PM seeks Parliament shutdown till March 2010

[Rifleman62]

Orginally posted at Small Dead Animals (a great blog site)  http://smalldeadanimals.com/


http://www.fredoneverything.net/GreySludge.shtml  See link to read all of the article.

An Oozing Of Gray Sludge

Reflections On Our Media of Communication

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

I love the media. They remind me of a man who bangs on his thumb with a hammer and wonders why it hurts.

Every year a conclave of editors and publishers laments the decline in circulation and blames illiteracy or television or the alignment of the planets. It’s someone else’s fault. Recently I saw a story, perhaps on Wired.com, saying that the media are finally realizing that bloggers and small web-only sites are undercutting them. How very alert of them. This too is someone else’s fault. One reporter thought it was because people want bias.

Permit me to offer another explanation: People weary of the usual media because they aren’t very good. How’s that for a shattering insight? (This column is big on shattering insights.)

Why are the media not very good?

In thirty years of in the writing trades, I’ve covered a lot of things, but three in particular: The military, the sciences, and the police. For years I had a military column syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate and later carried by the Army Times papers until I was fired for political incorrectness. For half a dozen years I rode with the cops all around the country for my police column in the Washington Times. And I’ve written tech columns and pieces for technical mags like Signal forever.

This isn’t my first rodeo.

In each case the reporters I met were, with very few exceptions, pig ignorant. The military reporters didn’t know the history, the weaponry, the technology, strategy, tactics, or how soldiers work. Almost none had served. The police reporters chased scanners instead of riding regularly and just didn’t know what was out there or who cops are or why they act as they do. The tech writers were mostly history majors.

Over the years I’ve noticed several things. First, in print publications, most reporters aren’t very smart. A few are very bright, but probably through a mistake in hiring. (The prestigious papers are exceptions, hiring Ivy League snots of the sort who viscerally dislike soldiers, cops, rural people, guns, etc.) Reporting requires assertiveness and willingness to deal with tedious material under pressure of deadlines. These qualities seldom come bundled with inquiring intelligence. Consequently reporters (again with the occasional exception) lack curiosity, and don’t read in their fields.

The results are reasonably obvious to all of us, no? Is it not true that when you know a field, those writing about it clearly don’t?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think it’s simpler: the media has its own special interests and it pursues them. I think this situation, prorogation, is a good example.

It was, I think, Rupert Murdoch who gave us the important insight that “the role of journalists is to fill up the white spaces (dead air) between the advertisements.” Now journalists tell us that they “write the first draft of history” or “keep the public informed” or “speak truth to power” or, worst of all, “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” but, in reality, while some journalists they do odd bits of those things none is a “role.” The journalist’s role, his or her raison d’être, is as Murdoch (or whoever it was) described and that’s why and how their pay-cheques get issues.

Stephen Harper and the media are on sour terms; have been since 2006, at least. He is a ‘control freak.’ He understands that controlling the ‘message’ is a key to political success. He has tried, and mostly failed, to bend the media to his will. They, by and large, do not like him; they, almost all of them, detest his media management aim and methods; quite separately they, again by and large, do not like his policies – as they understand perceive them.

Prorogation has never been a big issue because the ‘agent’ of prorogation has never, before, been the enemy. Interestingly, just over a year ago, many in the media supported Harper’s prorogation to avoid a confidence motion – arguably an act that stretched the intent of the unwritten (important) parts of the Constitution – because, probably, they understood that neither of the alternatives – loss of confidence leading to a coalition or loss of confidence leading to another general election - were the ‘right’ answers to a political bumble. But this prorogation is different: it hit the media where it lives and breathes. It denied them their primary product: news controversy. The Afghan detainee issue was news controversy and the media were milking it for all it was worth; so was Liberal dominated Senate disruptions of Conservative legislation. Controversy fills up the white spaces and sells papers and air time. The late 2009 controversies were all the better because ‘bad’ Harper was getting a thumping. Harper turned off the lights and put the controversy on ice.

The solution: manufacture controversy. Hype the facebook thing; make prorogation an issue and keep it on the front pages (and TV equivalents thereof); make this prorogation a huge affront to democracy, itself, unlike any of the previous 100+ prorogations – some done much, much more cynically than this one. Why? Because this time it was the media’s ox that was being gored and they decided to use all of their considerable power of persuasion to fight back - to take a decidedly self serving and partisan stand on an issue.

Journalists, editors and publishers are not particularly stupid but they are self serving. They fight to protect their interests and that’s what the most of the prorogation fiasco is about: the media protecting its interests. That’s the answer to my earlier question: “why this prorogation?”   

 

[Rifleman62]

I bet $ to donuts, that many here join with me in the request that you flesh out your last post, including the prorogation statitics, and send the piece to the G & M and the NP to be published. Please.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Actually, all the major media have noted, more than once, that prorogations are a normal part of the 'life' of parliaments - 100+ in the 44 parliaments during the past 143 years. That's what makes this current situation so different: prorogations are normal but this one is, somehow, unlike all the others, putting Canada on the precipice leading to the imminent fall of democracy, etc.

It's all rubbish, of course, self serving rubbish manufactured and propagated by the media, itself, for its own, self interested purposes. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Remember Edward Herman's and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent?

Well that's sort of what we have here. The CBC and the Globe and Mail and a few others are Manufacturing Dissent.

The majority could care less about prorogation but the media are hyping the legitimate concerns of a few and, in the process, fabricating an issue where none should exist.

It sells papers which, in turn, sell soap. That's why journalism exists: to get the adverts into the eyes, ears and minds of we consumers.

 

[mariomike]

If voting statistics are any indication, maybe more sheeple people are interested in American Idol than politics?

 

[leroi]

I bet $ to donuts, that many here join with me in the request that you flesh out your last post, including the prorogation statitics, and send the piece to the G & M and the NP to be published. Please.

:nod:

Yes, please do, Mr. Campbell!

 

[Rifleman62]

My oldest daughter is living in the US as her husband is posted to a USAF base. She gets all her Canadian news from internet news sources. I had to correct her re Harper on vacation, etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

The model for Lenin, Goebbels and the CBC:

North Briton No. 45, John Wilkes.

Pamphleteer, Rabble Rouser, MP

 

[Jed]

There is an excellent article in the 28 Jan 10 Saskatoon Star Pheonix by Les MacPherson called "Does anyone really miss question period?" that is quite humous to read wrt to this thread. I will attempt to learn how to find a link online and than insert it in here if possible.

 

[hold_fast]

I think it’s simpler: the media has its own special interests and it pursues them. I think this situation, prorogation, is a good example.

It was, I think, Rupert Murdoch who gave us the important insight that “the role of journalists is to fill up the white spaces (dead air) between the advertisements.” Now journalists tell us that they “write the first draft of history” or “keep the public informed” or “speak truth to power” or, worst of all, “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” but, in reality, while some journalists they do odd bits of those things none is a “role.” The journalist’s role, his or her raison d’être, is as Murdoch (or whoever it was) described and that’s why and how their pay-cheques get issues.

Stephen Harper and the media are on sour terms; have been since 2006, at least. He is a ‘control freak.’ He understands that controlling the ‘message’ is a key to political success. He has tried, and mostly failed, to bend the media to his will. They, by and large, do not like him; they, almost all of them, detest his media management aim and methods; quite separately they, again by and large, do not like his policies – as they understand perceive them.

Prorogation has never been a big issue because the ‘agent’ of prorogation has never, before, been the enemy. Interestingly, just over a year ago, many in the media supported Harper’s prorogation to avoid a confidence motion – arguably an act that stretched the intent of the unwritten (important) parts of the Constitution – because, probably, they understood that neither of the alternatives – loss of confidence leading to a coalition or loss of confidence leading to another general election - were the ‘right’ answers to a political bumble. But this prorogation is different: it hit the media where it lives and breathes. It denied them their primary product: news controversy. The Afghan detainee issue was news controversy and the media were milking it for all it was worth; so was Liberal dominated Senate disruptions of Conservative legislation. Controversy fills up the white spaces and sells papers and air time. The late 2009 controversies were all the better because ‘bad’ Harper was getting a thumping. Harper turned off the lights and put the controversy on ice.

The solution: manufacture controversy. Hype the facebook thing; make prorogation an issue and keep it on the front pages (and TV equivalents thereof); make this prorogation a huge affront to democracy, itself, unlike any of the previous 100+ prorogations – some done much, much more cynically than this one. Why? Because this time it was the media’s ox that was being gored and they decided to use all of their considerable power of persuasion to fight back - to take a decidedly self serving and partisan stand on an issue.

Journalists, editors and publishers are not particularly stupid but they are self serving. They fight to protect their interests and that’s what the most of the prorogation fiasco is about: the media protecting its interests. That’s the answer to my earlier question: “why this prorogation?” 

Yes - because hyping up conspiracy is exactly what we need and is the most concrete answer to the media coverage.

Feel free to expunge your hatred towards me by taking off MilPoints, because I generally won't reply to anything else in this thread - it's far too full of partisan bull**** to warrant any real debate.

Anyone bringing up a viewpoint that opposes Mein Fuhrer (I decided to give him a nickname since you so lovingly refer to Ignatieff as Prince Igor) immediately gets shot down and attacked.

Enjoy continually patting eachother on the back in this thread - because you obviously believe that's the best way to lead a country, too.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Bye,
I don't care who our PM is, I won't put up with that comparison.
Bruce

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Future posters take heed......


Think you should read the site guidelines before you post anything......
Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ 

MILNET.CA MENTOR

Yes - because hyping up conspiracy is exactly what we need and is the most concrete answer to the media coverage.

Feel free to expunge your hatred towards me by taking off MilPoints, because I generally won't reply to anything else in this thread - it's far too full of partisan bull**** to warrant any real debate.

Anyone bringing up a viewpoint that opposes Mein Fuhrer (I decided to give him a nickname since you so lovingly refer to Ignatieff as Prince Igor) immediately gets shot down and attacked.

Enjoy continually patting eachother on the back in this thread - because you obviously believe that's the best way to lead a country, too.

EDITED

Oops..... I see you are already gone.....

 

[Spr.Earl]

My own thought's are now is that we do not live in a democracy as it supposed to be,we live in a semi democartic/dictatorship.

  It is time that we remove some of the power's from our elected as we the people are begining to lose our voice and control over those we elect and employ to look after our well being.

In other word's we have no control what goes on at Ottawa!!

Nick

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prof. Michael Bliss (University of Toronto) is one of Canada’s preeminent academic historians and public intellectuals. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is his take on this affair:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/prorogations-wasted-on-those-who-need-it-most/article1448265/

Prorogation's wasted on those who need it most
It's a tempest in a teapot, and the opposition parties are trying to keep it boiling

Michael Bliss

Friday, Jan. 29, 2010

It's hard to see why there is so much fuss about the Harper government's prorogation of Parliament. The House of Commons, which is not very well respected by either ordinary or informed Canadians when it is sitting, will now sit for three weeks less than it would have otherwise. Some useful government bills are going to have to be reintroduced. The Afghan hearings, into events of several years ago, will be delayed for a few more weeks. And that's about it.

One would think from the heated rhetoric of opposition politicians, the strange gaggle of academics who signed the long, sanctimonious letter against prorogation, and the fulminations of some editorialists and pundits, that our democracy is somehow imperilled by the government's resort, twice, to one of the most common of all parliamentary practices. We are told that the government is shut down, that there is suddenly no accountability, that tactics used by Canadian first ministers ranging from John A. Macdonald to Jean Chrétien and Bob Rae are undermining the democratic system.

This seems to be mainly overkill, given that Parliament, Question Period, House of Commons committees and all the activities in the other rings of the political circus will start up again early in March. At that time, there will be every opportunity for the government's opponents to do the obvious democratic thing – bring on an election to see what the Canadian people think. Revealingly, this is the one strategy ruled out by Messrs. Ignatieff, Layton and company. They do not seem to have the courage of their proclaimed convictions – in modern argot, they aren't ready to walk the walk.

Instead, the opposition parties are trying to keep the pot boiling, largely by playing on public ignorance of the workings of government. Uninformed voters are encouraged to think that the government of Canada has closed its doors and all the MPs and civil servants must be on holiday while one evil man runs everything. At a slightly higher level, those who vaguely remember introductory courses in political science are urged to comment on intricate proposals for the House of Commons to control prorogation. Never mind that any and all of these would be normally ineffective without a constitutional amendment. People obsessed with the ins and outs of how to prorogue Parliament would do better making book on Olympic figure skating.

Those who persist in viewing our governing structure with non-partisan alarm would more profitably ponder the two truly weak links in the system. The appointed Senate of Canada is obviously a standing, outrageous disgrace to democracy and ought not to be tolerated by a free people. It's surely to Stephen Harper's credit, both short and long term, that he keeps trying to change the Senate. One of his reasons for resorting to prorogation and falling back on making his own partisan appointments appears to be to try to stop the egregious abuse of their power by certain Liberal senators.

Second, and most important, there really is a problem in our Constitution with the office of governor-general. While not believing for a second that Mr. Harper is conspiring to ride roughshod over our freedoms, I am convinced that traditional checks to prime ministerial power in a Westminster system have for many years been non-functional in Canada. It is not evident that an appointed governor-general in our decayed monarchical system, no matter how conscientious, has the political legitimacy to stand up to an elected prime minister in a time of real (as opposed to manufactured) crisis. We really must begin to think about facing up to the need to create a Canadian head of state with reserve powers to protect the Constitution. He or she has to have the legitimacy of having been chosen by the Canadian people. As a political appointee, a governor-general has only ceremonial credibility.

A few days after prorogation ends on March 3, Canadians will mostly have forgotten all the words written and spoken about it. They'll be rehashing the Olympics instead. Possibly the government will have profited from its break and be ready to chart a new legislative course.

Ideally, prorogation would also have been seen as providing a much-needed breathing space for the Liberal Official Opposition to develop policy ideas, improve organization, reintroduce the leader to Canadians and explain why he is qualified to be prime minister.

Instead, the dancers just kept on, encouraged by their media and academic acolytes, not noticing that the music had stopped and the audience had gone home. They were too manic to take a golden opportunity to rest, reconsider and recuperate. Prorogation appears to be wasted on those who need it most.

Michael Bliss is a historian and the author of Right Honourable Men: The Descent of Canadian Politics from Macdonald to Chrétien.

Members and guests will not be surprised to learn that I agree with Bliss, including re: ”the need to create a Canadian head of state with reserve powers to protect the Constitution. He or she has to have the legitimacy of having been chosen by the Canadian people.”

I hope he is right when he says, ”A few days after prorogation ends on March 3, Canadians will mostly have forgotten all the words written and spoken about it. They'll be rehashing the Olympics instead. Possibly the government will have profited from its break and be ready to chart a new legislative course.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

My own thought's are now is that we do not live in a democracy as it supposed to be,we live in a semi democartic/dictatorship.

  It is time that we remove some of the power's from our elected as we the people are begining to lose our voice and control over those we elect and employ to look after our well being.

In other word's we have no control what goes on at Ottawa!!

Nick

I’m not being facetious, Nick when I repeat my oft expressed contention that the problem is only partially with the system and only partially with the politicians; it lies, mainly, with the voters.

Like Infanteer I was pleased to see a few Canadians engaged in politics – even if I think they are ill-informed and are being manipulated.

I have been reread William Bennet’s America: The Last Best Hope. It is hard to not be impressed by the quality of the local debate in almost all the states of the emerging union. People were knowledgeable about and vitally interested in politics and the political processes. The debates over the nature of democracy and republicanism and federalism were informed and lively.

There are many first rate, interested but, sadly, not very interesting (charismatic) constitutional scholars in Canada, but, by and large, they confine their debates to dry, sterile academic vacuums; they disdain the popular press and TV – the primary sources of most Canadians’ information – because it does not allow them to express themselves fully and accurately, not even in an occasional long, unedited opinion piece in a newspaper or magazine. It is rare to find an editor/publisher who will give a real, honest-to-goodness expert ‘space’ for, say, 10,000 words.

(Michael Bliss’ comment, quoted, in full, above, is less than 800 words. It probably ‘consumed’ about 1/6th of a page in the Good Grey Globe’s print edition. Imagine ‘giving’ a constitutional scholar 2½ full pages to inform Canadians. Newspapers would not make any money doing that and since they are in business to make money for their owners they don’t do that.)

Evidence from e.g. the Dominion Institute shows that most Canadians think we are Americans.  Perhaps we would be better off if we were. There is much to admire in the US Constitution and, generally, in how it has evolved and how it has protected Americans’ liberty over the past 235± years. But, the problem is that we are not Americans and we do not have a Constitution anything like theirs. Ours, at least the really important (unwritten) parts, is, arguably, better than theirs – but far, far too few of us know or care anything about it.

Is it surprising, then, that we elect less than sterling politicians and that we allow them to get away with scandal and chicanery?

Consider these words, about US politics,  by the Globe and Mail’s resident loony-leftie Rick Salutin: ”The problem isn't the intentions, it's the mechanics … When politics can't do real things, it becomes by default a realm of entertainment and titillation, requiring ever new thrills and Susan Boyle-like surprises. If last year's American political idol was the neat black guy, what's better this season than repudiating him in favour of a right-wing former centrefold from Massachusetts who drives a truck?” (I’m not sure why driving a truck is a mortal sin - nor having been a centerfold or coming from Massachusetts for that matter, but that’s nitpicking.) Salutin is right and it applies to Canada equally: we don’t consider policies or leadership any more. Politics is entertainment. Harper and Ignatieff are being graded on their ability to entertain and, yes, even to titillate.

The solution to our democratic deficit – which does exist, I agree – does not lie in referenda or direct democracy; it lies in education. Better informed, smarter voters will give us better politicians and better politics and a better democracy. And, sadly, that’s the only thing that will work.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is the real reason why a prorogation was Constitutionally necessary:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/stephen-harper-takes-control-of-senate/article1448898/

Stephen Harper takes control of Senate

Jane Taber

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:20 AM


Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed three experienced Conservative provincial politicians to the Senate to fill five vacancies. The two other appointees are community activists.

Veteran Ontario MPP Bob Runciman, who represents the very right of the party and was one-time interim leader of the opposition provincial Tories, is one of the new senators from Ontario. Joining him is Elizabeth Marshall, a Newfoundland MHA, and Rose-May Poirier, a former minister in the New Brunswick government.

Interestingly, Ms. Marshall was the first minister in Premier Danny Williams’s government to support Stephen Harper in his bid for the leadership in 2004. Mr. Harper has asked her to run for the Conservatives several times.

The appointment of senior provincial politicians will “help with the narrative that government legislation should have a better chance in the Senate particularly if you have skilled legislators there,” a veteran political strategist says.

As well, the Prime Minister is to emphasize, according to the strategist, the fact that he has not given up on Senate reform.

The other Ontario vacancy is being filled by Vim Kochhar, president and founder of the Vimal Group of Companies in Toronto. For the past 30 years, according to the background notes sent out by the Prime Minister’s Office, Mr. Kochhar has worked the Canadian Foundation for Physically Disabled Persons, an organization he created. He was born in India and became a Canadian citizen in 1974.

The new Senator from Quebec is Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu, founding president of Murdered or Missing Persons’ Families Association. He established the group after his daughter, Julie, was murdered in 2002. He has also worked in senior positions in the Quebec public service.

Filling of these five vacancies changes the landscape in the Red Chamber, finally giving the Conservatives a slight edge over the Liberals.

The news release accompanying the announcement says the new senators "have also pledged to support the Government in its efforts to make the Senate more democratic and accountable, including legislation to limit Senate terms to eight years."

“Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate,” the Prime Minister says in the release.

The PMO wasted no time in spinning its new appointments to Conservative MPs and Tory supporters, saying they show Mr. Harper remains tough on crime.

“The record shows that under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, our Conservative government is serious about getting tough on crime,” says an Alerte-Info-Alert email that was sent out immediately after the announcement. “Since we were first elected to government, we have made it one of our highest priorities.”

The five appointees, according to the email, are committed to “implementing our Government’s tackling-crime agenda.”
The Tories have charged that this agenda was thwarted by the unelected Liberals in
the Senate. The talking points underline this belief, taking on the record of Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals, saying they are “soft” on crime and have allowed their Senate colleagues to “obstruct, delay, and gut some of our most important measures.”

“Enough is enough,” the Conservative email says, adding that the government will introduce Bill C-15, which imposes mandatory jail time for serious drug offences, in the Senate. The Liberals gutted it, the email says, but the Tories will bring it back in its original form.

The Harper team now has the luxury of a very slim majority in the Red Chamber – 51 Tories to 49 for the Liberals. There are two independent senators, two Progressive Conservatives and one unaffiliated member.

When parliament reconvenes all committees must be reconstituted according to the party standings in each chamber. That could not happen while parliament was in session. All of the CBC and Globe and Mail ‘spin’ was just rubbish, designed to stir up the indignation of the uninformed.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Shoot, I was hoping Runciman was going to be my next Premier.......

 

[Kirkhill]

... It is rare to find an editor/publisher who will give a real, honest-to-goodness expert ‘space’ for, say, 10,000 words.....

10,000 words???? Dear God in Heaven, Sir.  Consider the foresworn revenue.  In that space you could accomodate ten pictures.

 

[a_majoor]

Well, the ground has shifted a great deal under the feet of the Coalition partners (AKA opposition parties), and obdurate opposition in the Senate is no longer an option.

The only real way for them to change the things they don't like is to man up and force an election, but somehow that never comes out of the bluster. I suspect the new economic update and throne speech will come and go, the crime agenda will be passed and real movement towards Senate reform will begin in the 2010 session of Parliament.