Bev Oda officially resigns

17 posts / 0 new

Wed, 2012-08-01 15:36

jerrym

Bev Oda officially resigned on Tuesday, July 31. The title of the article below says it all.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/01/bev-oda-will-continue-to-live-large-i...

"The 67-year-old now qualifies for a parliamentary pension of $52,183 a year, of which Oda herself has contributed only $130,000. By the time Oda reaches 80, Canadian tax payers will have spent almost $700,000 on her retirement."

Now she can buy all the $16 orange juice she wants while driving in a chauffered limousine without having to listening to complaints from the peasants.

Wed, 2012-08-01 17:25

Maysie

While I detest Oda and all Harper Conservatives, I think it's important to note that she did nothing that Conservative and Liberals haven't done for decades. She got caught, she got used as an example. I hate that there's more of a fuss over this than the "not" controversy and the cutting of funding to Kairos. Old news?

Funny how $16 orange juice is a HUGE story but MacKay's $10 BILLION fuck up is also old news.

Don't fall for the Con Hype!

P.S. I won't say my theory on why I think she in particular was chosen to be the fall-person, but I think you all can guess.

Wed, 2012-08-01 21:10

6079_Smith_W

Hey... they can choose me to fall on a nice comfy pension like that anytime.

Perhaps Harper hasn't stood behind her in the same way he has with Peter MacKay, but she certainly extended her welcome longer than, say, Maxime Bernier did.

And besides, Harper hasn't admitted the $10 Billion was an error. Just because he has some lackeys he needs to hold on to doesn't mean it wasn't time for Oda to go, or that there aren't others he drove out for no reason other than his own ego, and their being too competent.

Wed, 2012-08-01 21:43

Catchfire

And thusly did he make race, class, and gender privilege disappear with a wave of his hand...

Wed, 2012-08-01 23:20

6079_Smith_W

Nice try, but mmmm.... nah.

But there are certainly a number of dynamics at play in Harper's court, which was my point, and really, when we are talking about a bunch of sycophants and lapdogs I don't think the notion of real respect and support even comes into it.

Harper backs Mackay because he is still useful to him. Otherwise he'd get the Brewmaster Smith treatment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDov_a1vZbY

More importantly, I think the bottom line is that Oda was way past her best-before date, and to try and imply that anything else overshadowed her own fuckups, just makes me think of the difference between her case, and the treatment Helena Guergis got.

Thu, 2012-08-02 00:00

6079_Smith_W

I guess it kind of begs the question - is this the model of government we aspire to when we think of women and people outside the dominant culture taking part in the political system?

Do any of us really want or expect Harper to be nicer and more fair, and implement a more inclusive version of his vision for Canada ? I don't; I want him gone. While I feel bad for anyone who gets fucked over by him and his crew, it's too bad if they are not aware that playing with snakes often ends with getting bitten.

But really, I am far more concerned by the people who have been purged beause they opposed him, were trying to do their jobs, or were simply in the way, than members of his active inner circle.

Thu, 2012-08-02 08:53

ygtbk

Maysie wrote:

P.S. I won't say my theory on why I think she in particular was chosen to be the fall-person, but I think you all can guess.

They hate Roy Orbison impersonators, even inadvertent ones?

Thu, 2012-08-02 13:57

Catchfire

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Nice try, but mmmm.... nah.

But there are certainly a number of dynamics at play in Harper's court, which was my point, and really, when we are talking about a bunch of sycophants and lapdogs I don't think the notion of real respect and support even comes into it.

Harper backs Mackay because he is still useful to him. Otherwise he'd get the Brewmaster Smith treatment

I'm not sure why you need three posts to defend the allegation that Harper, Mackay and co. aren't racist, misogynist and classist, but whatever you do to fill your time, I guess. The obvious response would be that it's not difficult to imagine how Bev Oda wouldn't fit in with the culture of the Conservative party, even if she gave up the interests of the people she represents (and the symbolic power she offers in defence of the charge that the Cons are, well, racist, sexist and classist) for them. We've seen the Cons close ranks for Mackay (repeatedly), Vic Toews, Rob Anders, Jason Kenney, etc. etc. But not for Oda (nor Helena Guergis, who didn't even do anything wrong).

Part of your problem seems to be that you think this has something to do with intention -- that Harper is some big strategist, deliberately planning how to alienate and ostracize non-white dudes. The thing about structural inequality is that -- and I want you to write this down -- it has nothing to do with intention. Other than the fact that white dudes (like anyone else) want to succeed, it comes down to the architecture already in place which privileges white dudes who come from good families and went to good schools.

In a New York subway station, there is one step that is a fraction of an inch shorter than the rest. Everyone trips on it. If you look at people going up the stairs, you might think that those who trip were unlucky, maybe even clumsy. You wouldn't think that those who avoid tripping --or those who use completely different subway stations with properly built steps -- wished anything ill on those who do, or even encouraged them to fall. But when you look at this video, you see that the whole system is designed to maximize the probability that the people who need to use those stairs will trip. And then they feel forced to make it look like -- whatever -- they didn't fall, they meant to fall, they were just running, it's no big deal. But the whole point is that they were always going to (most likely) fail.

Thu, 2012-08-02 15:02

6079_Smith_W

Did I say that I didn't thiink they were sexist or racist or classist, CF?

No, but in response to my point that I think Oda actually deserved to go for undue interference in her ministry, that she got far better treatment than some (oh.... Chuck Cadman also springs to mind, and probably one or two more if we really want to get into that), and that I am glad she is going, I get an accusation that I am denying the existence of racism and sexism, and that it is my problem.

Thanks for the 101, but I think I have had it read at me a few times already.

Thu, 2012-08-02 15:23

#10

Catchfire

We're not talking about who "deserved" to go. We're talking about who went. Bev Oda did. Mackay, etc. didn't. You argued that had nothing to do with sexism, classism or racism. For some reason. No one asked you to, you volunteered. I guess you think that doesn't seem strange.

Thu, 2012-08-02 15:54

#11

6079_Smith_W

Um no.

How could I possibly say it had nothing to do with it? And in fact, I did not. As you say yourself, discrimination is so subtle that it influences absolutely everything we do.

That doesn't change the fact that Oda did quite enough by herself to be shown the door, and when I hear implications that she is a victim I think of the people in government who who truly did not do anything to deserve being shut out or driven out.

Is that too much of a stretch, or should we start a petition asking her to hold off on that lavish retirement and grace us with her effective stewardship just a little longer?

Thu, 2012-08-02 16:11

#12

Catchfire

I keep trying, but I can't read your intervention at post #2 in any other way except as a dismissal of Maysie's very cautious point, which began by roundly condemning the Cons in general, that Oda was likely dismissed where others were not because she lacked a certain privilege they posessed. You respond by implying that was not the case, that she was tossed on (lack of) merit alone. If indeed that was not your intention, I can't for the life of me think why you would make such points in the first place.

If people keep repeating what you call "101" points, perhaps it's time to ask yourself what you're not getting.

Thu, 2012-08-02 16:52

#13

6079_Smith_W

I did say that Harper has so far stood by Peter Mackay, when he has not with Bev Oda. I think I said that my very first post. It's not surprising for a number of reasons, including that that 10 billion is still government policy.

And are there other people in his caucus who are more valuable to Harper than her? Obviously.

Does my saying that I think it is good that she is gone, that there are likely many factors that went into her departure, and that she hasn't gotten that bad a send off really warrant an accusation that I am denying the existence of racism and sexism? Is the mere suggestion of nuance that much of a third rail?

Sorry if you think so, but it is my opinion, and whether you think there is something I do not get, you are not my teacher.

Thu, 2012-08-02 17:02

#14

Catchfire

I think all the nuance that was required was introduced in post 2. I don't see any nuance in the following posts by you. I see an attempt to minimize nuance. As it happened, someone asked babblers to apply an anti-racist, anti-patriarchal and class-conscious lens to the analysis of this story and you rejected it. And then you called that rejection nuance.

And don't worry if you're not registered in my class. I'm not a stickler for rules.

Thu, 2012-08-02 17:25

#15

6079_Smith_W

I didn't reject any of those things, CF, contrary to the accusation I got.

I just think there are many things at play here, and the person in question still has far more power and status, and has done far more damage than any of us.

And as an aside, I think in the public eye it really did come down to the orange juice. Popular culture IS that superficial, no matter how much we try to tell people what they should be paying attention to.

Sat, 2012-09-08 20:48

#16

Unionist

This is supposed to be worse than John Baird heightening the climate for war:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bev-oda-charged-taxpayers-2... Oda charged taxpayers $250 (U.S.) for smoking penalty[/url]

Sun, 2013-09-08 22:30

#17

Unionist

[size=12] *bump* [/size]