My vote

In March I wrote a post about my reasons for not voting for Harper. My reasons for voting Liberal are based on history:

1)The last government left us with a surplus–Harper spent it on things like 300 million for security at the G20/G8, but mostly on dropping taxes. How much of that did you see on your bottom line? Did the economy improve? Not.

2)This country had a reputation for intelligent foreign policy. Now, do we have a foreign policy. Harper had some on the job training. Ignatieff comes with a wealth of knowledge of the outside world.

3)We used to feel secure without social safety net. As a lady waiting to have her blood drawn for tests  said this morning,”There’s no security any more.”

4)We need money spent on our colleges and universities. The Liberals will do that.

5)We need more thought, less ideology on the subject of Law and Order. Attention to relevant statistics would help. The Liberals will do that.

It’s time for a change.


The attack ads, and the language of war in the reporting of the campaign, the appeal to fear, the creation of panic, all of these are part of this election as they have been of the last several. I’m tired of it, and of the politicians who have such contempt for the voter. We haven’t had a discussion of the major problems in this country.When one starts, ie the Liberal discussion on health Care, Harper falls back on the  “oh-my-god they might form a coalition”.  I

t appears to me that most people don’t even know what a coalition is, or that it is the usual way of doing politics in many vibrant democracies. If parties won seats in proportion to their popular vote, we would all ready have a government that represented the majority of people in this country, and yes at least two of them would have to agree on how to govern. That means that the NDP concern for the social network, the Liberal concern for health care and the social programs of the Bloc, as well as the environmental agenda of the Greens would be taken into account when drafting policy.

Or perhaps the Conservatives could convince one of the others to join them.

We would be less likely to have a government that was unresponsive to the majority of the  people, reflecting only the views of the neo-con right.

But what was Ignatieff thinking, giving Harper a gift like this? I suppose he got into the habit while teaching to answer questions honestly, and so continues. Yes, under our system a coalition is possible. Will that happen? Would it mean the government was any less representative of the people’s will. i don’t think so, to either question.

Leaders Debate

First I didn’t watch it all. I get tired of spin and “talking points” and mostly of Harper. I did see the exchange in which Ignatieff said :

“A majority? … Majorities are things you earn when you earn the trust of Canadian people and you haven’t earned the trust of the Canadian people because you don’t trust the Canadian people.”

He hit it square on as far as I am concerned. A few posts ago I went through the events this year that have upset me most, but it all comes down to this. Harper is a control-obsessed man, whose attitude is his way or the highway. I have always liked the Canadian history of compromise and negotiation. I don’t trust him to govern for all of us if he gets a majority. He sure didn’t when he had a minority.

How many more odd ideas like cancelling the long form census are hiding beneath that perfectly-coifed hair.

What about his insistence on following a punishment instead of rehabilitation agenda? He calls it law and order, but I see him ignoring facts, or bending them to fit his pre-conceived ideas.

And throwing young women out of his rallies. How’s that for controlling?

If we must have a minority, I hope it’s a Liberal one. After all, most people in this country vote for left of centre parties.

Three assaults on women

Iran death row woman Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani to be hanged not stoned | Mail Online. The Daily Mail reports this morning that Sakineh was subject to a mock execution on Sunday. The attitude that allows for death by stoning apparently has stirred Sakineh’s captors to further sadism. They remind me of the perpetrators of serial murders, torturing their victims to get the most enjoyment before they kill them. I wonder if her jailers achieve sexual satisfaction from their actions as the serial killers do.

The Iranian media has labelled Carla Bruni, the wife of the President of the French Republic, a prostitute. This was apparently in retaliation for a letter she wrote in support of Sakineh. No free speech for any woman anywhere is their creed.

The Globe and Mail reports that poison gas has been confirmed as the causative agent in the episodes of sudden illness amongst schoolgirls in a largely Pashtun area of Afghanistan. The boys in the same schools, who go on different days, were not effected, nor were any all-boys schools. A fine bunch these Taliban, poisoning children. I wonder if the leaders giving these orders are Afghani fathers.


Finally finished reviewing the proofs for The Facepainter Murders. It should come online today, if all goes to plan. Look for it as an ebook at

My current project involves converting a first person novel into a third person, in time to submit to Penguin UK which is opening for submissions, targeting non-agented writers, creating an opportunity for me, if I can finish before we go to Spain.

I notice Michael Ignatieff is calling for folks to return to “the big red tent”. I wonder if he’s been reading John Ralston Saul’s A Fair Country, in which Saul talks about Canada being an aboriginal country, and the aboriginal philosophy of “the big tent”.