Government Found in Contempt of Parliment

[Wilber]

The thing is, people, generally, are liars. It's been shown in studies that people lie many many more times per day than even they think. We can't expect anymore than that from politicians.

Like I said, you can be an apologist for liars. Seems you are one of the say whatever it takes to get elected so we can do whatever we damn well want crowd. How many big lies do you tell every day? "Your hair looks great" doesn't count.

Just how low are your standards?

Edited April 29, 2010 by Wilber

[Smallc]

Like I said, you can be an apologist for liars. Seems you are one of the say whatever it takes to get elected so we can do whatever we damn well want crowd. How many big lies do you tell every day? "Your hair looks great" doesn't count.

Just how low are your standards?

I expect far less from other people than I do from myself. I don't expect politicians to be any better than the people I see around me, as I consider them to be no different.

[Wilber]

The best you can do is to build institutions that can survive the lack of integrity. Our system, for the most part, does. Here in BC, the Government lied on two points (the HST, and just as importantly, the extent of the projected hole in government revenues) and they are now reaping the rewards of that deceit, just as the BC NDP did before them. They will learn as so many governments have before them that you can win the battle and still very much lose the war.

The problem with political junkies like you is you think it is all about you. It's not the politicians who lose when they are dishonest, it is the people they are supposed to represent. Life doesn't exist for you outside the caucus.

[Wilber]

I expect far less from other people than I do from myself. I don't expect politicians to be any better than the people I see around me, as I consider them to be no different.

Why should you expect less? Do you think you are some kind of saint that others can't live up to?

[ToadBrother]

The problem with political junkies like you is you think it is all about you. It's not the politicians who lose when they are dishonest, it is the people they are supposed to represent. Life doesn't exist for you outside the caucus.

There's no point in shooting the messenger. Maybe your saint, I dunno, but I can tell you that people lie, and lie frequently. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying that when they get caught they shouldn't pay, but this idea that somehow we can expect politicians to magically be better than everyone else, and if they're not, the whole edifice of state is going to come crashing down is absurd.

If you have better ideas, then propose them. But I'm telling you right now that one way or the other, you're going to have to accept self-interest is going to be part of any system, and that's going to mean lies will be told. This isn't a politician's problem, it's the way we're wired. We have to have government systems that deal with reality. That's why we have notions like checks and balances, so that the system, to some degree plays one group off against another, and hopefully we get a reasonably productive, useful and stable government out of it.

[Wilber]

There's no point in shooting the messenger. Maybe your saint, I dunno, but I can tell you that people lie, and lie frequently. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying that when they get caught they shouldn't pay, but this idea that somehow we can expect politicians to magically be better than everyone else, and if they're not, the whole edifice of state is going to come crashing down is absurd.

If you have better ideas, then propose them. But I'm telling you right now that one way or the other, you're going to have to accept self-interest is going to be part of any system, and that's going to mean lies will be told. This isn't a politician's problem, it's the way we're wired. We have to have government systems that deal with reality. That's why we have notions like checks and balances, so that the system, to some degree plays one group off against another, and hopefully we get a reasonably productive, useful and stable government out of it.

It takes you two paragraphs but all you are saying is it is OK to lie as long as you don't get caught. It's no wonder we get the government we deserve.

[Smallc]

It takes you two paragraphs but all you are saying is it is OK to lie as long as you don't get caught. It's no wonder we get the government we deserve.

We do...because generally, we're a bunch of liars.

[Wilber]

We do...because generally, we're a bunch of liars.

Adults should be able to handle the truth. When people don't tell the truth they are demonstrating contempt for those they are lying to. They believe those they are lying to are lesser than themselves. Today this is particularly true of politicians, so speak for yourself. Apparently this is acceptable behavior in your world.

[Smallc]

Adults should be able to handle the truth.

Actually, we're also generally a bunch of idiots when it comes down to it....me included sometimes.

[Wilber]

Actually, we're also generally a bunch of idiots when it comes down to it....me included sometimes.

So why do you give a crap about anything that happens in government as it seems the lowest common denominator is just fine.

[Smallc]

So why do you give a crap about anything that happens in government as it seems the lowest common denominator is just fine.

We're a bunch of idiots because we don't give a crap, because we can't handle the truth, and because we're all a bunch of liars...and because we blame everything on politicians and give them credit for next to nothing...there are also many other reasons. It doesn't mean we live in a bleak hopeless reality...it just, in many ways, is reality.

I give a crap because I've taken the time to try to become less of an idiot by being informed...and trying not to lie.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

It takes you two paragraphs but all you are saying is it is OK to lie as long as you don't get caught. It's no wonder we get the government we deserve.

I never said any such thing. Put your own words in your own mouth, and leave them out of mine, thank you very much.

[Wilber]

I never said any such thing. Put your own words in your own mouth, and leave them out of mine, thank you very much.

Perhaps you should read them again.

But I'm telling you right now that one way or the other, you're going to have to accept self-interest is going to be part of any system, and that's going to mean lies will be told.

No, I don't have to accept it.

[Wilber]

We're a bunch of idiots because we don't give a crap, because we can't handle the truth, and because we're all a bunch of liars...and because we blame everything on politicians and give them credit for next to nothing...there are also many other reasons. It doesn't mean we live in a bleak hopeless reality...it just, in many ways, is reality.

I give a crap because I've taken the time to try to become less of an idiot by being informed...and trying not to lie.

So you are informed, big deal. You say you try not to lie but accept others lying to you. Why? I'm not saying we live in a bleak hopeless world, I just want a little honesty from those who ask to govern this country. What the hell is the matter with that?

You justify anything by saying we can't handle the truth. How freaking condescending is that? I can't believe I'm reading some of this shit.

You are right about one thing though, I don't give credit to politicians who won't stand up for the the people who elected them and put their own political fortunes first.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Wilber

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps you should read them again.

I did, and I never said I approved of lying.

No, I don't have to accept it.

You don't have to accept that water is wet, either, but it is regardless of your acceptance. Democratic political systems that have a hope in hell of surviving need to be built on the fundamental notion that those in power will ultimately abuse those powers, and proceeding from that, seek to find ways to ameliorate that most basic political fact by various means. In the US, it means giving all three branches of government a certain degree of overlapping power to prevent any of them gaining an upper hand that threatens the entire democratic system. In the Westminster system, there is a three fold set of checks and balances, on the one hand the vast powers of the Sovereign are commanded by the Government, rather than directly by the Sovereign, and the Government itself is accountable to Parliament, which ultimately selects the Government, and then, cyclically, the Sovereign retains the Reserve Powers to assure that neither the Sovereign's Ministry or Parliament act in a fashion that could lead to a serious imbalance or (as in the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis) an unbreakable standoff. These systems were created or evolved to deal with real world problems of government. They are not perfect, and are always in need of refinement, but they do produce workable, stable systems of government that have persisted now for centuries, and just as importantly, are both foundational systems, inspiring other nations to adopt similar systems.

I will readily admit that there are serious problems in our system, though they are comprehensible. In particular, the rise of the political parties in the last years of the 18th century lead to the end of the MP as essentially an independent entity. It created, over the long term, a deep imbalance. But I can tell you right now that the system as it stood between the 17th and 18th centuries was no panacea. Because Ministries were forced to bargain for every vote, it made any kind of long term planning, or stability in government, difficult to achieve. It often meant Ministries had very short lifespans, and in subtle ways still allowed the Crown to intrude into the business of government. So when we seek solutions, as I say constantly to Myata, we must be mindful of why things are the way they are, so that we don't replace something that works, no matter how frustratingly with something that is much much worse.

[Smallc]

You are right about one thing though, I don't give credit to politicians who won't stand up for the the people who elected them and put their own political fortunes first.

The HST though is exactly the opposite of that. They think the people are too stupid to realize it's a good thing (they may be right, I don't know... Economists seem to think so). They're doing it anyway, even though it will probably cost them. Many times, we can't handle the truth.

And being informed is a big deal. If more people were informed, then there wouldn't be many of the problems you complain of.

[Wilber]

The HST though is exactly the opposite of that. They think the people are too stupid to realize it's a good thing (they may be right, I don't know... Economists seem to think so). They're doing it anyway, even though it will probably cost them. Many times, we can't handle the truth.

And being informed is a big deal. If more people were informed, then there wouldn't be many of the problems you complain of.

Being informed is a big deal. The BC government made no attempt to inform, they said one thing and imposed the opposite. As you say, they think people are stupid so if they have no respect for those who elected them, why should they expect any in return.

What gets me is that you are cheering for a Speaker's decision that is critical of Harper for an attitude you are trying to defend, that others cannot be trusted with the truth.

[ToadBrother]

Being informed is a big deal. The BC government made no attempt to inform, they said one thing and imposed the opposite. As you say, they think people are stupid so if they have no respect for those who elected them, why should they expect any in return.

What gets me is that you are cheering for a Speaker's decision that is critical of Harper for an attitude you are trying to defend, that others cannot be trusted with the truth.

I don't really see how the situations are analogous. In the Conservatives' case, they were asserting an interpretation of legislation that essentially stated the way our system has run for 300 years isn't so any more. In the BC Liberals case, they lied to win. Neither is good, but I'd say trying to undermine our constitution is a much more serious crime. In the case of the BC Liberals, and in particular Campbell and Hansen, their political careers are most likely over. The BC Liberal caucus most certainly must be fuming, no matter how big a smile they paint on their faces publicly, and if Campbell can't recover some ground, he's looking at retirement. In short, their misdeeds will be paid for. Sounds like a happy ending to me.

[Wilber]

I did, and I never said I approved of lying.

You don't have to accept that water is wet, either, but it is regardless of your acceptance. Democratic political systems that have a hope in hell of surviving need to be built on the fundamental notion that those in power will ultimately abuse those powers, and proceeding from that, seek to find ways to ameliorate that most basic political fact by various means. In the US, it means giving all three branches of government a certain degree of overlapping power to prevent any of them gaining an upper hand that threatens the entire democratic system. In the Westminster system, there is a three fold set of checks and balances, on the one hand the vast powers of the Sovereign are commanded by the Government, rather than directly by the Sovereign, and the Government itself is accountable to Parliament, which ultimately selects the Government, and then, cyclically, the Sovereign retains the Reserve Powers to assure that neither the Sovereign's Ministry or Parliament act in a fashion that could lead to a serious imbalance or (as in the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis) an unbreakable standoff. These systems were created or evolved to deal with real world problems of government. They are not perfect, and are always in need of refinement, but they do produce workable, stable systems of government that have persisted now for centuries, and just as importantly, are both foundational systems, inspiring other nations to adopt similar systems.

I will readily admit that there are serious problems in our system, though they are comprehensible. In particular, the rise of the political parties in the last years of the 18th century lead to the end of the MP as essentially an independent entity. It created, over the long term, a deep imbalance. But I can tell you right now that the system as it stood between the 17th and 18th centuries was no panacea. Because Ministries were forced to bargain for every vote, it made any kind of long term planning, or stability in government, difficult to achieve. It often meant Ministries had very short lifespans, and in subtle ways still allowed the Crown to intrude into the business of government. So when we seek solutions, as I say constantly to Myata, we must be mindful of why things are the way they are, so that we don't replace something that works, no matter how frustratingly with something that is much much worse.

Very nice, unfortunately Canadian style iron fisted party discipline has made a mockery of just about all of that.

You can dress it up any way you want but I don't have to accept people lying to me. Perhaps if we all started with that simple and somewhat obvious principle, we could actually get somewhere. Just making continual excuses for the sleazy status quo will not.

[Wilber]

I don't really see how the situations are analogous. In the Conservatives' case, they were asserting an interpretation of legislation that essentially stated the way our system has run for 300 years isn't so any more. In the BC Liberals case, they lied to win. Neither is good, but I'd say trying to undermine our constitution is a much more serious crime. In the case of the BC Liberals, and in particular Campbell and Hansen, their political careers are most likely over. The BC Liberal caucus most certainly must be fuming, no matter how big a smile they paint on their faces publicly, and if Campbell can't recover some ground, he's looking at retirement. In short, their misdeeds will be paid for. Sounds like a happy ending to me.

They are both motivated by the attitude that others cannot be trusted with the truth. It really is that simple. Again, you can't see past the party politics. Why should the average citizen care what happens to Campbell and Hansen or the provincial Liberals for that matter? It's not about them, it's about being able to believe the people in government. If you work on the premise that they are all liars, what does it matter who wins, so why vote. Has it ever occurred to you that this is the very reason great numbers of people don't vote? Like any affliction, apathy is caused by something.

[msdogfood]

Consider the most likely end game of this scenario; namely an election. The Tories will likely set themselves up for a campaign based on the notion that the Opposition is attacking the military. They're going to try to frame this whole sorry episode as an attack on the army by a bunch of separatists, terrorist lovers and self-serving political hacks. Just look at how they framed the 2008 prorogation and the coalition (despite the fact that the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition clearly had its roots in Harper's own attempt to unseat the Martin government).

they may try that but most poling indicates that we dont want to be there & a lot of people are starting to winder whats in the blackout documents now press included.

If your the PMO do you really want to mess with that .. than there is the Speaker's decision. you do not want to mess with that!!

you are going to have a lot of people asking .... what the hell is he hiding!!!???.

[ToadBrother]

they may try that but most poling indicates that we dont want to be there & a lot of people are starting to winder whats in the blackout documents now press included.

If your the PMO do you really want to mess with that .. than there is the Speaker's decision. you do not want to mess with that!!

you are going to have a lot of people asking .... what the hell is he hiding!!!???.

I wouldn't discount anything when it comes to Harper. He's reckless, but he's managed thus far to keep an edge over the opposition. Still, there seems to be some doubt that this will lead to an election now. If the same Parliament returned afterwards, no one would be any further ahead. It does appear that the Government is leaning towards letting select Opposition MPs to swear an oath of secrecy, emulating how such matters work down in the US with Senate hearings on matters involve sensitive information and state secrets. I think the Government knows that the polls simply do not reflect any possibility of an election returning a stronger result, and the Bloc's growing popularity in Quebec as the Liberal government collapses pretty much limit success for either the Federal Liberals or the Conservatives.

The only thing now remaining is to see how the Tories attempt to spin all of this as a great victory for them. Some have already tried to do that, calling the Speaker's ruling some sort of victory for Harper, despite the fact that the Speaker made it clear that this was a matter of privilege.

[ToadBrother]

Very nice, unfortunately Canadian style iron fisted party discipline has made a mockery of just about all of that.

You can dress it up any way you want but I don't have to accept people lying to me. Perhaps if we all started with that simple and somewhat obvious principle, we could actually get somewhere. Just making continual excuses for the sleazy status quo will not.

You complain, but I'm not exactly seeing any solutions. So imagine for a moment that you were king of the world. What system would you put in place and how precisely would it assure honesty?

[bloodyminded]

Frankly, I don't know how you could conduct any kind of offensive operation without some abuses.

As to the Taliban, they are a group of people in desperate need of killing. I only wish we could put more troops on the ground.

I can only imagine how someone like you would have been in WWI. "Oooh, but look how they beat up that German soldier when they captured his unit." "Well, you know, they did invade Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and so on, and they are killing Jews by the millions..." "Oooh well, that don't matter, because some guy got a few broken bones. Our democracy is broken, we need a new system of government so that no enemy combatant will ever get beaten up again."

But we're not talking only, or even mostly, about "the Taliban" or "terrorists," the same conventional pieties that are presented every time someone has the affrontery to complain about abuses ("abuses" often being a euphemism for torture).

We're talking about detainees. Full stop. And it is now exposed (though generally elided in the cowardly public consciousness, precisely as the leaderships of Canada, the US, and NATO are intentionally manipulating), a lot of detainees are innocent. (This comes from parts of the US military brass, as well as the Red Cross, the FBI, and human rights groups.)

Many were effectively sold to us as bounty from enemies or profiteers. This alone is preposterous, and guarantees the needless (in fact, counterproductive) suffering of innocents; as the above-mentioned political leaderships are all fully aware, thus making them complicit by definition.

Then the detainees are abused, or even outright tortured.

Then some people complain about these terrible crimes and incontestable examples of injustice.

And then, by rote, we are informed it is "naive" to worry about the treatment of "the terrorists."

[Shwa]

But we're not talking only, or even mostly, about "the Taliban" or "terrorists," the same conventional pieties that are presented every time someone has the affrontery to complain about abuses ("abuses" often being a euphemism for torture).

We're talking about detainees. Full stop. And it is now exposed (though generally elided in the cowardly public consciousness, precisely as the leaderships of Canada, the US, and NATO are intentionally manipulating), a lot of detainees are innocent. (This comes from parts of the US military brass, as well as the Red Cross, the FBI, and human rights groups.)

Many were effectively sold to us as bounty from enemies or profiteers. This alone is preposterous, and guarantees the needless (in fact, counterproductive) suffering of innocents; as the above-mentioned political leaderships are all fully aware, thus making them complicit by definition.

Can you please provide me with unredacted and official government documents that prove these allegations?