G20?

[Schwa.]

At the risk of writing an entire paper on the subject I'd chalk 90% of the horrible things that happened to bad organization and communication between the leaders and the minions. I realize that is vague at best but it's a giant subject.

In my opinion, that whole shit storm should be the eye opener Canadians need to see Harper just isn't right for the job and hopefully we do or will come election time.

[Freak By Night]

Yeah that's my take on it too Esau. Good post!

Unfortunately, many Canadians saw the images of smashed windows and burning cop cars, followed by hundreds of demonstrators arrested, and will conclude that Harper IS right for the job because he (indirectly) rounded up all those "criminals".

Those same Canadians see the CBC as a left-wing propaganda cop-bashing network.

[Thorgnor]

And almost all of those people think that democracy is good, but anarchy is bad, when democracy proper actually describes an 'anarchy of the people' as opposed to the landholders commonwealth we live in.

The fascist neurotic impulse towards strong leadership only puts cowardly tyrants into office. Voting for a strongman because you are afraid of violence only makes the source of violence itself visible and more powerful; it puts the 'legitimate' use of violence in the strongman's hands. Asking for a steady hand on the wheel only means you don't get to drive.

Democracy does not align with 'strong' leadership.

I beg you all,

Vote for weak leaders!

Strong leaders don't want or need your opinion, weak leaders balk at every pitch and can't help looking over to the dugout for support.

Politics is not an individual sport.

[Esau.]

I think Harper is weak to be honest, and I think the scene at the G20 and his actions or lack thereof afterwards only backs that up further.

Strong leaders don't want or need your opinion, weak leaders balk at every pitch and can't help looking over to the dugout for support.

Politics is not an individual sport.

The weak leader may look to the dugout for support (as you say) at times, but, (keeping with the team analogy) I think they also look to who they perceive as the stronger team/coach and want to emulate them in some cases - in this case, Harper looks to the USA and I think the scene at the G20 also backs that up.

The so called "anarchists" at the G20 really weren't much better then the police or Harper either, in my opinion. The violence and vandalism they took part in at the G20 only really shows a disrespect for other Canadians, then it does the government.

Personally, I think it's the Canadian people in general, who need to get tougher instead of looking/voting for more passive leaders.

[Thorgnor]

He may be personally weak, but he's politically strong, as his support shows. I was kinda playing on the company line that the cons use about strong leadershit in hard times.

A 'weak' leader is really a strong one in this. It's a bit of a reverse, but I'm suggesting that someone with a 'strong' personality would have the bravery to face the truth about a lot of the problems we face rather than playing politics. And that for this same reason they would enjoy less 'popular' support. Their own message would be 'weaker' than a 'strong' leader (who may in fact have tissue for brains).

In short, I think we actually agree... except that I think Canada is plenty tough for lots of people already.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Guest

[AD]

I don't think Harper had any say in the policing of the event. It's completely outside his realm. I think the buck stops at the police leadership in this case, be it Blair or whoever was 'in charge' of the Integrated Security Unit.

There should be a public inquiry (enquiry?). But I doubt there will be. Hopefully the people suing the police will get a lot of disclosure in their cases and we can connect the dots from there.

[Thorgnor]

yes.

[Esau.]

He may be personally weak, but he's politically strong, as his support shows. I was kinda playing on the company line that the cons use about strong leadershit in hard times.

A 'weak' leader is really a strong one in this. It's a bit of a reverse, but I'm suggesting that someone with a 'strong' personality would have the bravery to face the truth about a lot of the problems we face rather than playing politics. And that for this same reason they would enjoy less 'popular' support. Their own message would be 'weaker' than a 'strong' leader (who may in fact have tissue for brains).

In short, I think we actually agree... except that I think Canada is plenty tough for lots of people already.

Gotcha. I guess I kinda had a brain fart while replying. A later re-read I realized my misinterpretation, but by that time I was a few beers into my friday and heading out the door.

[Thorgnor]