians to vote for them. Even worse, a lot of Tory votes are wasted votes under the first past the post voting system, because they have a huge chunk clustered in their rightwing bastion of Alberta, with much sparser penetration elsewhere in the country.

His best bet will be to hope that he can survive another year, and see what that brings. The risk is that the front bench of the Liberals is suddenly awash with talent once the by elections take place in March, and he will find it heavy going to best the formidable Liberal team he will face in Parliament later this year. His fear of the Liberal bench could stampede him into an early election, hoping to win a minority government with another 2 years grace ...

However, Harper is Harper, and he is the smartest man in the room, so the Cat thinks that he will be paying a lot of attention to the shopping list the Bloc is going to hand to him early in the new year, and give them most of what they want, so that he can cling to power for another six to twelve months.

Isn't it funny how Harper is faced in the new year with a cornucopia of advice from his outside advisers: some advice on Afghanistan, a little bit of advice from an independent adviser on the festering sore of the Airbus years which is gnawing at the foundation of Canada's democracy, and lastly, some advice from the Bloc on that to put in his budget.

Study those three pieces of advice well, Santa Stephen, because any one of them could bring down your government and relegate to a footnote in Canadian history.

Greg MacArthur in the October 31 Globe & Mail gives a very interesting summary of the relationship between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber. He says this about one of the visits Schreiber says he had with Mulroney (Schreiber's allegations have not been proven in a court of law):

" Feb. 2, 1998: Mr. Mulroney meets Mr. Schreiber in a private suite in Zurich. Mr. Schreiber says that Mr. Mulroney wanted to know if there was any evidence that could connect him to the cash payments."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071030.wmulroneytimeline1031/BNStory/National

The Committee should explore with Schreiber details of the private suite, in preparation for its questioning of Mulroney.

For example: where was it? Whose suite is it? What floor? What room? How long did they stay there? How long was Mulroney in Zurich during that visit? Who else was there? Did Mulroney travel alone? Was there anybody at the front door - or any guestbook that needed to be signed? What else did they talk about? What exactly was said at that meeting? Who set it up? How was it set up?

Oh, and perhaps the Committee could also explore with both Schreiber and Mulroney exactly what was said at these other meetings:

" June 25, 1993: Mr. Mulroney's last day as Prime Minister.

July 27, 1993: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $100,000 from his Swiss bank account — a Canadian funds account coded 'Britan.'

Aug. 27, 1993: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at a Montreal airport hotel and gives him $100,000 cash.

August, 1993: Mr. Mulroney rejoins his old law firm of Ogilvy Renault.

Nov. 3, 1993: Mr. Schreiber withdraws another $100,000 from 'Britan'

Nov. 11, 1993: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel's Gold Key Lounge and gives him $100,000

July 21, 1994: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $50,000 from 'Britan'

Nov. 21, 1994: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $50,000 from 'Britan'

Dec. 8, 1994: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at the Pierre Hotel in New York City where he gives Mr. Mulroney $100,000."

The Committee should pay particular attention to the conversations these two men had at these hotels.

How long did they talk? What topics did they discuss? Did either man refer to any reason why Schreiber was handing over wads of cash to the former prime minister? Did they discuss the pasta business in detail? What exactly did each man say about the pasta business? What exactly did each man say about other projects Mulroney was to work on? Did they discuss the progress of any transactions? What was said? Who else was present? Who set up the meetings?

The Committee needs these kinds of details because the Schreiber - Mulroney relationship is at the stage of a He said/He said point counterpoint dialogue; details are one of the ways to help the Committee decide where the truth might lie, given the conflicting statements.

And whether there are others who might corroborate the story of either man.

There is a lot of speculation about just how much was paid in commissions for the sale of aircraft by Airbus to Air Canada, who was paid a commission, whether these were cash payments or deposits into bank accounts, what bank accounts were involved, and other issues.

Schreiber did not really answer questions asked on Thursday about what payments he made during his dealings regarding several matters, nor did he name any names.

The attached article covers some ground as per Macleans of those heady days when the RCMP was sued by Mulroney for sending a request to the Swiss regarding certain accounts they thought were being opened for the purposes of commissions being paid. In the article, reference is made to several people, and to several banks.

The article quotes Mulroney's assertions at the time that he did not influence Air Canada in the decision to purchase any aircraft from Airbus:

" Mulroney's dramatic action followed a series of media inquiries and reports last week. First, on Thursday, Maclean's sent a letter containing detailed questions about Mulroney's alleged involvement in the Airbus scandal to his Montreal law office. The next day, his lawyer, Fred Kaufman, issued a statement to the magazine saying that the former prime minister flatly denied any wrongdoing. "Mr. Mulroney states unequivocally that he did not in any way influence or try to influence Air Canada's decision to purchase aircraft made by Airbus," Kaufman wrote. "Nor was he ever a party to any agreement to influence this decision or to receive any consideration, directly or indirectly, for so doing." The statement went on: "Mr. Mulroney states unequivocally that he does not now have, nor did he ever have, directly or indirectly, a bank account in any foreign country.""

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010517

Perhaps the Ethics Committee should read the article, talk to the journalists who wrote it, and consider calling the persons named in the article.

The article also mentions some speculation by a German newspaper that the commissions made for various transactions might have reached $46 million. It also mentions - but does not name - a "former business partner of Schreiber's" who gave the RCMP information about bank accounts. Be interesting to find out who that person was, and whether he or she is available for questioning by the Ethics Committee.

The article also contains this very interesting quote from Frank Moores (which Schreiber might not agree with, perhaps the Committee could ask him about it?):

" Moores also denied that he ever lobbied for Airbus, a statement he has made several times since 1988. "There is not a darn thing that I can say at this time except to say what I've said for - what, two or three years now - that is, that it is totally inaccurate," he said."

The article has some information on Moores stint on the Air Canada board:

" In March, 1985, Mulroney fired the entire Air Canada board of directors and replaced them with a group that contained many of his political associates, including Moores. When news reports revealed in July, 1985, that Moores was lobbying for other airlines, he was forced to drop them as clients. But a few weeks later, he was also forced to leave the Air Canada board because of his involvement with the Airbus consortium, which was then seeking the Air Canada contract. It was that same year that Airbus signed the contract with IAL. Then, in 1986, with the deal done between Airbus and IAL, Schreiber and Moores opened the two bank accounts in Zurich."

Interesting reading that old article by Stevie Cameron. I wonder when she will appear before the Ethics Committee?

Karlheinz Schreiber does not give clear answers to questions; that we know now. But sometimes, hidden deep inside his rambling answers, we might spot nuggets which might be gold ...

One of the central issues facing the Ethics Committee is whether two prime ministers of Canada, Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, met at Harrington Lake, and discussed what to do about a Canadian who was facing extradition.

Schreiber says he wrote a letter to Harper which he gave to Mulroney to hand deliver to the PM at Harrington Lake. He is on record as saying that he was told that the letter was indeed handed over or discussed with Harper, and that he was to wait until after the court case dealing with his extradition before, perhaps, the Minister of Justice would do something.

Harper denied receiving the letter from Mulroney. He also denied having received any messages from Mulroney on behalf of Schreiber. It seems that he also denied having discussed Schreiber at all during that Harrington Lake meeting.

Schreiber was shocked by Harper's statement, because he was told - by a nameless "friend", according to Schreiber's Tuesday testimony - that his plight was indeed discussed between Harper and Mulroney.

http://davidakin.blogware.com/Dec_2004_ETHI_BLUES.doc

What work awaits the Ethics Committee in order to clarify and resolve the issue?

Simply this: ask Schreiber who the "friend" was, then call that person and explore under oath - in proper detail - the conversation that friend had with Schreiber, the reasons why the friend made those statements, if they were made, and where the friend got the information from ...

The Cat agrees with Andrew Coyne's view regarding the Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber letter and what was behind it:

"Here’s the relevant section of his testimony, as best I could transcribe it. What did Mulroney promise he would do with the letter, he was asked. To take it to Harper, Schreiber answered.

And what was the outcome of that exchange? “The outcome was the message was very well received.”

There were no guarantees, he was told, and the courts would have to deal with the matter first, but after that the justice minister, Vic Toews, would look into it and “do the right thing.” It was, he said, “a shock” to hear Harper deny on television that he and Mulroney had discussed Schreiber at the meeting.

It could all be a lie, of course: Schreiber lying to the committee, Mulroney lying to him.

It could even be that Harper lied to Mulroney.

But if in fact there were such a deal -- Schreiber’s liberty in exchange for his compliance -- we would have a serious problem on our hands.

That Mulroney was anxious to obtain such a letter is suggested by the reported involvement of Elmer MacKay, the former solicitor general and friend to both Mulroney and Schreiber, in its drafting.

Schreiber claims that Mulroney put MacKay up to it: “he would never have been able to help me if this was not resolved.”

That Harper might wish to be reassured that Schreiber had patched things up with Mulroney is also plausible: we already knew by then about the $300,000 in cash, and it wouldn’t do to have Schreiber making fresh accusations against the former Prime Minister. But that he would offer that the minister of justice would stay his extradition? This cannot be."

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071129_182431_4620

So Harper's new government has decided to try some new distribution of seats in Parliament, and in doing so, will give Alberta and BC more seats relatively than the biggest province in the country, Ontario.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=ba7addf7-be06-4039-9060-935c50aca99f&k=1292

And Harper's spokesman calls the Premier of Ontario a "small man" for protesting against the dilution of Ontario's democratic rights!

Anyone care to speculate just how many more asymmetrical measures Harper and his boys might have up their sleeves, waiting for the time when they have a majority government?

It seems this man's control of his revolutionary party is starting to slip a bit ...

Still wonder if he does not have a hidden agenda?

If not, then give him a majority and watch what happens: you ain't seen nothing yet.

Good news for those interested in protecting Canada's democratic form of government, and particularly for those seeking to protect and preserve the office of the Prime Minister of Canada (including PM Harper in the latter group): the majority of MPs on the Ethics Committee have voted to call Messrs. Schreiber and Mulroney to appear before them in order to answer questions about the tiff between Schreiber and Mulroney....

Ethics committee calls on Mulroney, Schreiber to testify

The Committee will also ask questions about the role of the Harper government with respect to the Schreiber letters addressed to PM Harper - the Lettergate affair.

The Tory MPs voted against any inquiry by the Ethics Committee into whether any of the rules of ethics - which applied to Mulroney as PM and as MP at the time Schreiber alleges (which allegation is not proven in court) that he cut a deal with Mulroney - were breached.

It is good to see the MPs representing the majority of the voters in Canada cooperate on investigating such a serious matter, especially after their rocky start to such a course.

Canadians might have answers to several serious questions within a week or two, especially as Parliamentary privilege will protect both Mulroney and Schreiber with respect to any statements they make to the Ethics Committee.

It is also good to actually see ethical behaviour taking place in Parliament, as compared to the lip service we seem to have been getting lately from the "new" Tory government.

If anyone wanted to know why PM Harper has muzzled his MPs, just think about what has happened in the past week or so, with Tory MPs opening their mouths on various topics.

First, we have the denial aspect with respect to the Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber fiasco: Nicholson says he doesn't want to talk about it ...

Then we have the "small man" slur of the Premier of the largest province, Ontario, with respect to that Premier's legitimate defence of the interests of Ontarian voters, and fight against a further dilution of their voting rights ...

And now we have Flaherty's brash statement to the cities that his "new" Tory government is "not in the pothole business" ....

Flaherty tells Cities to Shut It « apply-liberally.com

We have news for you, Mr. Harper: you might not consider yourself in the pothole business, but your party surely is in the middle of a sinkhole of voter repulsion right now with these revealing comments of the unseemly side of your "new" government ...

Better enjoy it.

Harper's government is once again offending voters in Ontario. This time the Harper spokesperson, one Peter van Loan, has called the Premier of Canada's largest province a "small man" for defending the electoral rights of that province.

globeandmail.com: McGuinty called small for bid to get better Commons seat deal

A small man, for asking for fairness for Ontario?

A small man, for daring to defend his province, as premier?

A small man, for daring to stand up to the Harper constitutional bullies?

If so, then that "small man" deserves the support of all Ontarians in his fight for justice for Ontarian voters...

And Harper has given Dion a priceless opening for showing that a Liberal government would strive for fairness for ALL voters.

It is time for Dion and his caucus to come out with a Liberal platform of electoral reform of the House of Commons, including the introduction - after a plebiscite with a majority of 55% in favour - of proportional representation in some form or other.

Go for it, Dion.

Make Canada a fairer place.

Remember the three monkeys? The one shuts its eyes so that it cannot see; the other shuts its mouth so that it cannot speak; and the third plugs its ears so that it cannot hear anything?

Did the Harper government decide on a three-monkey strategy with respect to the Mulroney-Schreiber relationship? Seems that Stephane Dion is wondering it this happened, based on his call for the inquiry into Schreiber's latest allegations in the now famous Schreiber affidavit (which do doubt made Harper swear as well):

"In the letter, Dion asked Johnston to include the following:

The management, follow-up and response to correspondence sent by Schreiber to Harper, his staff and members of his cabinet;

The Department of Justice's decision not to proceed with an internal examination into the possibility of setting aside the Government of Canada's settlement with Mulroney;

The possibility of conversations or correspondence between the current Prime Minister or any of his staff or cabinet ministers, and Mulroney or his representatives, relating to this file; and

The possible politicization of the process surrounding Mr. Schreiber's extradition case."

See CTV.ca Dion wants Harper's office included in inquiry

Justice Minister Nicholson has an answer for one of Dion's questions:

"But in 2006, senior Justice Department officials explored the possibility of re-opening the settlement after news reports revealed that German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber paid Mr. Mulroney $300,000 in cash, and related some of Mr. Schreiber's version of events.

"Research would be required to evaluate whether this new element justifies any attempt to set aside the settlement," Brian Saunders, then assistant deputy minister of justice, wrote in a Feb. 14, 2006 e-mail obtained by the CBC under the Access to Information Act.

Yesterday, Mr. Nicholson would not say what happened to that effort, or whether he was briefed on it.

"What information, what advice, what papers and letters that we have within the Department of Justice are in the form, generally of legal advice, and I treat them as such.
"And I don't get into a discussion [of that]," he said.

"I don't discuss what I get briefings on. I get briefings every single day in my capacity as Attorney-General and Justice Minister of this country." "

See globeandmail.com: Ottawa tight-lipped on Mulroney settlement review

But all is not lost. Perhaps the Ethics Committee might be able to explore some of the issues should it decide to call Mulroney and Schreiber to appear before it within the next two weeks - a kind of gift for conspiracy political junkies, no doubt:

"A parliamentary committee is debating a motion Tuesday to summon the two deal-makers in the Mulroney-Schreiber affair to state their cases before the probe into the corruption charges even opens.

While it has yet to be decided how the public inquiry will be framed, the House of Commons ethics committee wants to call former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney and German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber as witnesses as soon as possible."

See Schreiber, Mulroney could be called to testify ahead of inquiry

This story - that of Envelopgate and of Lettergate - is not over by a long long shot ...

The Liberal Party has tabled a motion calling for an examination of the strange case of the "missing" letters sent by Karlheinz Schreiber to Prime Minister Harper:

"Therefore, the Liberal Opposition today put forward a motion to Parliament stating: That, in view of the fact that the Terms of Reference provided to Dr. David Johnston in the Mulroney-Schreiber affair may not provide the scope for Dr. Johnston to consider many serious and important matters, including the actions of the current government, this Committee undertake to study the handling of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair by the government of Canada between January 2006 and present. Mr. Thibault criticized the Prime Minister’s attempt to evade scrutiny by placing restrictions on the terms of reference for a full public inquiry. “For a man who claims he knew nothing about Mr. Mulroney’s involvement with Mr. Schreiber, it seems strange that he is so determined to prevent any public investigation into his possible involvement in the affair,” said Mr. Thibault."

Liberal.ca :: Media Releases

This is the correct thing to do, and Dion and his caucus should be congratulated on not letting this issue die. If there is a "parallel government" making decisions of the kind which were made regarding the serious allegation in the Schreiber letters, then the Canadian public needs to know who is making those decisions, what criteria they are using (the interests of Canada, or of a political party), when they made the decision, and why the Prime Minister was not advised of these significant decisions.

Congratulations!

Talk about bombshells!

The Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber saga just gets better and better!

No former PM Mulroney has been reported to call on Harper to skip the preliminary independent advisor part and go for a full public enquiry!!!

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/275877


" Mulroney said he will meet with the adviser but he will come to that meeting with a message.
"I have come to the conclusion that in order to finally put this matter to rest and expose all the facts and the role played by all the people involved, from public servants to elected officials, from lobbyists to police authorities, as well as journalists, the only solution is for the government to launch a full-fledged public commission of inquiry," he said in a statement.

The statement was read to The Canadian Press by longtime spokesman Luc Lavoie."

With the NDP, LPC and now Mulroney calling for a full public enquiry, why should PM Harper not do it?

It would clear the air, give Mulroney and Schreiber a chance to say their say to the enquiry, and perhaps enlighten the Canadian public as to just what in hell has been going on in Ottawa over the years with the Tory governments ..

The Cat supports Brian on this one!

Today we had a sharp-edge contrast placed before the voters of Canada: a Prime Minister assailed by the Premier of the largest province for turning his back on the problems of Canadian municipalities, and the leader of the Liberal Party unveiling the principles of the Liberal Party's policy on poverty.

What a contrast!

A man who prefers tax cuts to helping the municipalities to cope with their funding crisis, versus a man who has given the voters a commitment to reduce poverty, with set targets and within a set timeframe, and who is prepared to be held accountable by voters for not reaching those targets.

Accountable. That word which Stephen Harper bandies about, but does not necessarily actually apply in his own life.

This is what the Liberal Party should be doing: setting out practical policies, letting voters know what it means to have a Liberal government in Ottawa.

Now we need some more, Mr. Dion. Let's have one on the problem of global warming, with timeframes and hard targets for emissions reductions. Look at what Prime Minister Brown is thinking of doing back in merry olde England ...

A very good start, indeed. One worthy of congratulations by all Liberals.

Harper has read Dion, Duceppe and Layton correctly. Duceppe huffs and puffs but somehow cannot blow the House down. Layton prattles on endlessly, rattling his tinny sabre daily, but somehow never shows up for a fight when it is consequential.

And as for the Liberals, Harper made them blink over his Throne Speech, and has them on the run.

To quote Wikipedia:

"In 1956, Mao Zedong said of the United States:

“
In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger.
”

Now Stephen Harper can cheerfully go ahead with his agenda, waiting for a formal majority in 2009, and knowing that, because he faces 3 paper tigers, he can at any time rattle their chains, dare them to step outside for a bout of fisticuffs, or bring them on to the mat for a round of ridicule, if his troops need some laughter.

Dion should have followed his instincts, and voted against the Throne Speech if his amendments were not accepted.

Both Layton and Duceppe huff and puff when it is safe to do so, but when rubber hit the road (when they could have voted for the far more acceptable Liberal amendments to the Throne Speech and probably provoked an election call from Harper), they blinked, and shuffled off the stage with self-serving muttered asides.

Brave men when their bluff is not being called.

Three paper tigers, and one dangerous leopard in power, who has not changed his spots.

Now that the first of several dust storms has stopped swirling around the Throne Speech of Firewall Harper, the time has come to talk, not of cabbages and kings, but of minding the store.

It was no secret that there was going to be a Throne Speech.

It was no secret that the Throne Speech was going to be crafted by Harper, one of the craftiest politicians the right wing has produced to date in Canada.

It was no secret that Harper, based on advice of certain Republican advisors, is a believer in the perpetual election.

It was no secret that Harper can play divide-and-rule with the best of them.

It was no secret that the Harper crew's campaign to frame Dion as a ditherer, unable to make a decision, and as an ineffectual politician and non-existent leader, had gained enormous traction over the past few months.

Therefore it should not have been a surprise to the Liberal Party, and especially to the caucus of the Liberal Party, that Harper would be fielding a Throne Speech with several snares built in, especially designed for Dion, and for the Liberal Party, the main threat to the Tory's wish to become a majority government and implement their revolutionary changes in Canada.

Only a blind man would not have seen that coming.

Which brings us to the question of the day: Who the heck is minding the Liberal store?

Why on earth was the leader of the Liberals entering a room AFTER the Throne Speech, to debate with his caucus what response the Liberals should have to the speech?

Ever heard of planning, guys? Of foresight? Of being prepared?

I thought the behaviour of the Liberals in the last election was the worst that I had seen from a political party in decades, but the panic stricken reaction of the Liberal Party caucus to the Throne Speech seems to promise an even worse one come the next election.

Quo vadis, LPC?

Very seldom in politics does a party have the same opportunity to make a decision which will have enormous consequences for the country, as the Bloc and NDP leaders have today. Courtesy of the Liberal caucus, these two parties are now in a position to determine how the country will be governed in the next two years.

The Bloc and NDP face three choices this week, which we can call the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Choice 1 - The Bad: They can vote against the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech, and Canada will be governed for the next two years by the policies set out in the Tory Throne Speech.

Both the Bloc and the NDP have already opposed the Tory Throne Speech. From a moral viewpoint, it appears that they have decided that not having the country governed by the policies in the Throne Speech would result in the greater good for the greatest number of Canadians.

Choice 2 - The Ugly: The Bloc and NDP can vote to support the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech. While this is not their preferred choice, it would be better for most Canadians if they were governed for the next two years by the Tory Throne Speech with the Liberal amendments, rather than just by the Tory Throne Speech as it now stands.

This would be a moral choice for those parties, consistent with the same moral principle, the greater good of the greatest number of Canadians.

Choice 3 - The Good: If the Bloc and NDP vote for the Liberal amendments, there is a strong possibility (perhaps, in my view, probability) that the Tory government will call an election.

If an election is called, the Throne Speech dies and the next government will bring in its own Throne Speech. The Bloc and NDP will have achieved what they set out to achieve, when the debates started - the ending of the Tory Throne Speech.

What a wonderful chance for the NDP and Bloc to decide Canada's future for the next two years!

Of course, if the NDP or the Bloc do not vote for the Liberal amendments to the Tory Throne Speech, then they should remember the words which Brian Mulroney flung into the face of the hapless John Turner during their TV debate: You, sir, had a choice. You could have said No.

Messrs. Layton and Duceppe: You, sirs, have a choice. You could say No to the country being governed under the Tory Throne Speech, by voting for the Liberal amendment to that speech.

It is your choice. History - and the voters - will judge what choice you make.

Layton joined with the Bloc and Tories to bring down the Liberal government of Paul Martin, hoping to gain more seats for the NDP (which he did), and a position of power (the balance) in Parliament (which he almost has now).

Today, it is within Layton's power to bring down the Tory minority government by triggering an election.

If things work out, the Dippers could hold on to their seats, and perhaps, depending on the results of the election, hold a stronger position in Parliament by having the balance of power with a minority government (either Tory or Liberal). Certainly, an election now seems to be Jack's wish, given where the Tories are taking the country.

So, how does Layton bring the government down?

He plays hardball, tit-for-tat hardball.

The Liberals fashioned an amendment to the Throne Speech which they believe the NDP cannot support. When it fails, the Liberal plan is to abstain from the Tory Throne Speech vote, and the Tory government lives on.

Some commentators (ScottsDiatribe amongst others) have floated an idea, which Layton could use.

All Layton has to do is to reason this way:

- The LPC set up a trap for the NDP with the Liberal amendment, so that they can abstain and preserve the Tory government.
- It is better for Canada for the Tory government to fall and a new election to be held now.
- Therefore, the end (the fall of the Tory government) justifies the means.
- The NDP could therefore vote in favour of the Liberal amendment. If the Bloc votes in favour of it as well, the Liberals will have to support their own amendment (of be written off as the Keystone Cops of Canadian politics). The combined votes of all three opposition parties will then pass the amendments.
- Harper will then have a choice - either call an election, or put the amended Throne Speech to the vote, and live with the Liberals amendment.
- It is unlikely that Harper would accept living with the Liberal amendments - his whole pattern of behaviour to date indicates he would not (witness his reaction to the criminal law bill which the opposition amended).
- Therefore, the chances are high Harper would call an election.

What is in it for the NDP? Their strategic voting on the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech would not bind them thereafter; and they could justify voting for it because it is the best way to rid the country of the Tory government before it harms the country more than it has. They would have used the Liberal amendment against the Liberals, and would have triggered the election they sought.

Of course, the same is true for the Bloc. They are voting against the Throne Speech because it does not meet their terms, and they want an election now before they implode in Quebec and the Tories pick up the pieces. So the Bloc should also support the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech....

And then all hell will break loose, as we head in for a fall election.

Does Jack Layton possess the courage to make such a call? To turn a weapon aimed at him, against those holding it?

We shall see.

Dion gave as the reason for not defeating the government on the Throne Speech, the fact that Canadians do not want another election so soon. Therefore, the Liberals will try to make Parliament work.

This is an extraordinarily clumsy response. Which tin ear in the Liberal caucus and advisor group came up with this twaddle?

The reasons mean that the Liberal Party is now on the run, chased by a relentless Harper. Evidence? As soon as Harper heard Dion, he said that the Omnibus Bill on criminal law changes was now a matter of confidence. Not one amendment would be accepted.

Where does that leave the Liberals?

Between a rock and a hard place, hoisted on their own petard!

In facing this bill - and believe me there will be countless others - the Liberal Party must now choose only one of two courses of action, having pledged not to use the third (voting against the government on confidence matters and forcing an early election).

So the only two choices for the Liberals will be:

Vote for Harper's confidence bills, even if the LPC opposes parts of them (as is the case with the criminal law amendments).

Or abstain, and let Harper win the vote because he has more seats than the Bloc plus the NDP.

What has happened? Simple. Harper outfoxed Dion, and forced Dion to give him a blank cheque. And Harper will cash that cheque, repeatedly.

No wonder Layton was so incensed: at least he can count votes.

Somebody send Dion and his advisors some calculators, please!

So the Liberals under Stephane Dion have decided to support Harper's Throne Speech. They have avoided taking a principled stand to protect Canada by opposing the decimation of Kyoto and the diminution of the power of the federal government.

How have they done this? Through the use of an amendment which couples an amendment on the Kyoto Accord with one on the Afghanistan project. The Kyoto amendment has teeth.

The Afghanistan amendment calls on the government to announce that the military action of Canada will cease in 2009. This one was inserted to ensure that the NDP would side with the government and reject the Liberal amendment.

Apparently, then the Liberals can meekly abstain from voting regarding the Throne Speech, thus ensuring that it passes!

How low can one sink.

Why did Dion not reject the Throne Speech in an open, above board, principled way, rather than resort to such silly tactics?

The Cat is deeply disappointed.

What would Pierre Trudeau do if he was in Stephane Dion's shoes?

We have the answer for that. PET was in that position, when another over confident Tory prime minister confused a minority government with a majority one, and thought the Liberals would be too chicken to take him on.

Trust your instincts, Mr. Dion.

You have the reputation of being a fighter. And of being under estimated by your foes.

Take on this bully, and then let us settle down as the new government, to governing the country properly. The fate of the earth calls for decisive action. Harper will not provide it. You can.

Strike a blow for a greater Canada.

Vote No tomorrow.

Bob Rae has formally announced the official reaction of the Liberal Party to the formation of the gerrymandered "non-partisan" Panel by Harper to review the role of Canada in Afghanistan.

Bob Rae's comments deserve careful scrutiny, as they form the basis for Liberal reaction to the Panel, and to actions to be taken in the next week and thereafter, by the Prime Minister.

Rae's comments on the Panel were not the open-ended "welcome" which some commentators have said they were, but rather a balanced and shrewd reaction.

He stressed two points, which the Liberals should hammer home every time they get a chance over the coming weeks and months:

One, IF (and this is a big IF, given Harper's attempt to limit the scope of the Panel's inquiry to only four half-baked options) the Panel leads to "open, public and thoughtful debate about the mission beyond 2009", then it is welcomed.

Note the use by Rae of the words "open", "public" and "thoughtful" as qualifiers. If the Panel simply veers off to closed hearings and a rightwing, foregone conclusion, then Rae's qualifications will not have been met, and the Liberals can reject the findings as biased and a sham. This will be an effective response to any attempt by Harper to pressurize the LPC into giving weight to the Panel's conclusions.

Two, Rae said nothing stops the parties in Parliament having an open debate about Afghanistan, despite the striking of the Panel, and this of course includes such a debate before the Panel delivers a report.

What this means, is that the Liberals have officially put Harper on notice that if he tries to deflect discussion of the Afghanistan issue in his Throne Speech or in an election, the Liberals, together with the Bloc and NDP, will exercise their parliamentary duty to debate the mission's course and future. So, the official stance of the Liberals is to reject Harper's attempt to bury the Afghanistan issue in the Panel.

Also, it is open to the three parties, in response to the Throne Speech, to call for a debate on Afghanistan, and to propose an amendment to the Throne Speech calling for a change in the Afghanistan mission, including a sunset date for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from that country, if certain agreed benchmarks are not met.

The benchmarks could include a proper review by NATO of the objectives of the West in Afghanistan. Rae called for this in his comments, as well.

It could also include a requirement that other NATO countries remove the restrictions they have placed on the use of their forces in Afghanistan, which restrictions have increased the risk that Canadian troops will die there.

Another benchmark might be for NATO troops to go into the region Canada is fighting in, to share some of the dangerous heavy lifting our troops are doing there. Note that Harper has tried to avoid this benchmark being discussed by the Panel, by limiting discussion to the 'replacement' of Canadian troops in that dangerous area, by other troops. This condition would, of course, limit the chances of this happening, and steer the Panel towards Harper's choice. However, a rotation of troops through all areas of Afghanistan, and mixed troops in all areas, are far more reasonable benchmarks, which Canada could legitimately require of NATO. Hopefully, Manley will act the maverick, and allow the Panel to 'openly, publicly and thoughtfully' discuss this option, rather than simply tucking their tails beneath their legs and only considering Harper's all-or-nothing option regarding where Canadian troops serve.

A further benchmark which MPs could lay down in a debate next week, would be a commitment by the USA of a much larger troop deployment in Afghanistan by the USA. A force some four to six times larger than the current US troops fighting there, would be my recommendation.

Finally, a benchmark could be the agreement to commit defined amounts, by the USA, Canada, and all NATO countries, ver the next 20 years, to the building of a decent society in Afghanistan.

Note that the MPs could add timelines for each benchmark, so that if they are not met by, say, June 30 2008, then Canada would be entitled to withdraw its troops or substantially reduce them, starting in late 2008.

The Bloc and the Liberals could cooperate on setting out such benchmarks, and invite the Prime Minister to join them. If Harper refuses, his bluff will be called, and his attempt to divert discussion to his loaded Panel will be seen as a pathetic gesture, too clever by half.

If Layton refuses to agree to the benchmarks, then he will have missed a chance to change substantially the role of Canada, and of NATO and the US, in that benighted country, and will be left uttering platitudes about immediate withdrawal, knowing that none of the other three parties are in agreement with him on that issue.

All told, Bob Rae's response to Harper is a well considered one, and allows the Bloc, NDP and Liberals to put their heads together this week, and introduce a debate in Parliament in response to the Throne Speech, and set out in amendments to the Throne Speech, and later in legislation, the benchmarks which must be met or else Canada will start withdrawing its troops.

Harper has opted for the perpetual campaigning mode of governing, with his eyes set on winning a majority so that he can accelerate the achievement of his major goal of changing Canada's political structure. The coming Throne Speech will be another module in his on-going campaign, and we can expect him to use it to achieve three objectives: to wound the Liberals, placate the Quebeckers, and marginalize the Dippers.

Being able to achieve the first two objectives with one action would be the best solution for him, and he probably has stumbled upon the way to do that with his already announced plans.

What would be attractive to many (if not most) Francophone Quebeckers, while at the same time sowing seeds of dissension amongst Liberals?

One issue is the role of the federal government in the governance of the Canadian nation. Harper has spoken of the ability to change the governance pattern by actions falling short of constitutional amendments, and is on record as saying that a lot can be achieved by bilateral agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments.

Harper is also on record regarding his low regard for a major, constructive and activist role for the federal government. His view of our central government is more akin to the statist views of the conservatives in the USA, where the desire is for state governments to have more power, and the central government to be limited to tax-collector, war fighter, and little else. Harper's visceral response to Ottawa's power was shown clearly with his advice to the Alberta government to erect firewalls so as to diminish the ability of the Ottawa government to exert much influence in that province.

This view of the role of Ottawa is a fissure between Harper and his neo-con new Tories, and the Liberals of the past. Liberals have by and large believed in a significant, nation-building, and equity-maintaining role for the central government, without diminishing the rights of the provinces under the Constitution.

How can Harper win votes from Francophone Quebec voters and at the same time sow seeds of dissention amongst Liberals?

Easy. He elevates the diminishing role of Ottawa - through restrictions on its spending - to a major element in his Throne Speech. He promises to enter into agreements with whichever provinces wish to do so, to limit the spending of Ottawa in areas under provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution. He offers to enter into political agreements with such provinces, which in some cases would entail handing over money to the provinces, so that the provincial government could spend it - perhaps not in the same area or for the same purpose.

What would this mean? Several things. It would limit the ability of the Ottawa government to launch nation-building or nation-enhancing schemes, such as our national health plan. Or a national standard child care program. Or a national plan to provide free education to all students who wished to go to college. Or similar plans. The bilateral agreements would limit Ottawa's entry into such plans, and leave all such decisions open to the provincial governments only.

The poorer areas of Canada would suffer the most. National plans allow a redistribution of national wealth into such national-standard ventures, so that the poorer regions benefit. Not having Ottawa enter into any such national plans would mean there would be no benefits for the poorer regions. They would be left on their own, to cope with their problems.

Finally, such a Harper policy would force Dion to decide where he comes down on the role of the federal government in nation-building or nation-sustaining ventures, which cross into areas which primarily (but not, constitutionally, exclusively) are areas allotted to the provincial governments under our Constitution. Will Dion side with Harper and adopt a province-rights view, restricting the federal government from such ventures in the future?

If Dion did that, he would open up a fissure between his more restricted view of the role of the federal government in governing Canada, the view of most Liberals, and indeed, most Canadians.

Let us hope that the Liberal Party brainstrust have anticipated such a move by Harper, and have prepared a response by the Liberal Party which accords with the liberal views of most Liberals.

Otherwise, we - and the voters - will see a leaden, flat-footed, surprised and awkward response from the LPC on the day of the Throne Speech.

Blogs are full of advice for Dion and the Liberals regarding the response to the Throne Speech. Harper has sensed blood in the water, and has thrown down a Harperistic gauntlet: vote against my speech, and I call an election. Vote for my speech, and you must vote for all the bits of legislation I intend tabling in months to come ...

Some bloggers - and some Liberals - seem to be afraid. Harper has bullied them so much, out thought them so often, out argued them so many times, that they are cowed. They fear him, have accepted his own self-definition as the mighty man of the moment, and are marching to his tune with Pavlovian precision.

The net effect?

Dion and the Liberals are coming across as wimps.

Afraid of Harper.

Afraid of the Bloc.

Afraid of their own shadows.

Harper and his new Tories succeeded in defining Dion as indecisive and ineffective. Dion and the Liberals aided him by responding ineffectually to the many attacks.

Now Harper and his party are defining Dion and the Liberals as fearful, afraid, timorous.

And it is working.

The Cat says it is time to learn from past mistakes.

Confront the bully, on each and every occasion.

Including an early election if the Throne Speech does not meet Liberal values.

Let's face it: we were badly beaten in all three by-elections in Quebec, and the Tories under Harper performed well. Layton's joy will be short-lived, as the NDP victory was a bit of a fluke.

The issue now is quo vadis, LPC.

I support Stephane Dion as the leader of the Liberal Party. He was elected by a majority of delegates at the convention. He is the democratically elected leader of our party, winning his position by relatively fair means, compared to the nastiness which accompanied the selection of the last leader of the Liberals.

As leader, he deserves our support. The losses in Quebec were a wake up call, both to Dion and to all Liberals. Anyone who thinks the losses were mainly caused by Dion should think again. Voters in Quebec gave the Liberal Party a drubbing, not just Dion.

So now we pick ourselves up and make some tough decisions. First of all, we have to figure out what went wrong, then we have to fix it.

The new Tories under Harper are still vulnerable. His policies are not mainstream policies; his party has a natural support level amongst Canadian voters which is below the level required for a majority party; and he and his party are especially vulnerable because they dare not openly espouse their most cherished policies, which aim at weakening the fabric of the federal system in Canada and reducing Canada to a fractious group of squabbling premiers, with no one speaking for Canada itself.

Harper is a leopard that has not changed its spots. His aims are still the ones he has written about and spoken about in the past. Only his tactics have changed: he has decided to sup with the devil of separatism in Quebec, just as his mentor Brian Mulroney so mistakenly did. You cannot cobble together a long-lasting majority party in Canada by throwing in your lot with a party such as the Bloc which aims at dismembering the Canada we know. You can get temporary victories through increased support in Quebec, but as soon as the rest of Canada realizes the pact you have made, you are doomed.

That is the danger with faces Harper and his new Tories: that Canadians will wake up to his machinations, and turn on him.

Now, about Dion. He is a good man; honest, intelligent, hard working, a true patriot, with the best interests of Canada at heart. He is a tough man, resilient and stubborn. And he stood by Canada when it was tough to do so in Quebec.

These are good virtues. We do not abandon leaders like that simply based on the results of three by-elections.

Dion also needs to understand that he has to fight fire with fire. He and the other Liberal leaders were asleep at the switch while the new Tories adopted the Republican methods of framing the debate early on by defining Dion. The Tories said repeatedly he was weak and indecisive, while Harper was strong and decisive. Dion could not or would not respond to this. That was a mistake. Many voters now see Dion as weak. That perception is a fact, and will doom his leadership unless he turns it around within the next six months.

How to go about it?

The Cat has a few suggestions for our leader:

- Fight. Do not turn the other cheek. Call Harper on his policies and his attacks on you. Remember when George Bush had all the Democrats running for cover, except one? One man stood up to him and called him on his policies. Now all Democrats are doing this. The key is to react swiftly, clearly and with vigour. Establish a quick response team and respond within hours to any attacks and misleading framing.


- Become an alternative government. Get policies out into the open, so that all voters can see what we stand for. They will not elect a Liberal government simply because they do not like Harper. Harper has managed to defuse the legitimate concern about his agenda, and voters need to vote for something, not just against Harper and his Tories.


- Be progressive. Dare to be liberal. Offer directions to voters which will make Canada great.
Support electoral reform in federal politics. Support some form of proportional representation and other policies which will empower voters at all levels in our country.

- Focus on Harper's one weakness which he dares not change: his instinctual one-man rule. Offer voters an alternative, by using a strong group of senior Liberals as part of the 'Liberal Team', offering a marked contrast to Harper's paranoid rule. Highlight the team versus Harper's distrust of his own cabinet ministers and MPs. If he does not trust his own ministers, why should voters?

It is time for Liberals to unite behind their elected leader, and whip this party into shape.

newstarrooster @ 2007-10-02T16: 34:00

this livejournal is

CLOSED

Yesterday I even said: "They should ma 'again to make new profile pictures!" My birthday is






Und auch noch in Berliiiin!

-----
+

[Girugamesh] Limited Edition CD + DVD
ALBUM (2007/12/26) ( Shuuuu's Geburtstag!)
songs PV2 10
* First Video Music Awards - Gilgamesh video recording will be back

CRAZY A GO GO: D ahaha

----

Yesterday I was up to 17 clock (!) In the school because we had to build our silly stage in the gym and then have even rehearsed.
SUDDENLY are Fabi and Peter (and a few guys from my class) in the AK and light are responsible for our stage lighting YES YES YES! I've already faced at least embarrassed, then the Monday only half as bad.
Well, in and of itself, I had a fun time with Mia, Laura, and Laura (XD), we have actually not that really helped build the stage, but just sat around so * cough *.
(I have a heavy cable from the Keller carried up, okay? This one guy from the higher classes, it has set me on the shoulder, still has a hard Caution! died laughing and said, okay, an exaggeration, as I left it covered almost!)

----

And now I am going with my mother in the city, I hope they will buy a great jacket \u0026lt; 3

----

AGAIN I'm On a LM.C trip! XDD


byebye!

EDIT: Presumably I will not go to the Gazette concert in Cologne ... : /
OK, I can not go anyway, because the shit is sold out and I still have a map XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD SHIT !!!!!!!!!!

Update

Sowas of non-sense

Ohman, I do really absolutely do not what to write?

Except ... I had today Rehearsal, I had Friday rehearsal, I will attend have rehearsal Wednesday and Friday at well.
Slowly I have the nose really full. I would much prefer to be honest if we did not perform the piece, but now I do not even care that I would embarrass myself in front of the whole school XDDD
then never again Theater. Okay, now and then it was fun and actually I have really nothing contrasting spectacles, but I am in favor of clearly untalented and relatively unimpressed.
XD Yes.

What else?
I LOOK FORWARD TO GAZETTE SO!

& i got a "K" from aishiyokohime
10 things I love that start with the letter 'K'!

01 Kibouya honpo
02 Cookies
03 Kisses: D
04th Dresses
05th Small (sweet) children
06th Cocoa
07th Kaisen Sengen Live in concert (always makes me so happy \u0026lt;3) 08th
Kola Zero (XD)
09th Kight
10th Compliments

----
Look what I painted today in physics for Mia ONLY \u0026lt;3

What is this now?

Why I do not want to believe that this man is my father could be?
NO! You do not write anything about him. It arrived perfect if you're speechless.

...

\u0026lt;3

----

was announced today sleep, what you can not really call it sleep, if you consider that I would prefer to sleep every day to 14 clock. I was woken up at half past 11, then I'm staggering in pajamas out of the room in the hall I got my two cousins against loud (and I did not even know that they were going to visit us) and when I cut my bread, I wanted to have I cut his finger ... T_T

When I then Mia was in town and try on jeans in the dressing three wanted the patch came off. When I was just in one half of it, I've noticed that I bleed, and totally on the jeans were quite a lot of spots! T____T
I've taken a fast that I wanted to buy, have the other two threw on the counter and am very discreet cough * * ran to the checkout.

XDDDDDDDD

----

I just now have all the 4.50 euros in an age-old money-box thrown from me, which I've lost the key! (The man can destroy easily when it arrives.)
Hopefully I think that now save time by consistently! ; _;

----

I do not want in Nuremberg wohnen, wieso ist diese Stadt so am Arsch der Welt??

----

Das wars mal wieder aus meinem überaus spannendem Leben.
byebye <3

Because I now so 'nen of cool school planners have,

MÜSST IHR MIR ALLE EURE GEBURTSTAGE SAGEN :D
damit ich die da eintragen kann <3

Ein Kreter sagt: "Alle Kreter sind Lügner."</i>


Gute Nacht <3

happy birthday

RR: About Single mothers and children

this weekend with me to visit. Where the visit is a very inaccurate term. Since I their Hang my order (or the lack thereof) know to criticize, I have extra cleaned the whole Friday the apartment and also on Saturday - to do instead of the house rules, as it would be really important - nor the last fine dust particles hunted and banished without pity. I give each individual adult "Child" with obsessive-Gluck way parents the good advice: IT SAVES YOU!! Sit down with the PC rather somewhere in the corner and chat and surf to your heart's desire, or read a book. Ever since Saturday at 11 clock to Sunday 12:30 - guess what we did? do my laundry, vacuuming, dusting, making the kitchen clean again, hang all sorts of things, new bed-based and I do not want to know what she has done everything behind my back when I was busy with the house rules. My favorite comment was when I gave her a demonstration of the figures on the shelf and dropped it first with ooohs and Aaaah had about how pretty it looks, and five minutes later she says "But it would look better if it here and there and everything would be different anyway!" Excuse me, I've previously tried, did not you just been said, you'll find it pretty, so what about? "But as soon as I see it, I would like to change it easy!" What? Is it my place or yours? Or is there even with the parents, despite age-phase, in which they view the decisions of their child just as wrong because it is its own decisions just now?

I've always been a ambivalent relationship to the order. I like really clean and tidy like. I do not like sparkling clean - only an apartment with some wild stuff lying around, this feeling is inhabited. It is used. It is needed. It is a place where one must hold up not the externals. But as soon as I get close to a cloth, I hear the voice in the subconscious of my mother and then I just turn on stubborn. Either I'm doing something to my terms, if and when I want - or not. Unfortunately, it works in real life rather poor. In any event - for me it's definitely a very long trailing terrible twos. When I unfortunately have no chance to rise above it ever since I am an only child, and also one that was brought up by her own very long, and so pour the obsession of my mother's only me. And it does not matter that I moved out for 10 years from the parental home, because I really like and leave it to do anything with me because it is easier a fight alone against the whole of Mordor to win as my mother about to cancel convince to leave their hands off my clothes, without 1) burst into tears, 2) VERY easy to use inappropriate abuse and to cut down on the table, and 3) all contact with her to change my name and a temporary injunction on personal protection to . Apply I love them. But to be honest - our mothers are the reason that we age so quickly.

RR: Summer is almost over ...

summer is almost over, as can be easily read from the calendar. Yesterday I heard the first people who talked about the fact that Christmas is soon (? Hää calendar by which you live for: confused:) Well, in the choir we have a few years ago about this time around even with the first Christmas Sheet Music had started today, the maestro is so that we make two trips a year because the Christmas concerts ever come too short.

So in retrospect: My summer was cool even if what I was expecting has not occurred, but when it will occur even ever.? only in this way on the edge ... However - my summer was definitely cool. Cambridge was so amazing I'm really not, that there may be an increase of it. My God, how long has it been since I've durchgesungen with such great people love the night? I do such a great normal happy family with great sound and wise normal happy children have seen? Not only constantly Kaputtos from work. I hope Em is looking forward for a long time in my drawing. Since it also has identified not so much that I've forgotten my art folder. About Slovenia

I've had so much stress before the trip that it could only be better. My friends are not easy, but so tense that I'm going on holiday was new to me. Well, it was in effect only half as bad and it was really relaxing, I did one evening when I rebelled again, even what actually made of creative work. Must extend a holiday. And I also - wait for it - even gotten a little tan, just enough to notice it:-D But of course I am always a real paleface.

sorry is just that I have to say lately more and more how much I am Abi-the friends of my time already outgrown. Am I condemned every five to eight years to expand my circle of life and to see that I have developed over the interests and beliefs once? Especially where I so new people have problems with it get close to me to make real contacts? And you throw away his friends simply because you suddenly hardly common interests - which has a value to such a friendship? There is a band through thick and thin, and shared interests are only one aspect of it. to terminate one reason the friendship is only when I notice that my friends have become people I would never suffer, no matter how much I continue to develop myself, namely, bossy unteachable strunz stupid bitch, make it a habit to other people advantage to lie and cheat and not even before their oh-so-good friends stop off. But there is now a third or fourth generation in my friendship (and I mean certainly not very old age - I've never had a problem with it, much younger or much older to accept people as long as they have the same enthusiasm and the same light in their eyes for our common interests.

But when I got back from Slovenia, was in my mailbox a bad letter from the court and my mood was so corrupt that I have almost forgotten that there was the rehearsal weekend with the Middle Earth choir too. I 'm very happy that I had remembered in time (and especially that my back pain have finally subsided long enough for packing suitcases).

There are many things you could say about Lord of the Rings and many of my many new interests I am indebted to the film, but I never thought that I would ever say - I have to thank for this film that I am the very first experience once with a group of total strangers, the most relaxed and happiest weekend of my life would be. I know myself and I have collected enough of experience as a newbie to know that you as a newbie ALWAYS approach is difficult in an already consolidated group, ALWAYS first is a not necessarily short time an outsider and the insider-jokes do not understand and happiness can talk when they arise in a weekend full of women, not least two new blood feuds. ALWAYS? No. I tried to watch what I say and what I do. But in the end I needed so very little care. I have never once felt ostracized. I have made new friends (and men who can use the moment I really good. I feel like I'm currently stuck on a treadmill, there are always the same stories that are chewed thirty times. Man, my friends will, but coming of age! At 26 life is not all guys and the question he has dredged it or not There are so many other things in life!)

Well, now the reality me again. What to do, what to do? I just hope very much that I have finally implemented sometime soon my corrections in the first chapter of "two houses" and ready to type in the second chapter, so that I can make at least publicly. It is about time that I saw the first results of my brain turns somewhere publish both my drawings and my scribblings. The things gathering dust for long enough in any private folders and docs, my wallflower attitude in this respect is not really appropriate. They are mature enough for initial critiques.

I am definitely in favour of the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system for Ontario, and would love to see it implemented in every province and for federal elections as well.

The proposed MMP system is substantially more democratic than the antiquated first past the post system we currently have.

The citizens of Ontario considered the existing system and opted for the MMP, and for good reason.

The MMP combines, in an elegant manner, representation of geographic units, as well as specific individuals.

The MMP will give 'voteless' citizens a vote, unlike the current system, which has resulted in massive majorities for minority parties. This system debases the value of votes, as shown by the totally distorted results in Alberta.

Parliaments elected using the MMP system will far better reflect the true intentions of the voters, with a much wider spectrum of views gaining representation.

The fact that the MMP system proposed does not lay out rules for the names on the individual list being chosen is not a negative at all. In fact, it allows individual parties to decide on their own criteria, and voters will be better served by this happening. If you feel that the Liberals are not doing enough to ensure that women are represented in Parliament, and their list continues this trend, but the Tories, for example, are, you can cast your vote accordingly. Only those who fear the power of the ordinary voter should be running scared of this wonderful grassroots democratic option.

The opponents of the MMP have to date failed dismally to provide substantive reasons for not supporting the system. You cannot have it both ways: Ontario has a chance to strike a blow for a better democracy; the option of staying with the current first past the post system is a far worse result.

So the Cat calls on all true liberals to vote and work to support the passage of the PPM system in Ontario. Let's not fear the advance of democracy; let us rather step into the vanguard, and help it along!

European political elites in the EU countries are showing a willingness to deceive their voters, which, by any measure, is stunningly anti-democratic. Showing the same wisdom which the royal families did in earlier centuries, before revolts toppled them from power and parted some from their heads, political leaders in many countries are on record as recommending policies of overt deceit, designed to achieve through the backdoor what they could not achieve through the front door.

And the British government under George Brown seems intent to collude with these elites, by denying Britons the right to vote on the changes proposed for the EU.

The background to the issue is summarized very well in http://www.openeurope.org.uk/
There is also very good commentary by an astute blogger at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

What is the issue? Simply this: the proposed EU constitutional treaty perished when voters in France and the Netherlands voted No in referenda.

The political elite refused to accept the verdict of the citizens of those two countries, and set out on a deliberate course to deceive their citizens by avoiding any referendum, and by using techniques which would make Machiavelli shake his head with admiration. This collective exercise in defrauding the public would, if it was about a commercial matter, and took place in the USA, probably land the politicians in court on charges under the Racketeering Act.

What is now being attempted? A new European Union Treaty, which is essentially the same as the Constitutional Treaty which was defeated.

Why are the politicians trying to sneak the same treaty back in, without leveling with their citizens? Probably because of their contempt for the common voters in their countries.

A few quotations will illustrate the depth of this contempt"

"Professor Steve Peers, EU law specialist, summarises the situation: “The different structure of the Reform Treaty (ie amendments to the current EC and EU Treaties) as compared to the Constitutional Treaty means that the two treaties will look quite different. However, the content, as proposed in the draft mandate is largely the same.”"

"These mechanisms would mean that the new Constitutional Treaty could be incrementally changed. In comparison the process under the current treaties has meant that changes in the Single European Act, and the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties have been ‘package deals’, introducing many changes at once, which attracted public interest and sparked debate. The mechanisms set out in the Constitution which would allow it to be gradually altered would be likely to reduce the level of scrutiny of future changes – in theory its adoption could be the last opportunity to call for a referendum."

“The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, Telegraph, 29 June 2007)

“Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.” (Vaclav Klaus, Czech President, Guardian, 13 June 2007)


“There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.” (Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister, TV-Nytt, 23 June 2007)

“The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.” (Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish PM, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007)

“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.” (Margot Wallstrom, EU Commissioner, Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007)

“The constitutional treaty has been abandoned.” (David Miliband, Foreign Secretary, Hansard, 3 July 2007) - Huh?

"Giscard d’Estaing has also argued that: “It is not France that has said no. It is 55
percent of the French people.” (FT, 23 May 2006)"

"Even before the referendums Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said: “If it's a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it's a No we will say ‘we continue.” (Telegraph, 26 May 2005) As Juncker previously noted, this is the way the EU has worked in the past. He said: “we decide on something, we leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” (Economist, 24 September 2004)"

"For example, a leaked letter from Angela Merkel to other EU leaders proposed that: “The consolidated approach of part one of the constitutional treaty is preserved with the necessary presentational changes.” She proposed “To use different terminology without changing the legal substance” and to “Replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross reference having the same legal value.” Another letter from Merkel summarising their recent discussions noted that: “A certain number of Member States underlined the importance of avoiding the impression which might be given by the symbolism and the title 'Constitution' that the nature of the Union is undergoing radical change.”"

"Giuliano Amato, the Italian Interior Minister and Vice-Chairman of the European Convention which drafted the Constitution, has argued that EU leaders should “change the name, but not the substance” of the EU Constitution in the new text. He joked that “the good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it!” (Speech at the London School of Economics, 21 February 2007)"

"“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.” 34 “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.” 35 "What was [already] difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained… Why not have a single text? The only reason is that this would look too much like the constitutional treaty. Making cosmetic changes would make the text more easy to swallow." – Giscard d’Estaing, Author of the European Constitution"


"“Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?” – Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg"

So, there appears to be a concerted effort to make significant changes in the powers of the EU, impacting member states in important ways, in a manner which is deliberately chosen so as to avoid any recourse to input from the citizens....

These politicians make George Bush's attacks on America's Constitution look like child's play.

The Cat is of the view that there is no way that George Brown can sign this treaty without running the risk of losing substantial votes in the next election. Why? Because avoiding discussing the issues, and obtaining input from the voters, is dishonest, and British voters will punish any Prime Minister who tries to deceive them very harshly.

The next few months should be very interesting.

began Pötterdammerung ...

I fell in love with the expression Pötterdämmerung over at the Restricted Section's forum the first time I read it. It describes July 2007 just perfectly. Now, mind you, I still haven't seen the movie, but only because I have to organise several birthday parties at once - for my family, my friends and my collegues. And it really have to be three different thingies. Oh well, let's quiz again before the Doom starts.

I like Hagrid. And I am perfectly satisfied to be just Hagrid. He sounds like a really likeable person and he has some deep inner warmth and loyalty (*sigh* even if the person he is loyal to is not really the best). At least I am not some stupid assuming haphazard child after whom the book is named *hinthint*


Find out your Harry Potter personality at LiquidGeneration!

It should be very clear by now that Harper has suckered the two premiers over the equalization formula. Harper is probably technically right when he says the agreement was not breached. The premiers are being offered two choices: the 'new deal' from the 'new' Tories, which has a cap, or stick with the old deal.

However, it is also clear that anyone dealing with this Prime Minister needs to pay very careful attention to what he says, and what he does not say. Harper is becoming rather famous (should that be 'notorious'?) for being very precise with words. If you want to understand this man, you have to understand what he is NOT saying as much as what he is saying. Harper believes that if he did not say exactly the thing you think he said, then he has not mislead you. If you somehow get swept up by the tone, or the excitement of the moment, of headlines which overstate what he says, tough. He won't correct your incorrect assumptions; after all, did HE say it? If not, game over.

What this means for every politician (lissen up, Jack Layton, lissen up, the Bloc, lissen up, every Premier, lissen up, EU governments, lissen up, Canadian voters) is that if you wish to deal with the Prime Minister of these 'new' Tories, you had better bring your lawyer to each meeting, get it in writing, and be ready to sue him if be does indeed breach it.

You have been warned.

This is not good news for the Liberal Party. In her column on June 12, headed 'Sputtering Conservative machine needs a summer tune-up', Barbara Yaffe has this to say about the Liberal Party:

"And its main opposition, the Liberals, have installed a leader in Stephane Dion who so far has failed to impress. Moreover, the party has not advanced a coherent policy platform to lure voters from the government."

The Cat agrees with her comment on the lack of a coherent policy.

At a time when the Harper 'new' government has run out of new ideas he is willing to table with the voters, when Harper is showing an arrogant tone-deafness to people's concerns, when the Tories are relying on sound and sight bytes instead of policies, when Harper is childishly asking the premier of a province to 'take it outside', when the Tories have tried sleight of hand instead of honesty with regards to the environmental concerns of Canadians and the world, and when the Liberals have had six months to work out the kinks of a new leadership team, the comments of Yaffe and others on the lack of a persuasive program of policies for voters to give serious consideration, are serious, and warrant examination and action.

How about it, Liberal leaders? Time to start leading?

The Cat thinks so.

Pinch me. Our prime minister is wandering around Europe, intent on trashing the Kyoto Protocol at the request of Bush, and he claims that many of the major leaders in Europe are in agreement with him?

His attempt to distort reality is embarrassing for Canadians. There was a time when Canadian Prime Ministers had some influence in the corridors of power, arising from the decency of the country. Harper seems bent on trying to change that.

How on earth can this man think that he can deceive people into believing for one moment that his dismal, Luddite-like climate change policies deserve to be viewed by Europe as an example of where they should go?

Get real, Prime Minister. The Europeans have addressed the science, have concluded that the earth is indeed in danger, have decided that steps have to be taken to reduce emissions, including mandatory caps on emissions and a massive rollback of pollution, using 1990 as the baseline.

Harper's sorry sham policy does not in the least stand up against the Kyoto policy of the EU.

Please stop embarrassing Canadians, Mr. Prime Minister. Just keep quiet and come home.

For a man who prides himself on being the smartest man in the room, Stephen Harper is behaving in an puzzling manner. We agree that it relatively easy to pull the wool over the eyes of his extreme rightwing element, as he did with the abortion sleight of hand. However, we have news for the new Tories: the voter is pretty smart, and can smell phoniness a mile away.

So don't expect that the voters in Ontario will agree with your nonsensical and amateurish proposal to update the representation of voters in Parliament, by shortchanging Ontario through giving them totally inadequate new MPs, and then expecting them to be satisfied because 'it's a step in the right direction.'

Do you really expect Canadians to swallow your foolishness? Do you really expect us not to notice the badly-disguised contempt with which you view us?

Take climate change. Your new program is total rot, from beginning to end. Worse, it is unusually deceptive, even for a conservative government in this day and age. Do you really think we cannot read between the lines? Do you really think you can do an end-run around us by using a few sound bites and some tacky framing?

Think again, Mr Prime Minister.

Think again, new Tories.

We have your number. Especially your plan to back Bush in his attempt to destroy Kyoto and replace it with mush.

Canadians support the Kyoto Accord.
They do not support Harper's clumsy attempt to subvert it and replace it with hogwash.

Random rant: Ironing aid:-D

It is waaay too warm here and I have to iron my clothes tonight. Why ever did I wait three months to try out my new electronical washing DDD Disaster Device of Doom named washing machine I'll never understand (oh wait, that would be cause you're a LAZY BITCH!!!)

So while moping I try to get my spirits higher (without the chemical aid) with some ***TA-DA-DA-DAM!!!*** - quizzes. :-D

You know, that would explain why I never feel comfortable with other people. I'm not even always comfortable inside my own head, daydreaming. I am a failure! An error! Just kill me now. (And it doesn't raise the chances of my clothes getting ironed. More like the chances of the ice-cream getting eaten).



Tried out my chatnick/forumnick. This one sounds better. Not really. A giraffe? Me? He he, more like an elephant. (This reminds me of a Billy Boyd youtube-video, where he tells something about an expression "shagagiraffe". - What a dirty mind you have, hellweiss, but on the other side, it looks good with your laundry and the Realm of Chaos you call your home). Favourite foods: Nuts? Ok, crazy people I like. Berries? If you relate it to fruits, so okay, my interests list clearly shows that I LOVE slash. English teachers? Bah! Hated nearly all of my English teachers in all the schools.

Okay, another one.



Just better and better. Even as a superhero I am a zero. Don't have anything against the nerds, as I said, I like mixed nuts of all kinds, but what a bloody stupid kind of superhero is this? Though, my mood swings could kill anyone, I'll give you this. Perhaps the other nick will be more lucky?



:-D Just look at me now, crying deviously and stabbing a frozen coprse of Walt Disney with a cheese cutter. :-D No more Cinderella for you, guys, sooooo NOT sorry, **insert evil laugh here** Could be something from a bad horror movie. A really bad.

And the last one:



Just this: IIIIIeeeek!



Oha! Well, a callboy (or callgirl) certainly is an option. Likely the last option, but hey, if I ever become this desperate... Okay, if the callboy in question would look like Viggo Mortensen oder Karl Urban, I might be more amenable to the idea, but then again if I would want them only for their looks I could just make myself comfortable with a cutout figure of them - would be less expensive too. No, I certainly could never take an intense enough interest in a person to want to have sex with them and to be so completely uninterestend in their thoughts. Even if I were paying them.

Oh, yeah, this version makes me smile:


note that there is not a mention of the object of 'no kidding':-D Could be everything. Even the stamps collection. :-D