It was one of the first things Stephen Harper did when he came to power. Declare war children.
By destroying plans for a national childcare program.
Parents have been paying for that decision ever since, with a lack of daycare spaces, and exorbitant fees. And children have been paying for it with their lives.
But still the Harperite cult is unrepentant.
For no sooner had Tom Mulcair announced the NDP's childcare plan.
The New Democrats are pledging billions in funding for affordable childcare spots, a key campaign plank unveiled ahead of next year's election.
And even though it would be good for parents, good for children, and good for the economy.
Mr. Fortin said there are many economic benefits to affordable daycare. It includes higher GDP from more people staying in the workforce, and reduced costs of other social programs – Quebec has fewer than half as many single mothers on social assistance as when its child care system was introduced, Prof. Fortin said “It will bring many more mothers into the labour force,” Prof. Fortin said Tuesday, responding to the NDP proposal. “…I don’t see any downside.”
The Cons are already attacking it like a pack of hyenas, with the Con Development Minister Candice Bergen leading the way.
As only a tea bagger like her could...
Spouting Con talking points like a fountain.
And claiming that the NDP would take away the $100 cheques that parents of children under six receive every month.
Even though the NDP clearly states that it would NOT.
While setting up this fake website.
So the Cons can distort and smear the NDP plan further, as only they can.
Thomas Mulcair announced the NDP would spend $5 billion creating a massive new national, bureaucratic, one-size-must-fit-all child care program.
Sign if you agree that parents — not governments — know best how to raise their kids:
By repeating the same words over and over again, like robots or Republicans.
For look at what they're saying and ask yourself if it doesn't sound familiar?
In a leaked 2009 playbook, Republican strategist and wordsmith Frank Luntz advised congressmen to talk about Obamacare in the same way
But of course the inspiration would come from south of the border, because the whole idea of replacing a national plan with individual monthly cheques couldn't be more American.
It was designed solely to destroy the sense of community that used to define Canada, and replace it with the selfish individuality that characterizes America. And the children were only the first ones to be sacrificed on the altar of Harper's savage ideology.
For as I pointed out the other night he has always put his ideology before the needs of real people, and he has ALWAYS been more American than Canadian...
And the good news? We shall portray him exactly as he is in the next election campaign. As an alien beast who would force his filthy Republican ideology on us even if it hurts parents and children.
And would kill our Canada if we let him.
Our parents deserve a break. Our children deserve better.
So does our country...
And as for Candy Bergen she should really think what she's saying. And stop blatantly lying about the NDP's excellent plan.
Or sounding like a Republican.
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Or better still she should just think of the children.
And at the very least entertain them.
As only she can....
Please click here to recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers.
42 comments:
As a parent of young children, I'm not blind to the fact that the $100.00 per month per child under six is tantamount to bribing me with my own money. However, that $100.00 per month did in fact help us. A lot. Enough perhaps to stave off bankruptcy. And therefore, a lot more than a national daycare program could or would have helped.
So now I know that Montreal Simon believes that parents who have the audacity to have children should be forced into bankruptcy rather than have the government help them out.
But as per ussual, I'm just a Con stooge right? I'm willfully blind to Our Dear Leader, Thomas Mulcair's brilliant vision for Canada. That makes it safe to just ignore my authentic lived experience in favor of the inexorable left-wing narrative - Stephen Harper hates my children! He hates them so much, he subsidized them.
It's become so predictable with you that it's just sad...
It must be awfully nice to be able to shit with impunity on the people who work and sacrifice in order to make sure that Canada even has a future, while engaged in a purely self-indulgent, self-serving and utterly fruitless relationship.
hi anon....well that was a load of tripe. I'm glad that your "bribe money" is helping you, And as far as I'm concerned you can keep it. But you're so blinded by your ideology or too hopelessly stupid or too much of a bigot to understand, that does NOT amount to a childcare program. There are better ways to provide for that, and since you will still receive your bribe money with the NDP plan, what are you complaining about?
Well done Simon. You are now attracting the attention of paid Con/Reform trolls. Not only do they see you as effective; they are afraid of you.
Hi Simon! It is bribe money! Childcare is very expensive, much more expensive that $100. a month. I find it hard to believe that such a small sum prevented her from declaring bankruptcy. Unfortunately, people can be bought especially the poor. Some people think only of themselves though when they vote. Considering all the damage the Cons have done to this country, it's sad that someone can be bought for $100. As for her insult to you that you are in a fruitless relationship. How dare she! Thousands of heterosexual couples are childless.
On another note, I don't understand why Candice Bergen is interfering in the affairs of Canada. She's American, isn't she? And she's rich and she only had one child. I'm sure she never needed a day care. So why is she meddling
Oh really? How about some analysis then? I expect that this will turn into yet another example of never allowing unpleasant things like facts from getting in the way of a misinformed opinion, but hey, you've proved me wrong twice today. Let's go for the hatrick.
To your credit, you do have one thing correct, the UCCB is not the equivalent to a childcare program. It's a help, not a complete solution.
You ask a question, what am I complaining about? As is my way, I'll answer your question, with a question, or rather, a series of questions designed to illustrate the point. Who could object to driving the sweet old lady who provided the very best care for my children out of business? Who could object to forcing my children out of a kind and loving home and into a sterile classroom devoid of human affection? Who could object to punishing the entrepreneur and rewarding union bosses? Who could object that I will have to take time off of work while unionized workers go on strike because they can hold our economy hostage if they don't get precisely what they want? Yes, who could object to that lovely little can of worms? My handpicked and thoroughly investigated daycare provider, let's drive her out of business. She's old, she doesn't need money, or you know, a job.
I guess what's puzzling about this is that you have no vested interest here - you don't have children, and barring adoption or some other end-run around the natural process of creating them, you're not about to have them. Yet, you feel perfectly entittled to talk down to an actual parent who has an informed opinion about this. I think I'd be hurt if it wasn't so perfectly predictable.
So, having said all that, let's lay the ideological cards right on the table, and yes, I confess there's some ideology at work here, mea culpa. I don't believe that a Thomas Mulcair lead NDP will preserve the UCCB. Or perhaps I should be more precise, I don't believe that an NDP federal government will be successful in its attempt to preserve the UCCB - I do believe they might try. And while there's some ideology at work here, to which I've already stipulated, there's some solid reasoning as well: Ontario. Is. Broke.
Assuming I can take Mulcair at his word which I don't accept, but for the purposes of discussion, let's assume I can, what good will the UCCB do if Ontario imposes- I'm sorry, "liberates" me through the use of additional "revenue tools?" Mulcair's plan relies, as I'm sure you noted, on the provinces paying roughly 40% of the cost. When (not if) when Ontario's credit is downgraded, Ontario's borrowing costs will increase dramatically. And as you were surely aware, with your finger on the throbbing pulse of Canada's body politic, you knew that Ontario was looking to sell a small pile of crown assets, starting with the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario). And since Kathleen Wynne is patently incapable of cutting spending, where do you think that the additional revenue needed to pay for a national childcare program originate? I'm pretty sure that the answer to that is "my wallet" and by somewhat distant extension, yours as well. Since you believe in this idea, maybe you should cut the middle man and just send a check to the Government of Ontario. How's $1200 per year sound? Oh, sorry, I have two children so, that'll be $2400 per year.
Truthfully, something like that will probably happen anyway, but there's one upside: with Harper, I can still go to work to feed my family, because there's no striking daycare workers to worry about.
So, please, tell us all again how Harper is an EEVIL dictator. I mean, how dare Harper stand-up for my Charter rights. How dare he. What a monster! What a fascist!
hi rumleyfips....yes it does seem that we are dealing with Con trolls, and I seem to have touched a nerve. I'm going to have to examine my post carefully to figure out what I did right, so I can do it again... ;)
hi anon 11:18....As I told the first commenter I don't object to paying some of my tax dollars to help support parents who are struggling to raise their children. I would consider it money well spent. But as you point out it is a pittance, and it does nothing to help the tens of thousands of parents desperately looking for decent daycare. I want the best for them, and I hate to see our kids getting second-rate daycare in a country as rich as ours...
Oh Simon, I read you every day. Every. Day. And you're nothing if not consistent. Whatever I may think of your conclusions, you are extremely consistent. Not like that sellout Warren Kinsella no sir.
You have an especial hatred for Stephen Harper. The Conservatives in general, but Stephen Harper in particular.
Or is it sort of the other way around? Is it that you hate Conservatives in general, and as such your hatred finds its focus in the Conservative leader, the person of Stephen Harper?
Either way, you have been, and will continue to be a truly fascinating subject of study. A person so derranged by ideology that no ammount of friendly chat will lead you to empathize, or even understand your fellow human being. Of course, you're in very good company from what I understand, but the vast majority of those are significantly better at hiding their true natures than yourself. I suppose, in that sense, I should compliment you on your ability to be sincere about what you hate. The mindful part of me finds it a bit peculiar that anybody is so ready to define themselves only by hatred, but then again... perhaps it's not so strange afterall.
Back to my Conservative cave now, surely! Or is that, back to the bridge I live under? Can bridges be Conservative? Oh, I know! They are when they're greenlit by Stephen Harper...
hi anon....OMG. I can see you're a high-level troll, the kind the Cons pay a quarter a comment instead of the usual nickel. But that's fine, at least you're trying to make some kind of argument now, even if it doesn't make sense, and you clearly are blinded by your ideology.
For what on earth does this have to do with what my post was about?
Who could object to driving the sweet old lady who provided the very best care for my children out of business? Who could object to forcing my children out of a kind and loving home and into a sterile classroom devoid of human affection? Who could object to punishing the entrepreneur and rewarding union bosses? Who could object that I will have to take time off of work while unionized workers go on strike because they can hold our economy hostage if they don't get precisely what they want? Yes, who could object to that lovely little can of worms? My handpicked and thoroughly investigated daycare provider, let's drive her out of business. She's old, she doesn't need money, or you know, a job.
Nobody is trying to hurt you, or any old lady, or anyone. What I am saying is that if we pooled that money instead of dividing it up we could have a first-class daycare system and everybody would be happy.
Proper daycare can play a major role in socializing children, teaching them to respect others, and promoting intellectual growth. How is that a bad idea?
And as for not taking Mulcair at his word, I hardly think you are in any position to judge others when your own leader is the biggest liar this country has ever seen, and can't be trusted do anything right and decent.
But what's the point of arguing? We shall obviously have to agree to disagree. You have drunk the Con koolaid and are beyond the reach of reason. But please don't describe Stephen Harper as a defender of your Charter rights, because that's the absolute limit. He has fought the Charter all his political life, and that grubby little Republican style tea bagger dictator is only in it for HIMSELF...
P.S. I'm grateful at least that you didn't inflict your views about climate change on us all, because I can only imagine what they are....
hi anon...well thank you I'm flattered. I had no idea that someone of your political persuasion would read what I write every day. Apart from the ones who are paid by the PMO to do that. And yes I do believe I am consistent, because I do seek the truth, I do believe in science unlike so many Cons. And if I'm wrong about something I welcome those who challenge my facts, and will apologize if I'm mistaken. But let me be absolutely clear I do not "hate" Stephen Harper the person, I hate what he represents. And if I portray him in an unflattering manner it is because I believe, like so many others in this country, that he is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever known. And when I look at the polls I see that most people agree with me and NOT with you. The writing is on the wall and you're all going down together.
However if you do live under a bridge, please let me know which one, so I can send you a sleeping bag or a bottle of booze, whichever you prefer.... ;)
I just saw a couple of trolls in the Ayn Rand mode ( my dog went to the vet to have Anal Glands squessed; is it the same?) at Warren Kinsella's. The Harper attack chinchillas seem to have been told to focus on Progressive Bloggers. Is this a sign of a writ dropping? Loonie dropping, oil falling and Alberta scared, bombing in the Mideast having poor results. Scary times for tiny tories.
By the way , I'm 66 years old , never had any kids and that's unlikely to change now. I do , however support a national daycare system and would not begrudge my tax money ( yes I pay income tax - there are few deductions for me ) going to support Canada's hard working middle class and their children.
Simon,
You're wrong about this commenter when you say he (or she) gets paid 25 cents a comment. It's obvious this hack gets paid by the word.
hi rumleyfips....yes I saw them on Kinsella's blog and a couple of other sites. They clearly have been given their marching orders, and as you point out, they clearly are desperate.Not that I'm complaining eh? The sound of Cons wailing, is like music to my ears. More, more, give me more, I can't get enough of it ...;)
Nobody is trying to hurt you, or any old lady, or anyone.
Oh, now you've decided to engage me? Okay, I guess I'll bite.
Not in intent, no. I don't suspect any particular malfeseance of malice on the part of Thomas Mulcair nor am I making such an accusation. However, driving independent daycare providers out of business, the old lady I mentioned, will be the inexorable effect of implementing a national daycare program. The independent business people who have to charge ~$35.00/day (if you're supremely fortunate - as I was) to make a living will have no choice but to lower their prices, if they hope to compete. Yes, childcare is expensive. Your comment shows an ignorance of economic reality in this regard: we'd have liked nothing more than for one of us to stay home, but given the cost of living, that's just not economically possible. Substituting a loving attentive parent with a national daycare program is so much less than optimal, it's barely even worth discussing. But, because left-wing ideology has triumphed entirely over practical reality, we seem to have little choice.
To whit, you state, What I am saying is that if we pooled that money instead of dividing it up we could have a first-class daycare system and everybody would be happy. (emphasis added)
You are making an assumption here. Will you please admit that this is an assumption, and a tenuous one at that?
Proper daycare can play a major role in socializing children, teaching them to respect others, and promoting intellectual growth. How is that a bad idea?
My spouse has a Bachelor of Education, and my spouse would be happy to inform you that modern education isn't modern, or education. At first especially children need their parents for all of the things you mentioned, and, any form of government provided daycare is virtually certain to be a poor substitute for a loving parent. Government daycare, in whatever form it exists, in an effort to justify its existence is known to push children to try to learn things well before they're ready. And lately, public schools have become increasingly ideological. It happens to be an ideology with which you agree, Simon, so maybe you'll absolve them. I do not.
But more directly, it's a bad idea, because the neurochemistry of children who experience the absence of their parents in a manner not unlike being shuffled into a government daycare system from a very young age produces effects similar children who experience the actual death of a parent, meaning that children, especially young children experience a great deal of trauma from being put into daycare.
In other words, put the children in a daycare where the unionized workers aren't allowed to hug or comfort them, and they feel like their mommy and daddy have died. Still sound like a good idea to you? Because, to me, that sounds like the worst disaster possible for all concerned. Oh look, science. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115616/
And as for not taking Mulcair at his word
If you're not going to discuss the point I made about Ontario's financial situation, I see no reason to engage on this matter.
can't be trusted do anything right and decent.
Have I? I'll just put this over here: http://guncontrol.ca/coalition-for-gun-control-letter-on-high-river-ab-situation-to-the-rcmp-complaints-commission/
"How dare the Prime Minister express concern for the right to be free of unreasonable search and siezure! How DARE he. How DARE he express concern that the Charter may have been violated. How DARE he."
He has fought the Charter all his political life,
Ya. Except of course for the citizens, gun owners and otherwise who live in High River you mean. Who had their homes illegally searched by the out of control mounties. Otherwise he totally wants to shred the Charter. Totally.
And if I portray him in an unflattering manner it is because I believe, like so many others in this country, that he is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever known.
I beg to differ. You portray Stephen Harper in an unflattering light because it's so much easier to malign and attack a straw-man than an actual human being.
It's strage because I don't even have a particular love for Stephen Harper or anything. For all intents and purposes, he's boring, stodgy, dull, pragamatic, politically astute, and not at all comfortable with the limelight. He's competent at best, and tone-deaf beyond all imagining at worst.
But this environment is so polarized, so partisan, so utterly bereft of any degree of fair-mindedness that I find myself defending him, when it's about the last thing I want to do. As a pro-lifer, Harper hasn't exactly done me a solid.
But, thanks for answering my question, now I know that Stephen Harper is the figurehead, if not exactly the object for your hatred. It wasn't entirely clear, but you've done a more than adequate job of clarifying for me.
And when I look at the polls I see that most people agree with me and NOT with you.
For the time being, that's certainly true. The latest seems to be however, that Justin Trudeau's peculiar position on the Islamic State will have more shifting over the the blue camp, while Thomas Mulcair is at risk of being irrelevant except to split the left-wing vote. The latter is sad, because Mulcair, though I thoroughly disagree with him, is head and shoulders over JT's "leadership." Will it be enough to give Harper another government? Perhaps, perhaps not. It'd be nice to have somewhere else to park my vote, but sadly, having been declared by certain special interest groups an enemy of Canadians everywhere, I remain left with little alternative but to vote and support people who see me as Canadian, and a person, rather than those who'd put me into jail.
Knowing this, would you exhile me from Canada too Simon?
The writing is on the wall and you're all going down together.
That may well be the case.
However if you do live under a bridge, please let me know which one, so I can send you a sleeping bag or a bottle of booze, whichever you prefer.... ;)
I'll take a Wiggy's Antarctic bag, and a case of "Blonde de Chambly" please. ;-)
All I can say about your new troll is WOW! It must be depressing to be as miserable as that person obviously is.
You know what is really sad to read? It is that $100 per month could make the difference between bankruptcy and feeding one's children. Without meaning any offence, if I personally were in that situation, I would be working two, three, four jobs, not commenting on this blog. Got to get your priorities right, no?
And BTW, Simon, is correct. Mulcair is saying that you can keep your $100/month and still have the choice of a national daycare. So why are you complaining???
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your spouse has a B. Ed. and is probably working while you prefer to stay at home for all the reasons you mention above (children prefer their own parents, etc.).
I could actually agree with you on the last point and could respect your decision to put yourself into what some of us would consider an apparently precarious financial situation where losing $100/month could make you bankrupt. So why are you objecting to Mulcair still giving you $100/month and giving other parents, which unlike you, force themselves to work several jobs (and thus need daycare) so that they are not in your precarious financial situation?
Seems to me the latter parents are the ones who deserve our help since you, by choice apparently, decide to stay home and spend your time commenting on this board?
Lol, Simon has trolls. Well done Simon, you have arrived!
The Cons are afraid of universal anything, except child poverty of course.
Hey, look, Simon, no replies from the Con troll after 5 pm. Either the children must be crying or PMO does not pay overtime? Lol
Actually, my spouse has three (3) degrees. 1 BA, 1 B. Ed, and 1 MA. Who do you think it was who worked while my spouse went to school, and continues to work?
Now, we both have to work. We wouldn't arrange things that way, but there isn't much choice - the cost of living is prohibitive to do otherwise.
And, as I said, what good will Mulcair's program do if the provinces have to raise taxes to pay their portion? Assuming I believe him. When exactly did politicians become honest about anything?
You know what is really sad to read? It is that $100 per month could make the difference between bankruptcy and feeding one's children.
Yes, yes it is sad. Thankfully, things are better now, but there were difficult times.
And BTW, Simon, is correct. Mulcair is saying that you can keep your $100/month and still have the choice of a national daycare. So why are you complaining???
1 - I don't believe Mulcair. His ideology is at odds with anything that supports the traditional family no matter how tangential.
2 - Even if Mulcair is true to his word, I definitely don't believe someone who apologizes for criminal activity like, theft and corruption, in the manner of Kathleen Wynne. And Kathleen Wynne has written some very large checks as of late.
2a - Ontario is actually head for such a bad, hard, miserable time financially that under the equalization program, assuming no changes, Ontario could actually plunge the country into a depression. If that happens, do you really think that Mulcair is going to be able to keep that promise? Really?
3 - Even if Mulcair, Wynne and the rest of the premiers find some hidden store of wealth, making me wrong about the financial situation, maybe Queen's Park is sitting on the world's largest deposit of diamonds for all I know, what we think is a good idea now often has significant costs down the line: "Indeed, the effect of early separation was manifested most clearly in children’s early behavioral problems." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115616/
More behavioral problems for children does not bode well for anybody. Rather than encouraging and supporting loving parents in raising their children to be securely attached, and therefore minimize behavioral problems, a national daycare program will almost surely cause more problems.
4 - Faculties of education are already overrun with ideology to the point that they're starting to mistrust parents. Rather than seeing parents as allies, faculties of education are starting to see and teach that parents are the enemies of teachers. I do not want, and have taken steps to keep my children well-away from these people. The word, "homeschooling' has been tossed about in the house, and if I could make it work financially, we'd be doing it tomorrow. Even if we can't, we might just do it anyway because beyond the very sharp push for ideological purity in the academy, the quality of public education is these days, sorely lacking. If we must suffer for the benefit of our children, we will do it, in fact, up to this point, we have done it.
Now, if Thomas Mulcair can promise that he's going to fix all that then, I'd consider withdrawing my objections, (though, I'd have to leave aside the fact that Thomas Mulcair also thinks that I'm the enemy of Canada,) but I don't happen to think that Thomas Mulcair is larger than life in this fashion. My expectations of Mulcair are necessarily limited by what I see and experience in dealing with the scope of government, and my well-informed opinion is that there are some problems that the government, even one headed by Mulcair, simply can't fix.
The science Anon con troll cited is for children from newborn to age 2 - surely an great argument for extending EI maternity/paternity benefits from one year to two years !
Also a national Pharmacare progamme with free prescriptions for children first - then for the rest of the population when operational.
I bet Anon con troll and famille have overlapping drug/health plans that more than cover their needs - while refugees and their kids can go to hell courtesy of Harper.
Anon con troll - get a real job - come out from under that rock into the healing sunlight.
Good job Noddy !
This makes me wonder why the NDP voted against Paul Martins child care program in 2005 and figures his will work if elected PM. I am not a troll but I do have issues with Mulcair's sudden change of heart with child care. It appears to me that he is afraid about his own status in Parliament. BTW, I really do love your posts. First one's I seek when I turn on my computer.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you , then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi.
They are fighting you !!
take care now, yours truly, Granny Betty
Wow Simon, you've attracted a CPC supporter/Mulcair critic as long winded as myself, as others have noted you clearly have arrived in the big leagues when you get that kind of attention. I think you clearly are attracting real CPC attention if they are willing to devote this kind of resource to your blog on this issue as opposed to the more usual conbot trolletariat member we have been seeing infest the internet these past several years. Not that I am surprised by this, you as I've noted have a manner of presenting information and arguments against the Harper CPC which work well in this modern age, which makes you and your work a greater threat than those like myself who are far more in the old school style of presenting detailed, lengthy critiques, examinations, and essays on a given issue. Be proud Simon, not everyone is so feared as you have no clearly been shown to be!
Keep it up!
hi thwap....thanks for the laugh. You know I don't mind arguing with right-wingers, and as long as they are reasonably polite they are welcome to contribute their views. But as I told our Con friend, our world views are so different I don't know where to start...
hi kootcoot...I don't know if that person is miserable, but as I told thwap I am always a little depressed by the the gap that separates us. If we were a little closer one day we could maybe bridge the gap. But when we can't even agree on how to provide a better future for the kids of this country, which should be a non-partisan issue, I'm afraid we' ll just have to fight it out until we prevail...
hi Kim....thanks, I suppose it should be a badge of honour, but as I told the others I am still a bit depressed at the giant gulf that separates us. It is however symbolic of the difference between those who believe that we live in a community, and need to work things out for the good of the collective. But some of us have been so Americanized by the cult of the individual that we forget that humans are social animals, and fall into the hands of those who would manipulate them for the greater profit of the so-called one per cent....
hi anon....those cheap PMO bastards, my troll deserves every penny he or she gets. I'm going to have to give Jenni Byrne a call and tell her not to be so cheap... ;)
hi hinofan....as I said in my reply I am willing to help pay for anything that would help Canadian children live better lives, for they are the future of this country, and they deserve the best. I am a very big supporter of a national pharmacare program, as I am of a denticare one. You can't help people get better if you don't treat the whole body, and some particularly seniors are sometimes forced to choose between eating and their medication. Long live Toyland and down with Mr Plod !!! ;)
hi Marie....thank you for your kind comments. You know we've all made mistakes in the past, and I wish the NDP hadn't brought down the Liberals at that time. But I support all progressives, I'm pretty sure that we will all have to work together in some kind of a coalition government, and I remain optimistic that we will emerge from this darkness and into the light of a better day...
hi Granny Betty....That Gandhi quote is one of my favourite sayings in the whole world. I've been fighting for a long time, and sometimes I get tired. But I never ever doubt that we are going to win....
hi Scotian...yes it does seem that you have a serious challenger when it comes to the Guinness Book of Blogging records. But of course I'll take your comments any day because they come from a far more human place. I do note that Con interventions are far more numerous all over the internet, so I'm sure their cyber army is on the march. But as I'm sure you know, if they think they can intimidate me they will be disappointed. The more they attack me the stronger I get. We do have the high ground, and we shall use it to defeat them...
lol, the after 5 trolls work for less and are allowed to be drunk:)
Simon:
Oh, I'm not worried, they have a loooooong way to go before they come near my level of prolificly profound punditry with the verbiage to stun/stop a raging rhino/Harper in its tracks...LOL After all, I have almost (now that I think on it even with the 2 years away it probably is over a decade, not under) a decade worth of tomes out there one some many blogs besides my old one, so I am not worried on that front, they are but still new to the game, and using anonymous makes it hard to have any one claimant for the prize....*chuckle*
It is that inability to recognize and understand our common humanity that seems to separate the new "modern" Canadian Conservative from the rest of us, including the traditional Canadian Conservatives as well as Libs, Dippers and those that swing between them. One of the things I personally found most repulsive reading my feeble competition for verbiage was this attempt to smear you as someone against all things/people not of your own narrow political ideology, with an especial hatred for things conservative in this country. You and I have had enough exchanges over the years for me to know that while you are clearly and unabashedly a Dipper progressive in your own right you also recognize that none of the traditional Canadian political philosophies is entirely devoid of useful elements/aspects/principles, and that the current Conservative government is not rooted in anything remotely connected to true Canadian political beliefs, even Conservative ones, that this is a wholesale import from the USA, and from their extreme right wing at that, which by our political spectrum standards makes them extremely far outside the average/norm/median.
It is not just the rugged individualist aspects of the American conservative thought that betrays them so, it is their inherent aggressiveness, their exclusionary practices regarding anyone not of their own tribe/thinking. She claimed you were being the one practicing such while in reality she was projecting her own behaviour onto you. This is something I have seen rise from the fringe of the GOP to become its core since the 1970s onwards, so it doesn't take a lot of work for me to see the truth/reality of this when it shows up here at your blog.
As to intimidating you, well, like you I live as myself open to the world, and that takes a lot more courage and risk of real intimidation with threat of real violence than anything an internet Trolleariat member can present. When you are able to be comfortable in your own skin while not being of the mainstream group you learn to handle such very quickly. While I am a generation or two older than you I suspect we still have a lot of stories we could share about just how intolerant and aggressively willing to show some people are and how by being ourselves brought to our doorstep, and I certainly do not see you as ever knuckling under to the bully mentality, especially not this type. The problem people like you and to an extent I represent for such is that because we have faced far harsher and hotter flame than anything they can bring to bear their tools are useless against us, and worse as you said if anything only continue to enhance our own spirit and strength to fight against them.
Man's Greed is running rampant on this planet.........follow the money!
And harpie is going to make all that worse, by design, you fucking moron!
If you cannot afford children, don't have them.
You lack personal responsibility. You had children when you could not afford to take care of them. If $100/month stopped you from bankruptcy, you are not financially prepared for kids.
hi Scotian...yes that's true, the day they move your prose to the National Archives they will have to hire a tractor trailer. ;)
But here's the thing, your work will deserve to be there as part of the record of resistance of the Canadian people during some of this country's darkest days. While nothing the Cons leave behind will survive the passage of time, for it is neither good nor Canadian. And yes it's true if I hadn't being forced to fight bullies, and learned to loathe them so early in life, I might not have ended up writing so much about the Cons myself. But since they are the foulest bullies this country has ever known, I will work as hard as I can, until the day they are defeated...
Post a Comment