Who else enjoys the opposition making an ass of themselves?

[Driving Rain]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/columnis ... story.html

Eighteen appointments to the Senate, three days before Christmas. That sounds about right, in terms of how these things have always been done. Except that the guy doing them, Stephen Harper, is a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of an elected Senate, one of the core principles of the Reform Party movement from which he came.

Say it ain't so Steve
Steve sells out ....again

He didn't sell out. The reason there were 18 vacancies to begin with is because he deliberately didn't appoint any Senators while he futilely tried to change the system. An effort that was blocked by the opposition and the majority Liberal Senators already in place. It got to the point where the few Conservative Senators couldn't do the work they were appointed because there simply weren't enough of them. Finally he had to do something. He had appoint Conservatives because if he doesn't do something to try and even the odds then the chance of getting the institution changed are nonexistent. As it is the Liberals still far outnumber the Conservatives.

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

[C23flyer]

Everything I have, and am is a result of my own actions. I did not win some kid of lottery and get in on the successful side. I worked hard in school when I was young, I learned how to work outside of school to earn money. I have never asked for anything from anyone.

Actually, unless you're a person of colour, or a woman, then you have won the lottery. If hard work is the secret to success then why is there still a significant wage gap between men and women, and why are white men still employed at higher rates than men of colour? Are you suggesting that women and people of colour just have not worked hard enough?

If you're interested in the "Blessed to be born a white male" phenomenon, here is some background reading for you:

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/resources/cons ... sing_e.pdf

There is lots more information available, but I won't waste my time if you can't bring yourself to read one article. Understanding systemic discrimination begins with setting aside the "I've worked hard for everything I have" argument that sustains the popularity of an ultra-conservative approach to social welfare in this country. I'm not saying it's not true in your case, but to dismiss the good fortune inherent in your success is to disregard the realities of so many other people in this country.

Because you've worked hard, I know that you are inherently a good person. Hard workers as a rule are good people. But you may not have the most inclusive lens on when you speak about what makes people successful. That's all. Best of the season.

[Rockie]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/columnis ... story.html

Eighteen appointments to the Senate, three days before Christmas. That sounds about right, in terms of how these things have always been done. Except that the guy doing them, Stephen Harper, is a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of an elected Senate, one of the core principles of the Reform Party movement from which he came.

Say it ain't so Steve
Steve sells out ....again

He didn't sell out. The reason there were 18 vacancies to begin with is because he deliberately didn't appoint any Senators while he futilely tried to change the system. An effort that was blocked by the opposition and the majority Liberal Senators already in place. It got to the point where the few Conservative Senators couldn't do the work they were appointed because there simply weren't enough of them. Finally he had to do something. He had appoint Conservatives because if he doesn't do something to try and even the odds then the chance of getting the institution changed are nonexistent. As it is the Liberals still far outnumber the Conservatives.

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

If Harper did nothing then the opposition would continue to thwart his efforts to reform the Senate until the Liberals gain power again. Then the Liberals stack the Senate with even more Liberals increasing the already gross over representation they have there ensuring reform will never happen.

If he appoints Liberals he is ensuring the same thing without even having to wait for the Liberals to win an election.

At least this way there are a few more Conservatives to fight for reforming the Senate even though the Liberals still outnumber them.

What would you do to dress up this particular pig?

[Flybabe]

Quite frankly, with a minority, anything Steven Harper and the Conservative ( and Alliance.. and Reform parties ) stand for will be struck down by the Liberals...including Senate reform. Why criticize Harper for doing something that he has no control over?

Would you criticize the Liberals for continuing to stack the Senate in their favour?? Kudos to you if you would.

[2R]

Senators should put the interests of Canada above silly paltry party politics.
That said, i think some of the new batch are Great Canadians and will serve this country well .

[Sheila]

I think they are great too, and they won't fall asleep on the job.

[niss]

However necessary harpers move to appoint conservative senators in place it is still hypocritical.

[Flybabe]

How do you figure, niss? The "Conservative" Senate candidates are still outnumbered by Liberal, are they not? If the Senate isn't elected, should it not be somewhat more balanced?

From the National Post, Dec. 26:

"... For two years, Stephen Harper pressed the provinces to hold elections so that he could appoint democratically selected senators. They ignored him.

For two years, Harper minimized prime ministerial powers of patronage in the Senate. Again: Nobody responded.
Harper's principles exposed him to political danger. The partisan balance in the Senate has deteriorated to the point where the Liberals outnumber Conservatives by a margin of nearly 3-to-1 (58 to 20)...."

I wish I had more time to research a bit more into logistics but I don't.

It's a very interesting article, with an interesting note further down in the story:

"... Harper's senatorial appointments do seem to have met the single most important qualification for the job: They have all agreed to serve a fixed term and to co-operate when the time comes for reform."

Fear not, Senate reform is still alive and on the plate.

[87Strat]

Flybabe, you're awesome!!!!

Liberal rot permeates every corner of Ottawa, especially the senate. I guess there's a reason they call it the RED chamber!!! Harper deserves a medal for lasting as long as he has in that city of ignorance...

He is damned at every turn...He could come up with the cure for cancer, and the Coupe-alition would blame him for not finding the cure for Alzheimers instead. Just another day in the great northern wasteland...

[sky's the limit]

Before there was "Liberal rot," there was Conservative rot... When will you guys start to grasp the fact these people are all the same regardless of party affiliation?

You want to complain about something worthwhile, bitch about the system that empowers them...

stl

[niss]

He claimed to stand against unelected senate appointments.

Harper is no different then any other politician who is willing to compromise with his platform in order to stay in power.

[Rockie]

The Senate has absolutely no say in who forms the government, so your idea that Harper appointed those people to stay in power has no basis in fact. He did it because the Senate was getting to the point where none of the work they need to do in order to pass legislation was getting done. Why? Because there weren't enough Senators. He had no choice.

There was nothing hypocritical about it.

[iflyforpie]

I think it is pretty funny that the Opposition is lashing out at Harper's Senate appointments when it would just be business as usual if the Liberals were in power. Going back on his word? "Hello Kettle? This is Pot!"

The government still has to function. The Senate is in desperate need of overhaul and accountability but in the mean time they are still required for the sober second thought to our law making process. At least the Conservatives have the balls to actually do something about vacationing Senators who never show up and have a seat until they are a certain age regardless.

[Driving Rain]

I think it is pretty funny that the Opposition is lashing out at Harper's Senate appointments when it would just be business as usual if the Liberals were in power. Going back on his word? "Hello Kettle? This is Pot!".

Eighteen appointments to the Senate in one day is hardly business as usual. It's unprecedented, hypocritical and just a tad vindictive.

[Rockie]

I think it is pretty funny that the Opposition is lashing out at Harper's Senate appointments when it would just be business as usual if the Liberals were in power. Going back on his word? "Hello Kettle? This is Pot!".

Eighteen appointments to the Senate in one day is hardly business as usual. It's unprecedented, hypocritical and just a tad vindictive.

Would you rather he spread it out over 2 1/2 years? Harper's reason for doing it have been well spelled out and don't require repeating, but it is worth mentioning again that those 18 people have agreed to step down if/when they finally succeed in getting an elected Senate. How many Liberals have agreed to that hmmm?

[Spokes]

Everything I have, and am is a result of my own actions. I did not win some kid of lottery and get in on the successful side. I worked hard in school when I was young, I learned how to work outside of school to earn money. I have never asked for anything from anyone.

Actually, unless you're a person of colour, or a woman, then you have won the lottery. If hard work is the secret to success then why is there still a significant wage gap between men and women, and why are white men still employed at higher rates than men of colour? Are you suggesting that women and people of colour just have not worked hard enough?

If you're interested in the "Blessed to be born a white male" phenomenon, here is some background reading for you:

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/resources/cons ... sing_e.pdf

There is lots more information available, but I won't waste my time if you can't bring yourself to read one article. Understanding systemic discrimination begins with setting aside the "I've worked hard for everything I have" argument that sustains the popularity of an ultra-conservative approach to social welfare in this country. I'm not saying it's not true in your case, but to dismiss the good fortune inherent in your success is to disregard the realities of so many other people in this country.

Because you've worked hard, I know that you are inherently a good person. Hard workers as a rule are good people. But you may not have the most inclusive lens on when you speak about what makes people successful. That's all. Best of the season.

Hmmmm...well firstly your link did not work so I was unable to read the document you spoke of. I still think I get the gist of your point though.

In reply, all I can say is that in this country, any person of colour or woman could have done exactly as I have, and been in exactly the same position. The is afterall a Black American president. He ran against a Woman for his parties leadership. So I don't really see where the glass ceiling is.

[CD]

Here is a link to that article:

Assessing Gender Equality: Trends in the Situation of Women and Men in Canada