More Ipperwash

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Mike Harris to give evidence at Ipperwash inquiry

Now the second time a premier has had to testify at an inquiry, and it's the same guy (last one having been for Walkerton). Nice legacy. Can't you just feel the love.

[Thorgnor]

Who the fuck gave Steven Harper, errrr, I mean Mike Harris a mandate anyways?

[SmoothedShredder]

Mike Harris to give evidence at Ipperwash inquiry

Now the second time a premier has had to testify at an inquiry, and it's the same guy (last one having been for Walkerton). Nice legacy. Can't you just feel the love.

Don't forget turning the growing deficit into a shrinking deficit.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I dunno. There was a lot of misery generated during those years. Is that an easy tradeoff?

I mean, I have to deal now with students coming into college who have this built-in sense that it's impossible to fail, because the Tories had introduced policies to make it virtually impossible to fail students (talk to CJ about this; it was among the things that pissed her off the most from the schools she taught in).

And McGuinty's just plain useless in restoring anything Harris destroyed, imo.

[Birdy]

I dunno. There was a lot of misery generated during those years. Is that an easy tradeoff?

i think a more useful analysis would be to examine WHO exactly was miserable during these years and why. 9 times out of 10 the answer would be there was less of a crutch.

And McGuinty's just plain useless in restoring anything Harris destroyed, imo.

see i've always thought mcguinty recognized the 'common sense' of it all.

[deranger]

Who was miserable were those that may actually, really, legitimately needed certain gov't assistance but were told to get a job instead.

you may finsd it hard to believe but there are actually people in society that are vulnerable through no fault of their own.

So who was miserable? Let's start with anyone who earned minimum wage, public school students, doctors, nurses and anyone working in the public sector who saw their jobs either privatized or downsized, of course anyone on social assistance (but it's their own fault right? Why couldn't they just get a job right? Maybe working 3 full time jobs at minimum wage and BARELY able to scrap ain't as easy as it sounds) Anyone who was disabled, a pensioner, anyone who thought being homeless wasn't a crime or shouldn't be made a crime, squeegie kids, ravers, anyone who used the TTC, anyone who lived in a city, that's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there are more.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Battered women, teachers, new immigrants, the homeless, hungry kids (look at the percentages of those in the GTA)... and whatever the stats, I don't think any utilitarian argument would cut it for me.

As for McGuinty, I figure he's just a spineless weasel . If I'd been Liberal, I'd have voted for Kennedy.

[Birdy]

i'm a believer that people who TRULY, TRULY do need assistance were miserable before mike harris, just as they are after mike harris. My heart bleeds for people that can't afford to have a roof over their head, who cannot work, who cannot help themselves and i will do what ever i can to help these people. Precisely why in my above post i suggested an analysis of WHO was hurting and WHY. precisely why i used the phrase '9 times out of 10'.

how can you compare people who are unable to stand on their own two feet in the same breath that compares doctors, nurses and anyone WORKING in the public sector? HOW is that even a comparison? it's not like doctors, nurses and people employed (period) are hurting for money and need assistance. hell they make a DAMN good living when you COMPARE their wages to those that don't even have a wage.

having these arguments sometimes just boggles my damn mind.. i just sit back and think where do they think the money comes from? and to even further an elongated vision, look at f'ing Russia.

[Birdy]

[deranger]

Easy - people who can't stand on their own 2 feet looked to specific groups to help them. Those groups, usually operating as a non-profit, were dependant on agencies of the gov't for financial asistance. When the gov't of Mike Harris decided its time to trim gov't spending, or reduce taxes, money for these groups was the first to be cut. Similiarly, doctors and nurses who want to help peolpe needing their assistance, found it hard to work after routine 20-26 hour shifts, lack of supplies, lack of trained associates to help. What draws these 2 distinct groups together is that both of them depended on the financial ssistance of gov't as both operate as non-profit entities. When Harris et all decide to reduce taxes for rich people, the shortfalls in gov't income resulted in

1) either the service being cut entirely, or financial assistance to the service cut or frozen. See: health care, education, social assistance.

2) the service being downloaded to municipal gov'ts (usually Toronto's). See: funding for public transit, social assistance for those with disabilities, homeless.

Birdy - I'm not trying to argue that Doctors don't make good money. I'm simply saying that many different people from many walks of life were effected by the policies of Harris. Those policies proved themselves to be very effective in reducing gov't spending at the expense of societies most vulnerable (correspondingly those who usually required gov't the most).

I'm not saying that those Doc's weren't happy to pay less taxes, but the health care system isn't just doctors, its nurses who can't hire staff becuase they have MASSIVE buget shortfalls. So instead, they make interns work 26 hour shifts to cover our needs.

[d_rawk]

HOW is that even a comparison?

It is a comparison because the public sector, which is what we are talking about being gutted, is involved, to varying degress, in all such instances. You are making the distinction between the 'WORKING' sectors of the same, and presumably the 'NON-WORKING' sectors. I agree that is a notable distinction to make -- but that distinction wasn't at work in the case being discussed.

and to even further an elongated vision, look at f'ing Russia

If and only if elongated means completely unrelated.

[Birdy]

haha i started my post with 'relax' but then erased it

my question still remains, where do you think the money comes from? the problem with the public sector is it's too big for it's britches, there isn't money to support it and it pales in comparison to the quality of services the private sector can provide. the only way to support and GROW a public sector is to continue taxing and to raise taxes-- which in turn does nothing but deflate investment, the greatest spurrer of GROWTH. is our aim to be truly dependent on our government, to take away any ability to create growth independently? is that the aim here? cuz if we continue down the current road, we're doing a damn good job at getting there. again, look at Russia. more people in this world have suffered under communism than any type of government out there.. but then i read in this forum there are some people that are PROUD that they have voted for the marxist-leninist party. GASP! GASP! GASP!

to me it is blatantly common sense that cutbacks are required to truly focus the money where it should be. to use an old adage it's "short term pain, for long term gain".

Edited February 15, 2006 by Guest
i'm a meathead

[Birdy]

and to even further an elongated vision, look at f'ing Russia

If and only if elongated means completely unrelated.

how so?

[d_rawk]

Invocations of Soviet Russia are about as useful to discussion as invocations of Nazi Germany. Both are appeals to a collective sense of evil as substitute for actual dialogue.

The Canadian left shares about as much in common with Lenin as the Canadian right shares with Hitler. You and I have both opposed crass comparisons of the latter case recently, so I don't see why we should disagree about the similar comparisons of the former.

[Birdy]

my comparison was with communist Russia in general, not particularly with Lenin. the 'backwardness' that communism had created.

[d_rawk]

I can't see any meaningful sense in which 'communism' happened in Russia. The backwardness was a result of rigid authoritarianism, just as the backwardness of its supposed opposite (fascism) was.

We can argue until the cows come home (yeah, I spent some of my life in Alantic Canada ) about distinctions between Marxism, Lenism, and communism proper. But essentially we end up with a swindle where people are promised one thing and delivered another by those in position to benefit from the swindle. It seems to me that sometimes your vision of Libertarianism and the end-point goal of Communism have a whole lot in common. In Russia, the populace never held power in a meaningful sense, which was the promise never delivered. Empty promises are nothing new in politics ... but the fact that it was collectivist certainly doesn't make it communist. The state never withered away. Russia tried to bypass capitalism, rather than endure capitalism and move beyond once its flaws became inescapable. I could call myself a princess (and come to think of it, in more inebriated moments, probably have ...) but that doesn't *make* me one.

Bolshevism is communism is socialism is the left, in the way that Nazism is fascism is conservatism is the right.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Similarly, Canada and Russia have hopelessly different histories as well. Setting aside the question of the feasibility of Communism per se (I think Marx really blew it after he stopped being just critical and became programmatic), Russia never registered high in the schema of countries likely to adapt well to the idea. It seems a bit like the way Islam turned out in the 20th c. in Iran after the revolution - anything generated out of that much spite isn't likely to turn out pretty.

I do see the need for a sophisticated and complex public service, though, given what an impossibly sophisticated and complex society we live in; eroding any of it too much to put a few measley bucks into some people's pockets results in unpredictably complex problems. It's just a perennial shame that there's so much corruption and stupidity throughout the system (any system) that makes people think it necessary.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I have to smile thinking of the trajectory of this thread .

[ollie]

my question still remains, where do you think the money comes from?

Taxes.

the problem with the public sector is it's too big for it's britches, there isn't money to support it and it pales in comparison to the quality of services the private sector can provide.

GASP! GASP! GASP!

I don't trust a sector that subscribes to the notion that money trumps all.

[Birdy]

i have more to say in this thread but am getting booted off the computer as we speak.

money doesn't trump all ollie, CHOICE does.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

You can only make some choices, though, if you have money. If you don't, then those choices can't happen in real life. Try living without money or options to get any.

Ever lose at Monopoly?

[Birdy]

no. we always had two boards and i would take the cash from the other set and put it in my pocket. sadly, i cheated.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Isn't that called "globalisation"?

Edited February 16, 2006 by Guest
forgot smiley

[Birdy]

there's too much for me to respond to in this thread.

the greatest fear i think we as human beings could possibly possess would be to lose the ability to rationalize.

when i think of any group (government or not) swaying the balance of power and wielding its arm for the greater good, i'm afraid. we talk of equality but whenever there is a 'greater', there is always a 'lesser'. granting too much power to governments creates situations such as those seen under nazi germany or stalinist russia or stretching it, bushian america. it doesn't matter whether it is the left side of the political spectrum or the right, as it ALWAYS boils down to too much power put in the hands of a body acting for the common good, whether we agree that the good is in fact good or not.

when i see the word "national" being thrown around i can't help but equate current times with nazi germany or communist russia. just because our histories don't entirely 'mesh', we cannot rule out possibilities.. there are other forms of tyranny that could very well come about. tyrannies that might not appear to be tyrannies to the average joe because they have you so damn convinced that you are unable to think for yourself.

d_rawk you are right, the end point of my vision, and your vision and probably everyone's vision on this entire board are most likely the same, but really what it boils down to is if you yourself want to make it to that conclusion alone and by your own rational thought, or if you want to have someone feed it to you with a knife and fork.

[SmoothedShredder]

I wrote this earlier, but was inturupted by a sick jam session:

I'd be more concerned if there was a single uniform opinion 'on the left' then I am about there being competing ones. Competing points of view seem like a healthy thing to me.

Heh, you just made me think of a Slogan for the Conservatives...

Right for Now so we can be left for later.

And don't get me wrong... I truly do believe that Self Sustainable, medium to small level co-ops are the wave of the future. They have to be, oil will run out, and before that there will be a weening period. In this time you'll see more windmills, more urban farms, and more neighbours going and knocking on their neighbours doors... it's inevitable, but there are things we need to get off of our plate before we can really count on the "government" to help us take the big steps there... namely debt.

Like I've always said... I got here in 1977, long after the oil crisis, and long after then sent $160 million dollars worth of tractors, pesticides, and fertilizers to Africa (and forgetting to build any tractor repair shops or gas stations)... I've never not known what it's like not to "owe" someone as a nation. I think the "Debt can be managed" argument is bullshit, and I believe that the freedom defined by democracy cannot truly be achieved when you owe someone...

These problems were inherited by me and you as citizens... I don't want to "pass the buck." That being said... I don't think the slogan "common sense revolution" was that far off and as macabe as it is short term... the long term benefits are for the good of every single person on the planet... Here's how I see it: Canadians have been very fortunate in light of what has happening in other parts of the globe, and no matter what steps back in our immediate quality of life under Harris have been (it's not like hospitals and schools totally closed, he just said we'd have to tighten our belts until the ship stops taking on so much water that it'll sink before we get to land, which is funny cause of the whole obesity epidemic... but I digress), the vision of Mike Harris was one much bigger than that of just Ontario, and a courageous one, because there weren't alot of political states willing to sacrifice their votes to get rid of the deficit... now we have Bono addressing the world saying 'Get Rid of Debt'... it was a bold step of the betterment of the planet, if only because they wanted to get one thing that was very wrong (debt) fixed.

Remember that we took on alot of Debt by holding on to African Debt which arose through 'aid' in the 1960's. "We can pay you back Japan, cause Africa owes us all this money, promise." You could argue that making the African Nations own up to their side of the bargain, long after any potential benefits from the aid long petered out decades ago has been oppressing these nations. Our luxurious "welfare state" in comparison to National Health Care in a place like say: The Ivory Coast, has been thriving on managed debt because someday the African Nations will pay us back, you could argue ravers, and government workers are "one step away" from this horrible poverty, but in light of what has happened in Africa over the last 30 years, and the amount of opportunity made readily available to each and every Canadian, even the homeless, honestley with all due resepct, What the Fuck do you Know?...

I understand how unpopular a decision it is to cut social programs... but in my world view... the debt that my government is holding on to, is crippling the most impoverished continent on the planet... and if it means that I have to settle for a one year wait time to see if I got throat cancer, then fine. In light of what an African may have had to deal with in the last couple of decades, I will still say I got a pretty good treatment. I'll wait... I'm just glad there's someone going to be there for me eventually, and shudder to think what some Mothers have been through in the Sudan, or Soweto, or some place really not as far away as you think.

I'm all for helping people in my own backyard, but this planet seems to be getting as small as a pinhead. The only way I know of to truly help people outside of my "juristiction" is to simplify their lives. Forgiving their debt is all I can do, as a Canadian and as an Ontarian, cause the UN needs some Balls, and I just don't think the 'adopt a child' will deliver salvation when the governments exist in a 'no way out' situation everyday. Therefore I'm saying, "Yeah, I'll work for a while, or do with a little less to accomplish that, and pay off the $60,000/person or so that we owe whoever isn't Canda, don't worry about it Africa... it's cool."

Unfortunately I never see the debate framed this way. Rather, I see a Mike Harris who after he shot a native child on christmas in a school yard, closed all the hospitals, locked up anyone who didn't have a roof (which was tough cause he made so many people lose their homes), and then pee'd in the town water of Walkerton, which since Mike Harris is Satan (and not a former teacher), turned into a horrible plauge where many died. After getting re-elected, everything went to shit... look around... at the shit.