There’s something poetic about a self-proclaimed “economist at heart” being slam-dunked by The Economist. And I quote (taken from http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15213212):

CANADIAN ministers, it seems, are a bunch of Gerald Fords. Like the American president, who could not walk and chew gum at the same time, they cannot, apparently, cope with Parliament’s deliberations while dealing with the country’s economic troubles and the challenge of hosting the Winter Olympic games. This was the argument put forward by the spokesman for Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, after his boss on December 30th abruptly suspended, or “prorogued”, Canada’s Parliament until March 3rd.

Mr Harper’s supporters might argue that there is nothing wrong with this. Precedent allows it, and Canada is a decent, well-run place, where much is decided at the provincial level. Since most countries already have too many laws, a pause for parliamentary reflection might count as progress. Some places, such as Texas, manage well with only a part-time legislature. Politicians’ ritual slanging matches should not be allowed to distract Canadians from weightier battles, such as the bobsleigh, the giant slalom or round-robin curling. Come to think about it, why not shut down Parliament altogether, perhaps until the economy is growing again at full throttle? At least that would help cut the federal deficit.

The argument that previous prime ministers frequently prorogued Parliament is no more convincing. In almost every case they did so only once the government had got through the bulk of its legislative business. The Parliament that Mr Harper prorogued still had 36 government bills before it, including measures that form part of the prime minister’s much-vaunted crackdown on crime. When it reconvenes, those bills will have to start again from scratch. Past prorogations were typically brief (see article). This time sessions will be separated by a gap of 63 days.

Never mind what his spin doctors say: Mr Harper’s move looks like naked self-interest. His officials faced grilling by parliamentary committees over whether they misled the House of Commons in denying knowledge that detainees handed over to the local authorities by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were being tortured. The government would also have come under fire for its lack of policies to curb Canada’s abundant carbon emissions. Prorogation means that such committees—which carry out the essential democratic task of scrutinising government—will have to be formed anew in March. That will also allow Mr Harper to gain immediate control of committees in the appointed Senate, where his Conservatives are poised to become the biggest party.

Mr Harper has form. He prorogued Parliament last winter, too—to dodge a short-lived threat by the three opposition parties to bring his minority government down. Having gone to the polls three times since 2004 Canadians do not want another election. He might say that governing in a minority obliges him to play fast and loose with parliamentary nicety. He has nursed the economy and he has confounded those who feared that he would impose his supporters’ loathing of abortion and liking for the death penalty on a generally tolerant country.

A legislature matters more than the luge

Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.

OUCH!

Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

We at Idiocracy Watch have decided to provide a simple “mailto” link that will allow you to email PM Harper directly and tell him to “Get Back To Work!”.

Click this link to email Harper using your regular email program.

Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

Ok, I’m going to say it: There is a possibility that Stephen Harper is a sociopath.

I read the following description and could no longer hide my suspicions. I’m no doctor, so this is only an uneducated stab (i.e. my personal, unprofessional opinion) at what is potentially a much more complicated issue.

Decide for yourself (taken from http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html with my edits in red).

Profile of the Sociopath Stephen Harper

This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths Stephen Harper.

• Glibness and Superficial Charm (IW: I’m recalling a certain sweater vest and N.A.C. performance)
• Manipulative and Conning
  They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. (IW: see any news report on Harper’s treatment of his cabinet ministers, Richard Colvin, etc. This has emerged as his profile in the media.)
• Grandiose Sense of Self
  Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.” (IW: like, say, the entitlements of a majority government when he only has a minority?)
• Pathological Lying
  Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. (IW: parliament was prorogued so that the Cons could focus on their budget!? Really!? Please… NOTE: I’m not calling Harper a liar, only he is very good at explaining his actions with very incredible stories.)
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
  A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. (IW: again, Harper’s treatment of his ministers, Richard Colvin, Harper’s shameless use of attack ads.)
• Shallow Emotions
  When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. (IW: how many of you shake your kid’s hand on the first day of school? What ever happened to accountability and transparency?)
• Incapacity for Love (IW: see “Shallow Emotions”)
• Need for Stimulation
  Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common. (IW: remember, the individual doesn’t need to satisfy ALL of the criteria to qualify.)
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy
  Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. (IW: See Richard Colvin, Harper’s highly inaccurate characterization of all Afghan torture victims Taliban.)
• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
  Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. (IW: See all of the above.)
• Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
  Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. (IW: see “Need for Stimulation”.)
• Irresponsibility/Unreliability
  Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. (IW: See all of the above.)
• Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
  Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. (IW: see “Need for Stimulation”.)
• Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
  Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. (IW: All-encompassing promises? How about transparency and accountability for all? Exploiting others? How about you talk to his cabinet ministers.)
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
  Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily. (IW: can you say Proroguing Parliament to avoid criticism?)

---

Other Related Qualities: (IW: I love this)

1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian (IW: unprecedented control over cabinet ministers, who he treats like sheep, or dogs, or sheep dogs.)
4. Secretive (IW: unprecedented control over cabinet ministers, who he gags like prisoners.)
5. Paranoid (IW: constant reference to “liberals” and “liberal media” who are not being “fair” to him)
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance (IW: sweater vest)
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s) (IW: see 3,4)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life (IW: see 3,4,8)
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world (IW: give him time)

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

Coincidence or explanation? You tell me.

Update:

Michael Ignatieff published an opinion piece on the proroguing of parliament. Here is an excerpt that goes a long way to highlight some of my points from above (in red). It reads…

Even more troubling, this shutting down of Parliament is not a rash or impetuous act. It is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr. Harper’s government. Whenever Stephen Harper gets into political trouble, his first impulse is to steamroll over democratic institutions that get in his way. Look at the record:

Just over a year ago, he prorogued Parliament just weeks after an election – in order to rescue himself from an unprecedented political and constitutional crisis of his own making.

He has lashed out at public servants – like Richard Colvin, in the case of the detainees – for daring to speak the truth, and cowed others into silence.

He fired Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, for blowing the whistle on the repairs needed at Chalk River to ensure the reactor’s safety.

He starved Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the necessary resources to do his job because he was critical of the poor management of our public finances under this Conservative government.

He let go the heads of both the RCMP’s Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission. Both were competent individuals, doing their job with distinction. But both had a serious flaw in Stephen Harper’s eye: they were critical of the government.

He cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, despite their lauded work and broad public support, because, according to one of his ministers, they held dissenting views from the government on foreign policy.

This approach to government – intimidating all who stand in its way – can have severe and corrosive consequences. Look at our nation’s capital today: a cowed and demoralized public service and a constantly bullied national press gallery, both trying to serve a disenchanted public.

The Government’s behaviour speaks to a deep cynicism. Mr. Harper is gambling that the public doesn’t care how it is governed. In fact, in many ways it furthers his political interest to fuel public distrust about politics and depress even further voter turnouts in elections, since this strengthens the electoral impact of his “base.”

Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

By Guest Cartoonist, Siggy Pantazis:

Harper makes a quick Christmas side trip to support the troops.

Dear PM Harper,

In relation to the recent political and ethical mess up on our parliament hill, vis-a-vis the Afghan detainees, Mr. Colvin, Mr. MacKay, and your government’s various (muddled) responses that seem to shift from day to day, I’d like to share some words of wisdom:

“it would seem perhaps better, even imperative, certainly when it is a matter of saving the truth, to destroy even what is one’s own, especially if one is a philosopher; for while both friends and the truth are dear, the right thing is to honour the truth first.”

These are not my words, they come to us from Aristotle. The emphasis, however, is mine. Though I am all too aware that you fancy yourself an economist, and suspect (regretfully) that you hold philosophers in some disregard, nonetheless I hope Aristotle’s thoughts find you well. I hope, too, that my emphasis helps you to locate the meaning among his words. Since you are our Prime Minister, a position that I can only presume often requires you to make difficult personal sacrifices, I truly hope you will.

Best,

Idiocracy Watch

Here’s a Wordle I created using Harper’s latest speech, taken from the conservative party website:

Here’s Ignatieff’s latest speech Wordle:

Aren’t wordles fun?

Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

If you want to know how Stephen Harper could win a majority in the next election the answer lies somewhere in between the lines of this video:

As far as I can tell the Harper government speaks the same language as the folks in this video. That probably explains why Harper finds himself at home on the Fox Network whenever he travels south of the border. Those are his people.

Now I’m in no way saying that Canadian Conservative supporters are like the people in this video. Not at all. I’m sure Canadian Conservative supporters have Canadian accents, and are much less likely (by at least 50%) to accuse Obama of being a Marxist or a baby-killer.

By highlighting this video I’m simply suggesting that there exists a very real potential for the Harper government to create new Canadians that more closely resemble these folks, whether it’s through new creative education policies (severe cuts to the education transfers would be a good start), new foreign policy objectives (downplaying the existence of legitimate foreign states, for a start), or creative changes to our current immigration regime (say, instant citizenship for any Palin supporter).

It’s like this: more of Sarah Palin’s supporters seems to be a clear way for Harper to get the votes he so desperately wants. With that in mind the Harper government ought to be distributing this video widely among its supporters in an attempt to glean the relevant policy-setting information from it.

In the meantime the Harper government should unapologetically continue with all of their current political tactics that seem to mesh so nicely with Sarah Palin’s (and George Bush’s before her) style of politics:

• They should be working towards less transparency, because the liberal media will undeniably spin their messages in ways that they are not happy with.
• They ought to defame and personally attack anyone in power who disagrees with, or criticizes, their policies, in order to prevent subversion and the illusion of alternate possibilities.
• They ought to be exposing all naysayers in the light of unCanadian-ness that they shine unto themselves.
• They ought to denigrate the very notion of diversity of opinion.
• They ought to say whatever will pacify concern, or quell debate on important topics for the sake of an appearance of ideological unity.
• They ought to be practicing politics in sports arenas as much as possible while wearing coloured sweaters with their names on the backs, in order to reinforce the primacy of party loyalty over all other things.

They should be doing all of these things until such time that a new generation of Canadian citizens has been raised in a climate that is hostile to debate, fearful of new ideas and unable to comprehend the notion of switching teams.

Most importantly they ought to be doing all of it proudly, patriotically, rhetorically. They should embrace their politics in a way that demonstrates authority and steadfastness, with ample unwavering assuredness thrown in.

Like the guy in the video said, “When you’re right you don’t have to compromise. Compromise is for people that are wrong.”

By now most of you have heard of Richard Colvin, Canada’s former number two guy at the Canadian embassy in Afghanistan. If you haven’t, let’s just say he’s a guy with a big conscience that you would (and probably should) trust with your children.

He’s also the guy who decided to out the Conservative government’s policies regarding the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan security forces. In his own words:

“As I learned more about our detainee practices, I came to a conclusion they were contrary to Canada’s values, contrary to Canada’s interests, contrary to Canada’s official policies and also contrary to international law. That is, they were un-Canadian, counterproductive and probably illegal.

“According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured. For interrogators in Kandahar, it was a standard operating procedure” (From a CBC report)

Ooops! Did you notice how Colvin used a tried and true Conservative rhetorical tactic to out the very same Conservatives for their own allegedly corrupt and deeply unethical behaviour? He called them un-Canadian!! How dare he.

If you’re a blue-blooded Conservative, you know damn well the only Canadians who are legitimate targets of that kind of rhetoric are non-Conservatives: “Dirty Liberals”, “Red Socialists”, and “Canada-hating Separatists”.

For Colvin to have the audacity to execute the kind of rhetorical rip-off is a no-no in Con-land. Truth and conscience be damned!

The Conservatives, noticing one of their their signature moves was in danger of being illegitimately co-opted, reportedly consulted government lawyers to see if they could sue him for some sort of copyright infringement. After allegedly being told by their lawyers that the current copyright regime provides no such protections, (and that they were probably unfit to govern the country for even asking), the Conservatives re-doubled their efforts to engage in secret copyright reform talks to remedy future occurrences of this type.

Our government allegedly saw no other credible way of squashing this story (it should be noted that the option of launching an investigation to uncover the truth never really occurred to Harper). So the Harper government decided to fall back on a second tried and true fantastic Con-tactic – it was time to assassinate the character of a well-decorated, top civil servant who has for years, and by all accounts, served his country loyally and honestly. All accounts but for the one the Conservatives were about to manufacture, that is…

Harper’s troops worked hard to come up with this: According to the Conservtives, Richard Colvin is deeply anti-military.

Sure. We’ve all heard this before. Criticize the government on anything to do with Afghanistan and you’re any number of things: a terrorist sympathizer; a Taliban apologist; a member of the Taliban; a Taliban supporter; a soldier/troop/military/serviceperson hater; un-Canadian; anti-military; anti-freedom; anti-happiness; or possibly the devil among us (NOTE: all of the previous © Conservative Party of Canada, just to cover my ass).

What strikes me as odd about the anti-military attack is that I picture how I would see this debate playing out if I were in the military. If I were in the military following orders given to me by my superiors to hand over Afghan detainees, and if I was suspicious that those detainees might be tortured, I’d have a problem with it. Not because I suffered from some deep-rooted self-hatred, which might be the Conservative explanation of my unease in such a situation. But rather because, as a Canadian, I have a sense of right and wrong. And torture falls under the category of wrong. I’d be watching Richard Colvin and applauding him for trying to get to the bottom of some very problematic policies that had forced me to hand over Afghan detainees to a security force that was accused of torture.

I’d be applauding quietly, of course, for fear of being noticed by a government who would likely cast me as an anti-troop troop.

Listening to the Conservatives attack Colvin, a Canadian troop might be led to believe that in order to be pro-military you have to be pro-torture. Put another way, you have to be pro- whatever the Conservative government says. And everyone (save the current Conservative government) knows that is idiotic. But then, so is an approach to running a country that resorts to name-calling whenever anyone questions Conservative party policies on human rights grounds, or on any grounds for that matter.

Does the Conservative approach not strike you as a problem? Consider their approach applied to more familiar (hypothetical) circumstances:

• Imagine you were a parent criticizing the school board for taking all the books out of libraries – then according to Conservative logic you would be anti-education and a student-hater.
• Imagine you were a hockey-parent criticizing the local league for allowing fighting at the Timbits level – then you would be anti-hockey and definitely un-Canadian.

Ridiculous? Of course it is. And our government acts this way all the time.

What’s most striking about Colvin’s decision to call the detainee transfers un-Canadian is that he has provided an example of how one might correctly apply the epithet. Sadly, Conservatives are weary of getting things right, lest they be seen as trying to come off as “elitist”.