Heads Should Roll

Should it be CBC heads or CSIS Director Richard Fadden? Norman Spector points out that CBC sat on that interview for some time.

Here in Canada, on the other hand, we’ve just seen the worst in journalism, with the CBC’s broadcast of an interview in which CSIS Director Richard Fadden states that a number of Canadian politicians are influenced by foreign states. Now, politicians and pundits are criticizing Mr. Fadden for making this statement. And calls for his resignation are being heard across the land.
How does the broadcast of this interview reflect the worst in journalism, you ask?
Buried within Colin Freeze and Ian Bailey’s fine report of the interview fallout in Thursday’s Globe and Mail, we read: “The timing of the CBC interview was not Mr. Fadden’s choice. This spring, CBC approached him to repeat remarks he had made at a private, but videotaped, speech at the Royal Canadian Military Institute. The public broadcaster kept the interview in its back pocket until it broadcast the exclusive this week.”
In other words, CBC sat on the explosive interview for weeks, if not months. And it chose to make the interview public on the eve of a state visit to Canada by China’s President Hu, and on the eve of a summit to be attended both by him and by the Prime Minister of India.
Shame on the people who made that judgment. Heads should roll all right – heads at the CBC.

Even though CBC had sat on that interview, Fadden shouldn't have made a statement like that in public that he later backtracks on.
Makes you wonder why CBC waited to to air that interview on the eve of the G8 and G20 summits. Worst in journalism? Norman Spector is right on.
Heads roll? You bet! Again, Norman Spector's got it right, heads at CBC should roll. CSIS director Fadden? I think so. He's got some splainin' to do so does CBC for that matter as far as I'm concerned. Kudo's to Globe and Mail and Norman Spector for calling CBC out!

Update: Dave Rutherford talks about this on his show. It is a must listen. Starts about 9:00am goes to on after the bottom of the hour news.

PM Harper's One on One with David Akin

PM Harper had a one on one interview with the Sun's David Akin.  It's a prime example of how an interview should be conducted.  No gotcha's, no fluff, no frivolous topics.  It was professional, substantive, informative and respectful.  Here is just a sample:

AKIN: I wanted to begin with some broader foreign policy stuff. I had a chat with [former Foreign Affairs deputy minister] Peter Harder the other day and it was his impression - probably mine, too - that when you and the Conservatives took office, you might have been skeptical of the value of summits. And Peter actually found you - and this is his phrase - “incurious” about the world but, as he watched you, he found you engaged in summits and that you’d become a master of whatever happens at these summits and you now see a value about them.
HARPER: My observation would be that, generally, opposition parties are almost exclusively concerned with domestic policy. I think if you look around the globe, David, that’s what you’ll find. And then when you become government, foreign policy becomes a much bigger part of your reality. I would say the one thing that has really struck me in the last four years has been the degree to which everything is international. There are just so many important issues . Economy - the biggest one - climate change, you just go through the list, even sport with Canada hosting the Olympics. Everything now has such important international dimensions. The economy especially. There’s lots we’re doing in Canada to improve the relative performance of the Canadian economy. And we talk about how we’re doing better than the Americans or better than other Western developed economies but nevertheless the trajectory of our economy is still determined by what’s happening globally because we’re in a global economy.
So that would be my biggest observation. The military is another thing - Afghanistan, our defence and military policies are all part of an international system. So we really are in a global world. There’s not much that can’t be done without reference to foreign policy - especially in Canada - without reference to the United States because obviously we’re in a very integrated economy.

Read the rest of the interview here.

Kudos to Mr. Akin for showing how to conduct a respectful interview!   Other so called journalists should read this interview and take lessons.

The GG's New Gig

Governor General Michaelle Jean's term will be up in September. Apparently she already has a new job lined up. Thanks in part to PM Harper.

Governor General Michaelle Jean is headed to the United Nations, CTV News has learned.
Jean will be appointed special envoy for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Monday night.
"Her main goal is to fight poverty and Haiti's appallingly high illiteracy (rate)," Fife said. "She'll not only spend time in Haiti, but also travel the globe to keep the world's eyes focused on Haiti and to raise funds."
The prime minister "went to bat to get her this high-profile job," which starts in late September, Fife said.
UNESCO, as the agency is known, has a broad mandate.
"UNESCO's mission is to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information," says a statement on the agency's website.
Canada is one of 182 member states to have a permanent delegation with the organization.

Video report by Bob Fife here.
PM Harper has been lobbying on behalf of Michealle Jean for this new job. Will Mr. Ziffy approve?
Anyway she has been a fantastic GG and I will miss her. She will do an extraordinary job helping the people of Haiti.
Even though I had miss givings at first, she has grown on me and has exceeded my expectations. I quite admire her for what she accomplished as Commander in Chief.
I pray God's blessings on Ms. Jean in her new venture! She has served our country well! I thank Ms. Jean for her service to our country!

Update: PM Harper congratulates Ms. Jean on her new post.

Libs Can't Take It Back

Coalition/merger talks in the last little while have tainted the Liberals for good, Andrew Coyne  has concluded.  They will never be the same.  They can't go back.

"There are some things you say that you can never take back. It doesn’t matter whether you meant what you said. You said it, and from that moment things can never be the same. This is how it is now, I think, with the Liberal Party of Canada."

Implications of coalition of the losers would be that voters would scatter.  Imagine Libby Davies and Pat Martin with a cabinet post.  Shutter the thought!  I think more right leaning voters would go Conservative.

"Consider first the implications of a simple coalition—a coalition struck not in the chaotic aftermath of an indecisive election, but anticipated well in advance. For left-leaning voters tempted to stray into the NDP camp, there is no longer any reason to stick with the Liberals, as they have been traditionally admonished, just to keep the Conservatives out: the coalition can see to that now. Indeed, as Chantal Hébert has pointed out, all the more reason to vote NDP, to strengthen its hand in coalition talks. Meanwhile, right-leaning voters will consider the spectacle of a cabinet filled with the likes of Libby Davies and Pat Martin, and recoil.The same split between left and right will be played out within the party. The Liberal party is not a party that forms coalitions. It is one. It is not a party of the left, but of the left and right: a cumbersomely broad tent that, so long as the party remained in power, or near it, could nevertheless be kept aloft. The likelihood of an extended stay in opposition, with the attendant need to define itself more sharply, could be predicted to expose the party’s divisions. But so stark a choice as a coalition-merger with the NDP is sure to crack them wide open.
And as Liberal support continues to bleed away, this can only grow worse. The left will take this as further evidence of the necessity of striking some sort of deal with the NDP. The right can be expected to push back just as hard: though it is unlikely to prevail, it can probably forestall any decision until after the election. But what are the party’s chances in an election in which it is so painfully divided?"

 The Libs have to decided to unite behind their leader.

"One seasoned Liberal says it's not so much that Grits are lining up behind Michael Ignatieff, but that the alternatives are 'just not palatable.'' 

But it may be too late according to Coyne.

"It is a dismal fate for Liberals to contemplate. But by not firmly quashing any talk of coalition as soon as it got started, Ignatieff has lost control of events, as surely as he has lost control of the party. I fear it is too late now."

One thing Andrew Coyne I think forgot to point out was that all the Liberal members including their leader, Michael Ignatieff signed on to the coalition agreement with their partners in the NDP and the Bloc in 2008. It doesn't matter what they say about now, they can't get away from that one.  There will reminders come next election.  Count on it!  If not from the CPC war room, it will be from  bloggers.

Progressives, What Are They?

Dan Gardner seems to have trouble with what "progressive" means.  He admits he dislikes PM Harper and wants the  defeat of the evil Harper Conservatives.  He's calling for the "progressive parties to get together to do just that.

I'm curious about this "progressive" thing we hear so much of these days. Apparently that's what all the federal opposition parties are, at least according to those who are trying to get the parties to merge or form a coalition of some sort. We're not like those nasty Conservatives, advocates say. We're "progressive." Let's unite all the progressives, oust the Conservatives, and bask in the warm sunshine of a progressive government.

Which sounds pretty good to me. I'm not Stephen Harper's biggest fan, as readers may have noticed. I'd give serious consideration to voting for a party of anarcho-syndicalist chimpanzees if it could win.

OK, it's his prerogative.  He has that right but if he's interested in the "Progressives" he needs to do his homework.
Progressives are socialists as we see here.

 The term progressive is also popular in Canada, since many are further left than the Liberal Party of Canada. Most supporters of the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada did not consider themselves progressive although arguments have been made that the Mulroney government implemented progressive environmental policies. The David Orchard wing of the old PC Party was progressive in nature while the Red Tory faction, which included former Prime Minister Joe Clark, was less so. The New Democratic Party

Some of the New Democrats' more progressive stances are:

Gay rights and gender equality.

Fully socialized healthcare.

More progressive taxes.

Greater welfare benefits.

Electoral reform.

Environmental protection.

Labor and Aboriginal rights.

The elimination of child poverty.

The Progressive Party of Canada briefly rose to prominence in the 1920s. The Progressive Canadian Party, composed mostly of anti-merger Progressive Conservatives, was formed several months prior to the 2004 general election.

Sounds good right? Wrong! 
Socialism is linked to Marxism
Karl Marx was the father of communism.  Part of  Karl Marx's basic philosophy was socialism.

Marx’s Philosophy

These two works were written by Marx just at the beginning of his political career:

Theses on Feuerbach
Idealism and Materialism from “The German Ideology”

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific was written by Engels 35 years later, in an effort to popularise Marx’s ideas.

• Utopian Socialism
• Dialectics
• Historical Materialism

Is Dan Gardner really sure he wants that? Mr. Gardner better careful of what he wishes for because to quote Glenn Beck,"it always ends badly."   Old Soviet Union, Maoist China,North Korea anyone?