and I have more for you.

National Post columnist Don Martin received one of these 200-page 'Playbook' binders. It's obviously a leak, but not a bureaucratic/civil service one this time. It could only have been 'leaked' by someone on the political side - i.e. very likely a CPC staffer, an MP or  ministerial assistant or someone of that nature.

That would be very telling about where the CPC is right now as this leak would indicate that even folks within the CPC, or employed by them, are not happy with the tactics.

They appear to be similar tactics to those the US Republicans employed in committees when they had bopth the Senate and House majorities.

So, Don Martin's column from yesterday.

Among the more heavy-handed recommendations in the document:

• That the Conservative party helps pick committee witnesses. The chairman "should ensure that witnesses suggested by the Conservative Party of Canada are favourable to the government and ministry," the document warns.

• The chairmen should also seek to "include witnesses from Conservative ridings across Canada" and make sure their local MPs take the place of a member at the committee when a constituent appears, to show they listen and care.

• The chairmen should "meet with witnesses so as to review testimony and assist in question preparation."

• Procedural notes tell the chairmen to always recognize a Conservative member just before a motion is put to a vote "and let them speak as long as they wish" - a maneuver used to kickstart a filibuster as a stall tactic.

• Chairmen are told to notify all affected ministries prior to a motion being voted upon. "Communicate concerns with the Prime Minister's Office, House Leader or Whip," the document insists. "Try to anticipate the response of the press and how party could be portrayed."

• The guide says a "disruptive" committee should be adjourned by the chairman on short notice. "Such authority is solely in the discretion of the chair. No debate, no appeal possible." By failing to appoint the vice chair to run the meeting, the adjournment will last until the chair is ready to reconvene the committee.

also

It reveals that Conservative MPs were briefed on the testimony of Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson in advance of the meeting. The chairman was told to rule any motion out of order if it touched on Mr. Doan's lawsuit against Liberal MP Denis Coderre and warned all Tory MPs to "vote against the matter or at least abstain from the vote. Alternatively Conservative members could consider refusing to deal with the matter and simply leave the room so as not be party to this charade."

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

by Frank Frink on 05/18/2007 05:30:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]

And the conserves still are polling even with the libs?

Sheeeesh. Wonder if those books come with a set of wellies...They look upon the Canadian public as sheep after all.

Ya, that was a filthy remark. Sue me.

I support the separation of Church and Hate....

by Pale on 05/18/2007 06:47:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Your questions are huge and I could never hope to give adequate answers. I have some time on my hands right now so I will try a little stream of thought writing and see where it goes.

I cling to the aspects of the system that can work, knowing all along that every moral and every value that the very best part of humanity can achieve is being confounded, perverted and manipulated at every turn.

I have some friends (I call them "Pie in the Sky Spiritualists") who profess to believe that humanity as a whole has made incredible progress towards some form of higher being or consciousness. While I do share some of these views,  I no longer try to dissuade them of the more naive and, to my way of thinking, rather foolishly Utopian aspects of this beautiful vision. They are happy seeing life this way and it is not always for me to make them less happy by forcing them to see reality another way.

I simply agree with them that progress on "Man's Inhumanity to Man" is being made on some fronts and only occasionally point out that, for example, the best earliest advances in medicine came about on the battlefield, or that the combination of population growth and war technology means the sheer amount of suffering caused by the actions of humanity has likely increased multifold from the days of the Spanish Inquisition or the Roman Empire or any other historical dark age you care to name. ( I have no proof of the latter, just a gut feeling)

Sometimes, the only way to make any sort of sense of this world is to first accept that it makes no sense at all.

We see Morality and Altruism consistently struggle and stumble like a new born calf, and meanwhile, the power of greed and blind self interest seems to grow exponentially. Using the same systems and levers of control (such as democracy, the marketplace or a constitution) that were created for the benefit of all, the barbarians among us amass wealth and  a destructive influence beyond all balance, like parasites that can thrive on or even completely subvert an organism,  leaving nothing but pain and disillusionment  in their wake.

There is no doubt in my mind that "The Barbarians" really do exist and are everywhere among us.

I take no comfort in the fact that the "survival of the nastiest" paradigm seems to be mirrored in or from nature. I take no comfort from the fact that the people who are without remorse and conscience are simply behaving as you would expect them to.

So we bind and limit ourselves in our struggle by vowing that we will not use the same soulless tactics; that we will not become the very thing we abhor.

And in doing so, we run the danger that we may pre- determine our fate, because even the parts of the system that work, the things that we cling to, are themselves not immune from, and  are often subject to the same negative forces that causes such distress in this world.

Institutions like Elections or Parliament or Congress and documents like The Constitution or The Charter of Rights and Freedoms; magnificent achievements in and of themselves, are seen by the ruthless as simply another tool to further their self interest; to do unto the weak before the weak become the strong at their expense.

In the eyes of people like this, everything is black and white. You are either predator or prey.

Some of these people run our governments, corporations and other institutions because they are able to thrive under the cover these operations can provide.That is just a sad fact.
The nastiest animal gets the choicest meat.

Surrounding the ruthless are those strong enough to get to that table but not strong enough to lead, and many of these become frightened sycophants  and hatchet-men, again, in order to advance their own cause.

So the back-room deals get made, the sell-outs dressed up as compromises are passed, and the common folk, the powerless and the disenfranchised are screwed like always in ways we could never forsee.

You may recall in a previous discussion I wrote these words:

There will always be a great need for the agitator; for those unafraid to speak truth to power in whatever manner is necessary. Hopefully, in a civil society the agitators have no real need for extremism. Under those conditions, an incremental increase in anger and the language of anger is usually enough to get the attention of the public and those in power and so shine a light upon injustice. When it's not enough, the next step is outright civil protest. I don't like the phrase "Civil Disobedience". It sounds like the act of unruly children or a poorly trained dog and is an example, in my view, of establishment words used in a subtle but deliberate way to control.

Despite all I wrote above about politeness and decorum, there is a time when all that is useless and the people rise up and take to the streets. But even then I am mindful of the violence and the tragedy that can be unleashed. During nearly every protest, someone is hurt, someone's livelihood is destroyed, someone's life is altered forever. Maybe that is a case of sacrifice for the greater good of the many, but that is an issue that will continue to confound me. And the one's being sacrificed often don't appear to be aware of, never mind in on the whole deal.

If I had a choice I would like to think I would see the wisdom of the Gandhian form of non violent protest over the sword and the guillotine, or for that matter, looting and fire-bombing.

However, I hold the concept of agitation, civil protest and publicly displayed anger in the highest regard when used in the right way at the right time. The problem is that we all have our own understanding of when and how that might be.
I have concerns about those who will un-sheath the sword of righteous indignation and anger at what appears to be the slightest provocation or instance of disagreement. I think those cases are often ego driven and in the end do nothing to advance any cause but their own.

But so often the real thing and the ego driven thing appear identical. It is also possible that they can sometimes have the same result, so my concern then becomes a moot point.

On the flip side, I also have concerns about missing the moment and ending up as sheep through inaction and inattention, comfort and conformity.

The overall point being, I think, is that we must work to be sure that anger and it's associated behaviours are furthering the cause of a just and civil society and not actually impeding it.

Easier said than done, no doubt.

Obviously, decorum or civility  are not a final answer at all (nor will they ever be as long as we share this world with the barbarians)  and I am sure you see that I have never suggested that they are. At best they are a tool, and like any tool, only effective if you are using the right one for the job at hand. It may well be that the time for respectful objection is drawing to an end. As you say, we have tried that. As for what is in between civility and violence, I think it must be non violent civil protest in the Gandhian way as referenced above. Someone on DKos was advocating for a circle of shame wherein thousands would gather silently  round the Capitol Building in response to the collapse of Congress in the war funding issue.

A beautiful idea.

But first, I suppose, we would have to fight through the ennui and apathy, past the comfort and escapism, past our own selfishness and our own daily struggle to  look after ourselves and our loved ones.

daMule, I know you know all this already and I know my effort to respond to your post would likely make me look alternately arrogant and foolish (especially in light of Pales' brilliant two word answer "General Strike"-now that's what I'm trying to say), but I really wanted to give it a shot.  There was so much more I wanted to include, but I have no real answers anyway and it's a million degrees in my apartment so I think I need to stop now. You can tell by my opening line that I knew that nothing I could write would be adequate to the questions and it appears that I was correct in that at least.

I  will, however, close with my own "Pie in the Sky" style affirmation on life.

From my limited grasp of  physics, it would appear that everything in this reality, from solar systems to man made systems, from orbits to organisms, degenerates and decays as time goes on.

Everything, that is, except the collective human spirit of love, idealism, hope and perseverance.

If those qualities were easily vanquished, it would have happened a long time ago.

by Archer on 05/24/2007 05:34:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Only way. Shut it all down.

There are no longer any laws that seem to apply to these idjits.

We are familiar with the concept in Canada.

I support the separation of Church and Hate....

by Pale on 05/24/2007 02:55:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Carolyn Bennett, who as far as I know does not have a reputation for making wing nut comments, is clearly attempting to redraw the battle lines between the opposition and the government.

And  to redraw them somewhat closer to the truth.

The Harper government is nothing but a hollow house of cards, and the more I watch them the more I am convinced that they are not at all whay they seem.

But I do think we are starting to see it all fall apart.

The "March for Life" link and the information emerging about the results of the decimation of the court challenges programs are more examples of the crap that will soon reach critical mass.

I am confident that Canadians will not stand for this when the reality becomes clear.

by Archer on 05/12/2007 08:36:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This one clearly shows right off the top banner in both official languages with the Government logo on both.

Something is definitely not right with this picture.

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

by Frank Frink on 05/12/2007 09:10:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It is the best we've got and for all its faults it's a damn good example of the Canadian version of democracy in action. Well, maybe not this particular Harper lead  parliament. However, it's not hard to find examples of  a parliament, even and perhaps especially a minority parliament, working at the highest levels effectiveness and at the cutting edge of moral and ethical lawmaking. Of course, I refer to the Pearson minority governments from 1963 to 1968.

During that period, the Liberal minority government, with the proactive support of the Tommy Douglas lead NDP, were able to implement such ground breaking changes as a national health care policy, a new Canadian flag and the Canada Pension Plan.

I would hope that Mr. Layton and Mr. Dion keep that in the forefront of their minds.

When government undermines the institution we have a huge problem. Perhaps having a strong PMO with little actual decision making by cabinet, the caucus, parliament's many committees, and indeed, the opposition, is tempting, maybe modern, but expediency destroys effectiveness.

Very well said. The continuing trend of consolidation of power in the PMO serves only one master and it is not the people of Canada.

Bennett should heckle. That's her job.

Bennett's reference to Goodale -

Ralph Goodale, voted the best parliamentarian by his peers, is a very good heckler: smart, accurate and appropriate.

- suggests that there is more to "heckling" than simple disruption of the house. I am going to keep a sharper eye on both Goodale's and Bennettt's performance in the house in this regard.

The last line of your comment -

Stever still thinks he's smarter than the Bushies and he's confident he can execute better than they could using their playbook.

- is exactly how I viewed Harper since day one. He's a  Neo- con lite who knows his brand of exclusionary politics will be rejected by the decent people of this country.

He lies to cover it up until he achieves his majority goal.

I think we should stop him.

by Archer on 05/13/2007 12:29:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

....issue is most interesting.  I understand that the use of the wordmark is fairly tightly controlled.  Those banners look professionally done.  From your  G&M article:

However, Jim Hughes, head of Campaign Life Coalition, said the annual protest against abortion has never received federal funding and that the government was in no way involved in this year's event.

Mr. Hughes couldn't say how the Canada logo made its way onto the banner, which was likely created by a volunteer. But he said the banner has been used for the past five years without a problem.

The fact that the banners are 5 years old and still look good says to me that they are commercially made, in spite of this bit -

which was likely created by a volunteer

 The article doesn't make it clear if that is a quote from Mr. Hughes or simply the opinion of the article's author.

I would think the fact that there are two banners - one in each official language - is a telling sign.  If the government of five years past were to allow the use of the wordmark they would require that the banners be bilingual.  That the banners are bilingual - in a sea of mostly uni-lingual other signs - says that it was a authorized use of the wordmark.

Back to the professinally \ commercially made angle.  Most any commercial printer would balk at using the official Canada wordmark if it was not authorized by the Government.

I am just speculating here.

On to the major thrust of the diary.  Nice work archer.  I don't have much to say on decorum, but I did enjoy the diary and the discussion.

Here's a golden oldie - Conserve Water / Shower with a friend

by willy be frantic on 05/17/2007 12:22:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]

daMule.

I truly believe that the media's current insistence on providing 'fair & balanced reporting' fuels the manipulative discourse.

Reminded because of Vancouver Sun columnist Peter McKnight's two most recent columns. He's talking about 'perceived bias in the media'.

The first column (from May 5, 2007) is behind the subscriber firewall but most of it is reposted here.

The second column (from May 12, 2007) is still available at the Vancouver Sun sight.

I think they may be of interest to you (and all, of course).

What I can't defend is the media's emphasis on balance, even when "balanced" reporting serves to obscure the truth. I understand the desire of newspapers and other media to provide "both sides" of the story, especially in our highly partisan environment, but it would be far better if they'd just tell the truth.

Of course, pie in the sky to believe that the media let alone politicians would tell us the truth (Leo Strauss & the Noble Lie?), but I was pleased to see someone in the MSM call out the BS in a very compelling argument.

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

by Frank Frink on 05/17/2007 06:12:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

For the most part, our MP's behave pretty decently and aside from the concept of contempt through dishonesty that daMule mentions above, Question Period is really the only forum that I am aware of where things can get out of hand. Considering that otherwise it's a pretty dry place, maybe that could be seen as a good thing.

Rat packs, bull dogs, well, I agree that pushing the envelope is sometimes the only way to get things done.

...a Parliament where tough questions can be asked and answered in a respectful and honest way without recourse to lies and grandstanding from either side.

That says it all.

I guess we have it pretty good.

It could be worse.

Oh yeah, it could definately be worse.

by Archer on 05/16/2007 03:51:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

who find the QP antics 'shameful' and kindergarten-like, and it can appear that way at times. But, at least we have a parliamentray device where the King PM and his minister must face questions on a daily basis. Whenever a discussion comes around about abolishing it (and it happens regularly in Canadian commentary) I always point out how envious American progressives are of it. Wouldn't you love to see legislators roasting the Preznit and cabinet on a daily basis?

I actually rather enjoy QP and usually watch the evening repeat broadcast (since the live broadcast is during my work hours) on CPAC.

Should note that CPAC does offer live streaming, with QP podcasts also available.

The QP in the British Parliament actually looks more engaged and polite.

Did you notice almost all of the results on your search come from MPtv (i.e. Garth Turner, MP)?  We need more MPs doing what he does online. Think that most of them are probably too frightened to engage the public in that manner.

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

by Frank Frink on 05/14/2007 02:54:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Don't forget to wash up after a visit here, but here the names of the 12 MPs apparently in attendance.

Conservatives
Bev Shipley (ON)
Cheryl Gallant (ON)
David Anderson (SK)
Dean Del Mastro (ON)
Harold Albrecht (ON)
James Lunney (BC)
Jeff Watson (ON)
Mark Warawa (BC)
Maurice Vellacott (SK)
Myron Thompson (AB)
Pierre Lemieux (ON)
Rod Bruinooge (MB)

Liberals
Paul Steckle (ON)
Paul Szabo (ON)

What do they know about the logo use? Funding?

Priole? Hint, hint. Wawara is your MPs, care to send him quick e-mail? Not that I really expect him to answer with anything  but PMO approved talking points... but wouldn't hurt to ask.

Also, one of the two Liberal MPs, Steckle, is set to introduce an abortion bill.

Unrepentant old hippie has more interesting info. Wordmark usage falls under the Treasury Board. Who is currently Treasury Board President? Our old pal, Vic Toews. The same Vic Toews who, according to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said in 2004.

"...Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews (now the new Conservative Justice Minister) told the National Pro-Life Conference on Sept. 8, 2004, in a speech entitled "Abuse of the Charter by the Supreme Court," that the right to abortion is a result of "activist judges" abusing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to develop and implement their own social policy. He directly attacked the Charter, criticizing it as anti-democratic, and said the Conservative Party wants to open up the process for judicial appointment. Toews told the audience that the ability to pass legislation must be coupled with the ability to appoint judges more favourable to the social conservative viewpoint..."

Remember that Toews was in the Justice portfolio prior to Baird shifting over to Environment. The CPC has already moved on the judicial appointments proecess. The next step, and they really want to do it, is reopen the reporductive rights issue and take the first steps towards thrashing the Charter (by abusing the notwithstanding clause). Toews just laid it all out there. A SCOC decision they disgaree with? Easy, invoke the notwithstanding clause. Although I'm certain Harper would prefer to have Shrubya's 'signing statement' power.

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

by Frank Frink on 05/13/2007 06:24:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Decorum without integrity is more insulting than any honest incivility.

I like it, I really do.

But I suggest they are both equally insulting to the electorate.

I  also suggest that a room full of people engaged in honest incivility, in the end, are no more effective or different than a room full of jabbering jackasses.

Rudeness rarely remains a one way street.

As I alluded to in our previous discussion, I have never seen Russ Feingold engage in incivility and I know of few, if any, more effective, intelligent and civil politicians.

Yes, he looks pissed off, he even sounds pissed off. But it's the "I don't have to give them hell, I just give them the truth and they think it's hell" variety.

There is a place for honest incivility but I'm not sure if it's in our legaslative houses, and if it is needed there, it better be done artfully.

Because if we all decide to play that game......

by Archer on 05/14/2007 05:24:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

...or perhaps a Demolition Derby- but it is also subject to a kind of glass ceiling where at some point the invective becomes pointless because it's not working.

You can be as rude as you want to the Bush administration or its toadies. You can threaten, you can scream, you can pound on tables till you go ballistic.
It doesn't matter because it does no good, because they don't hear you anyway.

At that point, the only one who benefits from incivility is the one doing it and all they get is to let off some steam and maybe piss off everyone else. Oh yeah, the opposition benefits from the added ammunition too.

However, while all that goes on, the Dems work away at the system and win control of the houses.

Too little too late? Maybe. But better than the alternative.

by Archer on 05/14/2007 06:12:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]

... before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the complicity of the Senators in allowing such smirking, evasive, insincere garbage.

There's an excellent post over at Canadian Cynic called "People who need a good lesson in ass-kicking" that shows there is at least one way to corner a rat.

This excerpt is CC's version of how this process might be handled:

"Mr. Gonzales, my goal today is to determine, if we can, how Mr. Iglesias' name came to be on the list of U. S. Attorneys (USAs) to be terminated. That is to say, how his name was initially produced and who produced it. Now, before we go any further, let me ask you if you understand the question. I'm not asking you to answer that question, I'm simply asking if you understand it, nothing more, and if you're not sure you do, I'll be happy to go over it again until it's obvious that we agree on the very specific issue I'm trying to address.

"This means that I'm not interested in who eventually signed off on those names, or who takes final responsibility for them, or anything else. While those might be informative questions in their own right, they're most emphatically not the question I'm asking here today, and if you begin to address any of those other issues, I'll step in and remind you what the question is again.

"So, once again, I'm precisely interested in, and only in, the exact origin of Mr. Iglesias' name on the list of USAs to be terminated. Do you clearly understand the question as I've asked it, yes or no?"

Before you can actually ask the question, you first have to fence off every possible escape hole the rat might find.

Contemplating the reasons why politicians, particularly Democratic politicians refuse to take this approach is too much like looking into the abyss.

by Archer on 05/14/2007 08:16:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

We see and hear the same skirting around direct  questions in Ottawa.

Last week during QP I heard Dion address the PM with a question about a firm end date for the Afghanistan mission. Harper actually stood up with a piece of paper in his hand and read a quote by Buzz Hargrove. Of course the Hargrove quote had nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Dions query or anything remotely related.

Needless to say, Harper was smirking like a U.S. Attorney General during this little performance.

Question Period may have some virtues but when treated like this, it's an exercise in futility.

This forum gives no opportunity to frame and fence in order to elicit an honest answer, and because the Speaker of the House is essentially useless in such situations, no recourse for the questioner or the public when such contempt is demonstrated.

That is one reason I think the various Senate and Congressional committees can, potentially, be more effective.

I will say though, that I have seen some Parliamentary Committees where there are individuals being questioned in a similar manner as in the Senate.

I am just starting to learn a little about these committes, but some of them seem a intentioanally toothless, what with no supoena power and such.

So much to learn.

by Archer on 05/14/2007 09:26:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]

A Conservative MP apologizing!!??

Galipeau thought he would be able to deny everything at first, then he realized he had been captured on camera.

McGuinty said Galipeau was in "an out of control, enraged fury."

He said the deputy speaker "flipped out . . . and ran across the floor and stood over me and was gesticulating and pointing his finger, grabbed me by the shoulder, repeated several times something about coward or cowardice."

Only when he realized his diatribe was being caught on camera did Galipeau beat a hasty retreat.

Guess you have to catch these guys almost literally with their hands in the cookie jar before they'll admit to anything.

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

by Frank Frink on 05/17/2007 01:40:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

And, despite some of the very graphic description contained therein, I fear we still haven't heard and seen the worst of it yet.

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

by Frank Frink on 06/18/2007 03:20:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]