Pat Martin to Twitterverse: "Fuck You"

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Umm, check your math pal.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

There's room for thirty-one characters-or at least seven more "fucks"-and they'd be even MORE effective if they were randomly inserted in the midst of the existing text.

Like this, for example:

"Harper didn't fuckthrow us any fuckcrumb this fuckmonth. What's with this Hitlerfuckite Jackboot fuckshit? Fascist fucking fuckthugs!"

That's prime ministerial material if ever I heard it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I changed "fucks" to "characters".  Does it fit as amended?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Pat Martin comes from the UBCJ.  I was a union brother until the BC Carpenters broke away from the UBCJ.  As for union brothers I always preferred the BC Carpenter's Bill Zander's politics to Pat Martin's. I kept my union card until I retired although the last time I worked the tools was in '92.  I have always thought Pat was a right wing jerk.  Just because he tweets like a construction worker doesn't give me any cause to change my view of him.  On occasion I talk and write like a construction worker myself.  Its a cultural thing.  

Laughing

Fidel

Northern Shoveler wrote:
  I have always thought Pat was a right wing jerk.

Jeez, in that case you musta thought Canada was a fascist dictatorship under the Liberals from 1993 t0 2005?

 

genstrike

Boom Boom wrote:

Oh for heaven's sake. No One is being asked to overlook Martin's history of right wing conservatism, but when he gets it right, as in this Twitter episode and in his long fight against asbestos, I have no hesitation to give credit when credit is due.

Sorry, when I made that comment I had a lot of things on my mind beyond just rabble discussions.  Some people who I have talked to over the past few days who have previously been highly critical of Pat Martin seemed to have been going on about how awesome they think Pat Martin is in general, and minimizing serious, substantive issues (such as his support for Israeli apartheid, or his notion that socialism needs to be cut out of the NDP) in favour of "Pat Martin is awesome because he said fuck on twitter"

Okay, it might have been cool and refreshing to see a politician show some emotion and be a little agressive and not apologize for it, and a nice change of pace from the nomally dry, sanitized messaging that comes out of media professionals.  But I think it's important to have a reality check before issuing blanket praises of someone for something this inconsequential.

After all, I'm sure anyone who said on babble about a similarly named politician "Paul Martin is awesome because he supports the Occupy movement" would get straightened out rather quickly!

Fidel

That's alright, we've become used to rabid anti-NDP rhetoric. 

And so now that the federal NDP is no longer a fourth or even third party in Ottawa, the NDP's loyal "fan" base should demand pay raises as former fourth rate critics of the party bumped up to second place. That has to be worth something.

Slumberjack

Must everything be viewed through the lense of capital with the NDP?

Slumberjack

And anyway, does Pat Martin even know what jackboot shit looks like?  I mean, this is a week where the streets have witnessed the bloody cracked heads of young students and the pepper sprayed gasps of the elderly alike.  Referring to the goings on at those tea and crumpet sessions on Parliament hill as jackboot shit only confirms straight out of the horse's mouth how far detached from reality Pat Martin is.

Gaian

laine lowe wrote:

I've often been the first to give Pat Martin a hard time (he was my MP for some 10 years), but I stand fully behind him. What I absolutely HATE about the media coverage is that not one report even dared delve into what in the budget pissed him off. Martin is far from a loose cannon so for him to be this pissed off, that budget must stink to high heaven. I wished that would get covered. (Seriously, it must be really bad for his to lose his cool.)

For a while there (post #4) this thread looked to be developing relevancy, possibly a discussion meaningful to the Great...Mainstreet, people with jobs. The media person, laine lowe put a finger right on the questions that should be given attention: what is there in that critical budget that demands scrutiny, and look at the dismissive media, not ready to anger Harper and his henchmen.

Enter egos, ideology and potty humour. Wow!

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

 Referring to the goings on at those tea and crumpet sessions on Parliament hill as jackboot shit only confirms straight out of the horse's mouth how far detached from reality Pat Martin is.

That's probably the most relevant assessment of this tempest in a teapot, which the MSM and some discouraged leftists are trying to paint as a great blow against tyranny.

laine lowe wrote:
Martin is far from a loose cannon so for him to be this pissed off, that budget must stink to high heaven.

Ok - but since Pat's twitter privileges are intact, has he calmed down enough to tell us what's so bad in the budget and how people should get organized to fight it?

 

Gaian

quote: "Ok - but since Pat's twitter privileges are intact, has he calmed down enough to tell us what's so bad in the budget and how people should get organized to fight it?"

Can't happen on Twitter. Where does he explain ?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Gaian wrote:

 Can't happen on Twitter. Where does he explain ?

Twitter is either for extremely gifted haiku writers or idiots who don't want to engage in substantive debate.  The answer to your question is Pat Martin's website.  That would be a place where he could have a serious debate about the budget's failings.  Instead he has a piece about how the NDP should merge with the Liberals.

Pat Martin has chosen to discuss serious economic policy issues on Twitter without any in depth writing on his home page.  Cheap politics is all that I see.

http://www.patmartin.ca/

KenS

The Budget closure business is "just" the last straw. You all are overthinking to bring in what Pat Martin does not say economics.

Every MP expests at a minimum that the public will hear some debate.

Blowing at the last straw is not nothing.

Its only a failed tempest in your preferred teapots.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Fidel wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:
  I have always thought Pat was a right wing jerk.

Jeez, in that case you musta thought Canada was a fascist dictatorship under the Liberals from 1993 t0 2005?

I am not sure whether that is a logical conclusion.  It means I despised those Liberal govenrments and I always felt Martin would have fit nicely into that party. But since he is from Manitoba and the UBCJ he joined the "Manitoban Natural Ruling Party" not the Liberals aho are the natural governing party in other parts of the country. 

In unions there are also left wing and right wing factions and Pat Martin in the UBCJ has always been aligned with the US dominated International led by McCarron.  In BC the internationals top down anti-democratic attitude led to the BC Carpenters breaking away from the UBCJ.  I think the UBCJ website says it all about McCarron as they brag about his business crecentials.  

Pat Martin is a right wing jerk both as an MP and a UBCJ trade unionist.

Quote:

In politics, he has sought to expand the union’s outreach to the leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

His foresight, vision, and leadership style have led industry leaders and national publications such as Business Week to refer to McCarron as a “new breed of labor leader.” 

http://www.carpenters.org/Leadership_top_nav/Leadership_McCarron.aspx

Quote:

The answer may be found in the authoritarian leadership of the 550,000-member UBCJ’s General President Douglas McCarron. Over the last ten years McCarron has remade the union into a conservative, anti-democratic, increasingly corporatized, willing and repressive tool of capital.

Today the UBCJ reflects the values of corporate America. In a Business Week article from the late 1990s, McCarron referred to carpenter’s union members as his “strong product.” “We have a product to deliver,” he said “and we have to do it more efficiently.” He has sought to position his “product” in the labor market by pitting worker against worker, pursuing growth at all costs, and replacing rank and file unionism with an authoritarian administrative structure.

McCarron has purged the union of dissidents, expelled political opponents and placed disloyal unions in trusteeship. He has removed rank and file carpenters from leadership positions within the union and replaced them with business agents who have never worked as carpenters. He has learned his corporate lessons well.

The changes under McCarron’s watch began almost immediately following his election to General President. In 1996 McCarron purged the entire leadership of the New York District Council. He shut down locals and merged District Councils in Michigan, California, Nevada, New England, Pennsylvania and New Jersey into new administrative arrangements under his direct control.


http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/09/11/welcome-to-the-business-friendly-...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Twitter is either for extremely gifted haiku writers or idiots who don't want to engage in substantive debate.  The answer to your question is Pat Martin's website.  That would be a place where he could have a serious debate about the budget's failings.

Does anyone visit politicians' webpages anymore? I don't think this is an accurate characterization of where things happen on the internet.

It would be easy, if Pat Martin were Kady O'Malley, to explain exactly, and in detail, what was wrong with the budget and parliamentary process. My problem with this issue is that I don't see why our choices have to be "ignore or condemn everything that comes out of Pat Martin's mouth" or "Raise up the good Pat Martin as our parliamentary messiah."

Why can't our reaction simply be: "Well said, sir. Next!"

6079_Smith_W

Catchfire wrote:

Why can't our reaction simply be: "Well said, sir. Next!"

Indeed.

I don't think there are too many of us here who agree on everything. It's a bit more productive to focus on points of agreement rather than our inevitable divisions.

Caissa

I wish we could get a quarter of that passion out of Turmel.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Why can't our reaction simply be: "Well said, sir. Next!"

Indeed. I don't think there are too many of us here who agree on everything. It's a bit more productive to focus on points of agreement rather than our inevitable divisions.

I guess one would have to agree it was well said.  Catchfire you often decry the use of fascist references so why is this stupid "jackboot" comment an example of a "well said" statement.  I would have agreed if he was referring to the treatment of the hundreds detained in Toronto in actual "jackboot" conditions during G20 but I guess those tweets were not well reported. 

6079_Smith_W

Well sorry. I don't think any of us can be all things to all people . 

I don't imagine Pat Martin is the new herald of the left, but I am glad that he didn't back down when called on his language, and deflected the criticism in the direction it properly belongs. 

In that, I think it is a good move on his part. A politician more concerned about his public image and career might have backed down. 

In a similar vein, and by way of comparison, would I be throwing gasoline on the conversation if I say I still consider Margret Atwood an ally on issues of the environment, womens' issues, and freedom of expression? And she knows how to turn a phrase, too.

Again. maybe I'm not looking at the big picture, but sometimes trying to bring in everything is the perfect strategy for getting stuck in the mud and accomplishing nothing.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

rah rah Pat Martin.

I really don't give a flying fuck about his language in those tweets.  I found the jackboot reference coming from him about an issue in parliament to be less then "well said."  Certainly just swearing can't be a reason to jump on his bandwagon and praise him for it.  

Hell if I told 6079 or Catchfire FUCK YOU in response to something they had posted I would be suspended or at least be given a disciplinary warning from one of the moderators.   

But lets go with the babble theme.  rah rah NDP

Pat Martin says the f word so fucking what? Who the fuck cares?  Maybe he should try using a different medium if he wants to make a point about the budget process.  Tweeting is just a silly fad that will go stale quicker than you can say "Classmates."  

6079_Smith_W

It's not the epithet, NS. 

It is the fact that he correctly turned a criticism into an opportunity, and refused to back down on a small point when there are a far greater issue at stake.  

The right wing have been on to that strategy for ages now. It is about time that those who oppose them start doing the same. In that, I think this is a very good step for Martin to take, and one that others would do well to follow.

 

 

Unionist

I think we can learn a lot by contrasting the courageous defiant act of Brigette DePape and the cheap risk-free theatrics of Pat Martin. I'm with DePape and against Martin. Obviously, some others will take the opposite stand.

Quote:

Brave, yes. 

Effective, no.

Quote:
...

if Layton had come out in support of her protest I think it would have been a foolish waste of his political capital and made him look like an amateur.

Quote:

I know there are a number of people here who disagree with me, but I think we are still fortunate enough to have a system which we can work to repair and change, but part of the deal is respecting it as much as one can. 

As I said, I don't think her act was wrong, but I think it is a shame (and a sign of a failure in our system) that she was driven to break the rules.

Quote:

Sorry... I know it's a noble act, and I don't want to rain too much on the sentiments in this thread that it is s fine example of nonviolent protest, but I think anytime when circumstances force someone to sacrifice themselves, or when they feel compelled to disrupt the government in order to be heard, I see it as a sign of failure on our part.

 

6079_Smith_W

You can use my name, Unionist, because I believe some (if not all) of those quotes are mine.

I don't think I said anywhere that I think she should not have done what she did, because inevitably people are going to do what they feel compelled to do in order to take a stand.

But I should point out my comments about that situation were in defense of those who voiced the opinion that it was a breach of protocol - something I happen to agree with. And there is a good reason why those who play by the rules of parliament need to be consistent about that, regardless of their feelings about the issues.

Beyond that, I am not sure at all what your point is.

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But I should point out my comments about that situation were in defense of those who voiced the opinion that it was a breach of protocol - something I happen to agree with. And there is a good reason why those who play by the rules of parliament need to be consistent about that, regardless of their feelings about the issues.

So a Page holding up a sign that says STOP HARPER is a serious breach of protocol and shows an immature understanding of our political traditions but an MP in a public forum telling a citizen FUCK YOU is a strategy to be praised for not backing down.

How about in the House?  Should Martin tell the Conservatives to fuck off and call them fascists? Is that what the NDP caucus should be doing with its time and resources?

To me this merely shows Martin is foul mouthed and doesn't back down.  I've known that for years and still don't like him so I see little reason to praise him. It was the praise from people who often urge restraint in language and rhetoric for the left wing members of the NDP that led to my posting.

Imagine if someone in the caucus tweeted about the "jackboot" Israelis in relation to the atrocity of the week committed by the IDF. 

6079_Smith_W

NS

There are rules of protocol in the house, otherwise it does not function, and a different set of rules outside of it.

In that other incident, someone who was not a member broke those rules as an act of protest. 

I'll ignore your spin, given that I made no accusation of immaturity (and in fact made no criticism whatsoever ofMs. DePape's action) . 

That aside, there isn't too much I can say about your comment. You are entitled to your opinion

Unionist

Northern Shoveler wrote:

So a Page holding up a sign that says STOP HARPER is a serious breach of protocol and shows an immature understanding of our political traditions but an MP in a public forum telling a citizen FUCK YOU is a strategy to be praised for not backing down.

How about in the House?  Should Martin tell the Conservatives to fuck off and call them fascists? Is that what the NDP caucus should be doing with its time and resources?

To me this merely shows Martin is foul mouthed and doesn't back down.  I've known that for years and still don't like him so I see little reason to praise him. It was the praise from people who often urge restraint in language and rhetoric for the left wing members of the NDP that led to my posting.

Imagine if someone in the caucus tweeted about the "jackboot" Israelis in relation to the atrocity of the week committed by the IDF. 

Precisely. Exactly.

Catchfire, are you reading this still? Do you understand why someone would not simply say, "Great stuff, Pat! Well crafted!!"? Do you know that real live working folks don't like their political representatives throwing petty potty-mouthed tantrums, especially as a declaration of their own political impotence?

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Yes, I'm reading. I allowed myself a giggle at your archive pull. I thought it was telling. Then things got aggressive again and I got turned off.

I'm just not much of a binary thinker. I loved what Brigette did. I like what Pat Martin did. I still love what Brigette is doing. Let's say that Pat Martin has a long way to go. I don't think a well-meant guffaw of affirmation means "rah rah Pat Martin" or whatever. I also don't think it warrants much defending, which could explain the direction this thread has taken.

mmphosis
laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I think the "jackboot shit" is over the top and doesn't serve the context well. I also agree that Martin should be more pro-active about his concerns with Parliament needing adequate time to review the budget and OTHER legislation.

It feels like we are powerless at this point. The opposition has been more or less muzzled. The media just produces puff pieces, regurgitating Harper Conservative speaking points. And public objections (petitions, letters, phone calls) are just ignored. But fuck you is a very visceral response that I can relate to - I'm sure I scream it at my radio or TV at least once a day.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

laine lowe wrote:

 But fuck you is a very visceral response that I can relate to - I'm sure I scream it at my radio or TV at least once a day.

Exactly, and that's why it connected with so many.

KenS

So,

an MP gets pissed off at yet more Harper excesses, like people here, and flips the bird.

People laugh and get a kick out of it, you'd think that wouldbe the end of it.

But this is Babble, so we get 'but that doesnt change anything about who he is'.   So ???

As if that wasnt enough, we get long excursis on what would have better and the politics of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.

Unionist

It's called individual desperation, an overwhelming feeling of impotence. Brigette DePape's silent act of civil disobedience was, rather, a call to action. And she doesn't support Israeli crimes or the bombing of Libya or the exclusion of Québec nationalists from taking their elected seat in the House.

Pat Martin called the perfectly legal limitation of parliamentary debate "jackboot shit". [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/brigette-depape-prime-minister... figured out[/url], at a tender age, that "Real power is in the streets. Real power is not in Parliament." And contrary to some of the old-fashioned babblers who scolded her, she continued her activism after sacrificing her job and continues it to this day.

We should not be applauding this foul-mouthed chauvinist and friend of imperialism - no more than we would applaud some neo-Nazi who stood his ground and defended his right to (name your sacred right). We should be working out ways to root out all such toxic elements from progressive parties and movements. Space in politics is limited, and we need to free some up for the Brigettes.

[edited]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, it does get excessive here, occasionally. I think I may take a break from this place because it's getting so repetitive, and I've got too much other work to do to bother with it all. See you all in the new year.

Slumberjack

We seem to have clearly underestimated Comrade Martin's appeal. I didn't think any praise was due to Sarkozy and Obama for calling Netanyahu a liar either. Speaking the truth for once from an entire retinue of accompanying falsehoods, or idiocies in Martin's case, doesn't turn someone into an ally.

KenS

Gee. I missed that, someone saying that this shows we are mistaken about Martin and he's an ally.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Continuse of closure or proroueing is "jackboot shit" regardless of whether or not it is legal, Unionist.

Yeah, Caissa, and I don't think you'll find me defending Harper much in these pages. My point was that Martin doesn't get this upset about actual violations of parliamentary rules (e.g. contempt), when it interferes with his ass-kissing on Afghanistan. It was to show the hypocrisy of Martin's schoolyard "indignation". Get my point now?

Quote:
Pat Martin is not my favourite New Democrat by along shot but in this particular case he did a good job of naming Harper's behaviour.

Would you support his getting up in the House and repeating it - and "sticking to his guns" (as some babblers have praised him for doing)?

Or how about repeating it in front of a camera, so that his caricature of how workers talk can be immortalized on Youtube?

Do you think his party's leader should publicly support his behaviour (haven't heard her do so yet)?

What about the candidates for leadership? Where do they stand?

I think Slumberjack's point was very well taken. We don't praise Sarkozy and Obama for calling Netanyahu a liar. We wonder, rather, why they continue to facilitate his crimes against humanity.

Caissa

Continued use of closure or prorogueing is "jackboot shit" regardless of whether or not it is legal, Unionist. Pat Martin is not my favourite New Democrat by a long shot but in this particular case he did a good job of naming Harper's behaviour.

Caissa

I get your point, Unionist; I just don't share your indignation.

I'd be amused if he did it in the House.

I'm not sure why Pat martin would become a caricature of a worker?

The party leader criticized him I believe. I'd rather she had remained silent.

Frankly, ot an issue leadership candidates need to take a stance on.

I praise Sarkozy and Obama for calling Netanyahu a liar. Sometimes the truth needs to be spoken however undiplomatic. Like you, I wish their actions would reflect their statement.

6079_Smith_W

Geez Unionist, why the over-the-top prose? I think the Oscar nominations were announced last week, so you missed the deadline. And if you were hoping to get in the documentary category, sorry, but think your work is more suited to historical fiction.

If you are going to drag another thread into this one and make slurs then maybe you should at least get the context correct. I said nothing against DePape's decision to protest, nor the issues she raised. My comments were directed at those who thought the NDP opposition should have rallied to her side and said she did the right thing by interrupting the throne speech. Sorry, but it would have been a stupid and amateurish move on their part.

Really, I'm not sure what your point is, because I stand by all of those quotes you pulled. I'm just a little confused as to what they have to do with the topic of this thread. 

Are you seriously trying to equate an online post (even one made from the house) with a breach of parliament? I think I'd wait to hear a speaker's ruling on that one. I don't think his initial posts were the issue (and I don't think this whole situation is even that big an issue at all - certainly not on the order of the protest that DePape made). I read in another article, he said he was out of line for telling someone to fuck off, which was the right response, IMO. 

I just like the fact that he didn't back down on his expression of frustration with the government, and that he turned it into an opportunity to reveal the level of obstruction by the Harper government that the public may not be aware of. It brings the situation into the news in a way that simply reporting on yet another motion of closure does not.

I also think the support voiced in that CBC article by other members, including a Liberal, is some validation of his comments. 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1088370--ndp-mp-pat-...  

And getting "Mr A" Tom Lukiwski to chide him on his language? If nothing else that was worth the price of admission.

And space on earth is limited? Really?

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist, I think he could get a top hat and cane and perform it with fancy dance steps and you still wouldn't like it because you don't like other things which he has done (which is fine, and which I don't think any of us is denying, contrary to claims). So why even try to set some bar that you imply would make it meet a standard you would accept? You don't accept it.

The fact is it was not a planned action; he lost his temper in an internet post. That to me is not important.What is significant is how he and others dealt with it.

And Turmel said his words were inappropriate and could be offensive to some, but that the Harper govnerment's actions were offensive to all Canadians. I can live with that assessment.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Yeah, it does get excessive here, occasionally. I think I may take a break from this place because it's getting so repetitive, and I've got too much other work to do to bother with it all. See you all in the new year.

Aww, Boom Boom, don't jet! These people just can't help themselves. Take a break if you need to, of course, but hurry back. The fledging disability forum needs you!

Slumberjack

Boom Boom wrote:
Yeah, it does get excessive here, occasionally. I think I may take a break from this place because it's getting so repetitive, and I've got too much other work to do to bother with it all. See you all in the new year.

Santa?...is that you?

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
I think Slumberjack's point was very well taken. We don't praise Sarkozy and Obama for calling Netanyahu a liar. We wonder, rather, why they continue to facilitate his crimes against humanity.

 

How many times have Sarkozy and Netanyahu used closure in their respective Parliaments in order to shut-down democratic debate?

This is a phony-baloney majority government acting as if they still have a minority. They are governing by fear. They fear the official opposition NDP, the impotent political opposition in your words, and the Harpers are acting dictatorially because they fear the opposition NDP even though the official opposition is pre-occupied by leadership campaigns. Jack died, remember? That is no one's fault. Leadership campaigns take time - there are no shortcuts when it comes to the democratic process.

So Harper is governing out of fear and by decree, even though he has his long sought-after phony-balogna majority. How many times did Diefenbaker or lyin' Brian use closure to avoid democratic debates in Parliament? 

This is a weak government still. They may be propped-up by lots of Bay Street money, but they have no leader. Harper is not clever, and Harper is not another Diefenbaker or even Brian Mulroney reduced to a two-seat majority by 1989. I think even Mulroney had more going for him by then, even though that government was hovering around 9% in the polls at times. Harper is going to have to pray for an economic miracle. And it won't be happening for this Tory government. The ideology is hopelessly broken this time.

Harper is a dictator who doesn't deserve any respect.

Unionist

Actually, Fidel, this government is using closure in an attempt to prove to their followers that majority government is more effective than minority government. That's a tough sell - because for 5 years, with the most chickenshit opposition parties in recorded history, Harper was able to do absolutely anything he wanted. So, with closure, he can prove to his Neanderthal base that it's still possible to outwit the impotent so-called opposition - only faster.

And that's why the Pat Martins of this world are reduced to swearing. They really are no good for anything else.

 

Fidel

Harper is borrowing against any good will toward the government that might exist far too early before they've even created a Mulroney-style wedge issue to save their asses in the next election. 

The NDP hasn't begun to take swipes at them, and the Harpers are already in retreat. That's a sign of weakness.

Meanwhile there are Canadians out there on the streets talking about unemployment and worrying about their jobs and pensions. Herr Harper is nowhere to be found. He's hiding from the democratic opposition and Canadian people. Again, this is a sign of weakness not strength. Harper can only lose political capital within and outside his fragile uber-majority between now and 2015 with this tack.

Harper is no Fidel Ruiz Castro. If he wants to be a strong leader, he has to get out there and have heart-to-hearts in open air talks with the people not dictating things to them like he's doing now. 

Harper is just a dictator full stop. He doesn't deserve any respect from the democratic opposition or thousands of ordinary Canadians already out on the streets and protesting what is the end result of decades' worth of political impotence in Ottawa. This is not 1988 with room for political maneuvering.

It's 2011, and the neoliberalorama is hopelessly broken and requiring real leadership to fix things. Harper is the wrong guy for that job. Harper's brain was sucked clean out of his head by right wing think tanks, the fossil fuel industry and Bay Street bond salesmen long ago. The parasites are controlling everything he says and does, and that's Harper's problem right now. He needs to find his own political will to lead not take instructions from Bay St. and the handful few money people controlling him since 2006. Central decision making in the hands of a tiny elite few is typically problematic. And unless  the Harpers are up front and honest with the people, their 24% of eligible voter support will only spiral from now to 2015. It's as if he doesn't care about his legacy - he's just in there to do a job for the oil companies and rich people in general. The party will get rid of him at some point like they did Mulroney.

Unionist

Gotta agree with everything you said there, Fidel.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Martin was even wrong in his political analysis.  This is what happens in REAL DEMOCRACIES when the banks want their way. Closure is a legal and traditional method of limiting debate that Harper is using in situations for convenience.  In places like Greece and Italy as their democracies implode from bankers demands they don't use closure.  They just fire the politicians.  

Quote:

 

Greece's new technocratic government, appointed earlier this month after political turmoil led to the resignation of the Socialist prime minister, is negotiating the details of a second international bailout, worth €130 billion ($175 billion). It includes provisions for banks and other private holders of Greek bonds to write off 50 per cent of their Greek debt holdings — potentially cutting the country's debt by €100 billion ($135 billion).

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/58312--greek-workers-to-hold-fir...

Quote:

Mr Monti took on the economy and finance portfolio himself.

Corrado Passera, CEO of the Intesa Sanpaolo banking group, was named to head the new ministry of development, infrastructure and transport.

Another key appointment was that of Antonio Catricala, head of the anti-trust authority, who was made under-secretary to the prime minister's office.

Despite reports that Mr Monti had sought to include politicians in his cabinet, there are none.

"The absence of political personalities in the government will help rather than hinder a solid base of support for the government in parliament and in the political parties because it will remove one ground for disagreement," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15751179

6079_Smith_W

@ NS #98

Well using the unelected senate to quash a bill passed by the elected house is also perfectly legal. For that matter, without resorting to Godwinisms, some of the most horrific acts in history were also perfectly legal and put in place by democratic means.

So technically Martin is Incorrect. Democracies commit all sorts of horrible acts. So many, in fact that many people (also incorrectly) refer to some of them as fascist.

I think we all resort to hyperbolae and tropes in order to get across points about how things SHOULD be. Is that a failure in political analysis, or simply contrasting ideals with reality? 

Because if we are going to hold everyone's analysis to the standard of how people act and things play out in the real world, I am afraid there are a number of intelligent and valued commentators who are far more out to lunch than Mr. Martin.

(edit)

Though reading it again, was he refering to the technical point of closure, or the relentless heavy-handed approach of the Harper government? His words in the CBC article seem to imply he is talking about the latter, and this is just one symptom of a greater malady.

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I am afraid there are a number of intelligent and valued commentators who are far more out to lunch than Mr. Martin.

I don't believe that will stand up to scrutiny.

Besides being a loudmouth reactionary, Martin is also a petty gossip and an ignoramus. That's why bottom-feeding "journalist" Tim Naumetz can't write a story without quoting Pat Martin. Like, do you remember the voting alliance between the Conservatives and the Bloc in the House last year? Neither do I. Another of Naumetz's Martin-inspired "scoops" that went nowhere.

No, I think you'll have a hard time beating Pat Martin on the "out to lunch" scale.

 

Pages

Topic locked