If you had your ear turned to the news of Canadian politics last week, you’d find it amusing that the Liberals happened to audition for a new video sensation. It’s called Grits Gone Wild, and it was timed pretty well with the occurrence of Mardi Gras.
Anyway, Olaf has come out in support of Proportional Representation for the reason of civilizing debate in the House. With coalition governments, parties would learn to work together and debate policy, instead of putting on such a ridiculous show fit for sensational videos sold for $19.95.
Something that occurred to me is how everyone knew when Dingwall said, “I’m entitled to my entitlements,” his expression would define modern Canadian politics. People who weren’t Liberals said it defined Chretien’s party and the “Libranos”, but this past week shows the problem extends past the Liberal Party of Canada.
Why do parties figure they are entitled to the absolute power a majority government provides them with, when they routinely have less than 40% support of the voting public? Isn’t that the very definition of “entitlement”; an attitude of superiority, where no superiority exists?
==
VP Cheney is summed up nicely by Adrian (in some not so nice potty language, so cover your eyes if sensitive).
Cheney in reference to the level of effect humans play in climate change says:
“I don’t know, I’m not a scientist”. But I refuse to believe what 99% of the scientists in the world are telling me? Does anyone else see the clusterfucked logic of that statement? Truly the administration down south is in the grips of some serious foray into fantasy land only visitable by the most rightwing of believers.
Cheney’s feigned ignorance coupled with denial is the exact kind of nonsense I hope we’d do away with in Canadian politics by bringing in PR. Real world issues wouldn’t get ignored just because a party who wants an issue untouched, can distract from the work at hand through lame partisan deflections. Each issue would be dealt with on its own merit, not on the say-so of a party who might be embarrassed about a conflicting stance they’ve taken on a connected issue.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
robedger | 24-Feb-07 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
What interesting about the entitlements comment is that it is actually just a truism that has been misused for partisan purposes. Entitled to your entitlements? Well, of course you are. If they weren’t your entitlements, you wouldn’t be entitled to them.
It’s kind of like saying “I argue my arguments”. Well of course you do. If you didn’t argue them, they wouldn’t be your arguments.
Savvy?
Note: all this isn’t meant to be a defence of Dingwall and that whole situation. It really is just a gripe I have with how that particular phrase has been misused.
robedger | 24-Feb-07 at 10:56 pm | Permalink
the beginning should have read “What’s interesting…”
Saskboy | 25-Feb-07 at 11:05 am | Permalink
It’s only been misused in the sense that it’s been overused as a reason the Liberals specifically are not to be trusted with public money. It remains a fine demonstration of how the rich and powerful are entitled to their millions, and the rest of us are entitled to squat.