Excited Delirium

Stories about Excited Delirium, the Shock Economy and a little fiction here and there.

Category Archives: BASH

MayDay 2011: Alternatives for Conservatives (repost)

For most of us, there should be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada is broken and represents everything that’s wrong in the world:

  • Poor fiscal management
  • Broken promises
  • Corruption and contempt for Parliament
  • Ignoring your beliefs and value system

Take heart if you’re a small-c conservative and you’re looking for someone that’s not a crook or someone that’s willing to spin any lie just to grab your vote!  There are many alternatives out there.

Seriously.  Here are just a few:

The Green Party (Site)

I fully admit that this (and all summaries below) is a very superficial summary, but the Green Party represents some of the following basic principles:

  • Let the market do what the market does best
  • No deficit
  • Lower taxes on personal income
  • Proportional representation
  • Taxes on waste

In essence, they feel to me like a libertarian party, but with a shade of green.

Why would a conservative vote for them?

Don’t believe the mainstream media: the Green Party of Canada is not a ‘lefty’ party ‘full of hippies’.  The Canadian Greens put the market in front of most of their policies and most of their platform has a vibe of ‘white collar’ politics.  While they’re very popular with young voters, most seniors tend to vote Green because they want to stay ‘mainstream’ while also staying faithful to small-c conservative values.

Libertarian Party (Site)

The Libertarians are strong believers that the government should not be in our lives in any way, shape or form.  The less government, the better.

The resulting promise of less government is lower taxes, reduced waste and less frustration for those who simply want to get on with their lives.

If you’re not familiar with the Libertarians, a very famous one is Ron Paul in the US.  Ron Paul is a Republican from Texas, but doesn’t believe in the largesse of government that has been brought about by all parties, including those of a conservative bent.

Why would a conservative vote for them?

Libertarians attract those that have had enough with promises, regardless of how much (or little) they will cost.

To see if you’re a Libertarian, try their Canadian quiz.  You may be surprised just how closely you’re aligned with their beliefs!

Canadian Action Party (Site)

One of the central planks of the Canadian Action Party is their demand that we get rid of the Bank of Canada.

While most of their other policies rank towards the left of the spectrum, this one puts them squarely in the middle of Libertarian territory, as Ron Paul has been an advocate of abolition of the Federal Reserve and deficit financing for many years.

Why would a conservative vote for them?

To be honest, I’m not so sure there’s a good answer to this question, but if there’s not a Libertarian or Green candidate in your riding, these may prove to be a good alternative.

Another reason why you would consider them: like the old Reform folks, they’re very supportive of an Elected Senate. Unlike the NDP – which would do away with the Senate altogether – the Canadian Action Party would fill the gap left when the Reform Party was vapourized in 2003.

Christian Heritage Party of Canada (Site)

I’ll go on record and remind everyone that I’m not a fan of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP), but I am a fan of democracy and it’s certainly their right to be out there soliciting votes.

The CHP is the only party to my knowledge that asserts its religious affiliation (Judeo-Christian) in the general public and is a viable option for all of those people that have been supporting the Conservative Party of Canada but who have yet to see progress made on issues like abortion, same-sex marriages and so on.

Why would a conservative vote for them?

If you used to be an Alliance member or simply want to see more overt religion in the policy-making that happens in this country, this is the party for you.

Since the ‘Unite the Right’ campaign washed all of these stronger theological discussions under the table, you’ve been struggling to find a voice with mainstream parties and you’re more than happy to support those that ACTUALLY reflect your value systems and who don’t pretend to reflect them just to grab a vote.

Pirate Party of Canada (Site)

The Pirate Party of Canada got its start when our government began to crack down on people that were using file-sharing and copyrighted materials for personal use.

They reflect the popular Pirate Party in Europe that actually won a number of seats in

There aren’t many candidates in this election, but the party is growing and we expect them to add candidates as the campaign progresses towards May 2.

Why would a conservative vote for them?

While the PPC may be seen as a single-issue party, they have a Libertarian bent that’s very refreshing, particularly if you’re young and you believe in openness, transparency and the elimination of copyright regulations that favour big companies and cost consumers billions each year.

Progressive Canadian Party (once the Progressive Conservatives) (Site)

The Progressive Canadian Party (PCP) is what remains from the aftermath of the Unite the Right campaign in 2003 that saw Stephen Harper consolidate and take control of the following parties:

  • Conservatives
  • Reform Party of Canada
  • Alliance Party

Or … CRAP as an acronym.  Sorry … my anti-Conservative bias is showing :)

Why would a conservative vote for them?

Any ‘Red Tory’ would be proud to vote for the Progressive Canadian Party, as they continue to reflect the softer side that the Conservatives lost when Stephen Harper took the reins of the CPC.

Most of the memes related to ‘family’ and religion are absent from the guiding principles of the party.  Instead they focus on unique concepts like sustainability, ’100 mile diets’, education, health care with some injection of private business and so on.

United Party of Canada (Site)

The United Party of Canada (UPC) is another recent response to the last election where dark-blue Conservatives ran rough over basic principles related to balance, equity and fairness.

Most of their policies reflect this response, including the following directions:

Why would a conservative vote for them?

The party is described as being centrist and would appeal to those ‘Red Tories’ that don’t have a Progressive Canadian candidate running in their riding.

Western Block Party (Site)

The Western Block Party offers those west of Ontario to consolidate their vote and influence into something more tangible, much like the Bloc Quebecois has in the past with Quebec.

The greatest challenge with the WBP is that the founder was the lawyer that represented Ernst Zundel, famous Holocaust denier.  Unfortunately, this taints the party somewhat, but if they are able to focus on the primacy of the West, they’ll be able to attract votes from Albertans, Manitobans, BCers and those from Saskatchewan.

Why would a conservative vote for them?

Despite the potential to be seen as a separatist or racist party, conservatives in the West that feel ‘left out’ by their party (including the Conservative Party of Canada) and who don’t believe that Quebec should be pulling all of the strings when it comes to politics will find a home here.

Online Party of Canada (Site)

While the Online Party of Canada is relatively new, there’s a possibility that they may gain momentum – even in this election – because of some of their unique policy platform ideas.

Why would a conservative vote for them?

Even though they’re a relatively ‘fresh’ party, they have potential to attract a lot of conservatives that want Canada to advance as a republic as opposed to a commonwealth country.

CONCLUSION

If you’re a small-c conservative, don’t feel overwhelmed, ignored or lost when it comes to going to the polls on May 2.

THERE ARE OPTIONS and it’s up to you to exercise your right to vote those options.

Of course, if I’ve missed any alternatives, please post them in comments below.

MayDay 2011: Anything But Conservative (ABC) Resources (repost)

Hey Folks,

I’m going on record saying that I’m going to vote for ABC: Anything But Conservative.

I will not split votes. I will not vote for the person that I might honestly want to see in Parliament.

I will vote for the person that will most likely defeat a Conservative.

I know … massive failure on the democratic front.

However, I will sleep better knowing that ABC will be running Canada after the May election.

Please try to consider the same.

I know a lot of you out there are passionate about the party you support (be it Liberal, NDP or Green or other), but if you’ve got a strong candidate in any riding that might struggle against apathy, backlash, partisan politics or absenteeism, please please please put that aside and vote for the person who will most likely defeat a Conservative.

You can still support the party that you love by making donations of your money, your time or even space on your blog, but when it comes to the election, we NEED this to be a grand slam.  Stephen Harper has made history by leading the most corrupt government in this country’s existence.  For that, we need to make Stephen Harper history.

AND if you’re a Conservative (although it’s highly unlikely that a Conservative will be reading this blog), please ask yourself these questions (or circulate these questions to your Conservative friends):

  • If someone is stealing from me, should I vote for them?
  • If someone lied to me, should I vote for them?
  • If the party leader doesn’t take ownership of the problems in his cabinet, can I trust him?
  • If corruption is more important than democratic rights, why should I support you?
  • If elimination of basic Canadian rights occur on my candidate’s watch, will I be next?
  • If corporate welfare is more important than support for my parents or my family, should I vote for you?
  • If you’ve created the largest Canadian deficit in our country’s history, how do I know you’ll be good managers in the future?
  • If you are unable to manage the country effectively – example: untendered contracts that are costing me billions – how can you be trusted with other similar decisions?

If you’re not sure who to vote for, here are some resources that might help:

Updated Polls:

http://cdnelectionwatch.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

CBC Voting Results (2008 and 2006 with candidate profiles

Pundits’ Guide:  http://www.punditsguide.ca/

Open Parliament:  http://openparliament.ca/

Poll Report:  http://www.pollingreport.ca/

Riding by Riding:  http://www.ridingbyriding.ca/

Election Prediction:  http://www.electionprediction.org/

Anything But Conservative:

http://catch22campaign.ca/

Harpernomics: http://harpernomics.ca/

Vote For Climate:  http://www.voteforclimate.ca/en/

Anyone But Harper Widget: http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/anyone-but-harper

Facebook Anything But Conservative:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26006053677

Vote Swapping Links (generally, I don’t see this as a solution, but I’ll leave that to your discretion):

Vote Pair:  http://www.votepair.ca/

Facebook Anti-Harper Vote Swap: http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=86282125130

Facebook Vote Smart:  http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26198689106

General Non-Partisan Resources

Fair Vote Canada: http://www.fairvote.ca/

Lead Now:  http://www.leadnow.ca/

MPs who changed their loyalties:  http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/lists/CrossedTheFloor.aspx?Language=E&Menu=HOC-Politic&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb

NOTE: I will repost this blog on various occasions through the election with updated resources.  Please post links and suggestions below to ensure that the list is as complete and comprehensive as possible.

MayDay 2011: The Conservative Coalition (repost)

Stephen Harper has dropped the word ‘coalition’ of late, possibly because he and his handlers have decided to focus on backpeddling following scathing reviews from Canada’s Auditor General insinuating that they broke the law with spending for the G8/G20 summit.

However, Canadians shouldn’t let him drop the word ‘coalition’ because he lives and breathes by it.

His power depends on a coalition.

At the outset of the campaign, Stephen Harper had us believe that the word ‘coalition’ – especially when the opposition is concerned – may as well be the spawn of the Devil or something … gasp … worse:  a Canada without him at the helm.

Of course, this is OK because every time Stephen Harper speaks about the evils of coalitions, he is painting himself into a corner and he won’t be able to get himself out … or blame a low-level staffer for his mistakes.

This is because he represents and leads one of Canada’s most successful coalitions:  the CRAP coalition.

I know this term is used as a derogatory remark about the existing Conservative party and platform, but let’s take a brief look at the history of what is now the Conservative Party of Canada:

  • Progressive Conservatives dominate the scene from Confederation to the end of the Mulroney years
  • Albertans get all snippy about how we Canadians treat ‘their’ oil and form the Reform Party of Canada, a thinly veiled gang of libertarians, Gordon Gecko fanatics and Ayn Rand junkies
  • Other conservative folks decide that there isn’t enough religion in the halls of Canadian government and form the Alliance Party, a thinly-veiled ‘whites only’ group
  • These three parties split the small-c conservative vote and keep the Liberals in power from 1993 (the year Kim Campbell was defeated) to 2006, when Stephen Harper used a coalition to defeat Paul Martin
  • The tables are turned in 2003:  Stephen Harper eventually crams all three parties into one box, forms a coalition of conservative and right-leaning parties and declares that ‘progressive’ isn’t fashionable anymore
  • Voila:  The Conservative Party of Canada is born!

As you can see, ‘coalition’ is the life-blood of the Conservative Party of Canada, but a more important word might be ‘suppression‘.

It’s inevitable that folks from all walks of life – be they Libertarians, Pro-Life, religious fanatics, anti-gay, anti-feminist – will be busting to have a voice in a room where they cannot speak or have an opinion, lest they fragment the voting public that puts Stephen Harper in power.

They’ll also get more and more irritated as ‘socialists’ like Jack Layton get a seat at Stephen Harper’s table while they’re left out in the cold because Jack (and/or Ignatieff) represent Stephen Harper’s SECOND ongoing coalition:  the vacillating support from either the Liberals, NDP or even the Bloc that keeps this very sick patient alive and provides new blood when the Conservative minority is about to go into cardiac arrest because of its own largesse.

I pity the people who are in these and other groups that want to be heard, but who will never be listened to as long as the Conservative Party of Canada has Stephen Harper at the helm swearing that ‘coalitions’ in Canada are an unacceptable form of government.

The real truth to the situation is that a coalition of progressives and centre/left would represent more than 2 out of 3 votes in Canada.  This would push Stephen Harper and his corrupt crew into oblivion.

Today, the left and centre parties will not talk of a coalition, but can we at least try to convince them to create a plan to push the Conservative Party of Canada out of power and avoid damaging their own prospects in the process?

Is that too much to ask?  Maybe Jack Layton and Elizabeth May can take the lead on this since Michael Ignatieff has ruled it out?

MayDay 2011: Tar Sands, Energy & Oil Subsidies

Canada wastes several billion PER YEAR subsidizing the creation, expansion and mechanization of the Tar Sands in Alberta, all so that we can export billions more in Dirty Oil to the United States.

It’s a failed strategy when it comes to energy development, storage and transfer in this country.

It must change.

Any government other than a Stephen Harper Government (TM) would eliminate these subsidies.

I’m not alone with this opinion on this industry.  The New York Times Editorial ran a post on how Americans need to say “No” to the Tar Sands.  The original text of this article is pasted below.

So far, only the Green Party and the NDP have come out swinging against the Tar Sands, while the Liberals show luke-warm support for change in this area.

The dreaded ‘Carbon Tax’ policy announcement will never be made before May 2 by anyone, with the exception of Stephen Harper, who will bitch endlessly about how the Liberals and the NDP will bring about a tax on oil in the future if you vote for them.

While Stephen Harper continues with his platform of FEAR FOR CANADA, we need to elect a government that will put an end to the shame that Canadians feel when it comes to this outdated mode of energy production.

Later this year, the State Department will decide whether to approve construction of a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast called Keystone XL. The underground 36-inch pipeline, built by TransCanada, would link the tar sands fields of northern Alberta to Texas refineries and begin operating in 2013. The department should say no.

State is involved because the pipeline would cross an international boundary. Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton first said she was “inclined” to support it, but has lately sounded more neutral. An environmental assessment carried out by her department last year was sharply criticized by the Environmental Protection Agency for understating the project’s many risks. The department has since undertaken another environmental review that will soon be released for public comment. It needs to be thorough and impartial.

Advocates of the Keystone XL, which include the Canadian government, the oil industry and its allies in Congress, argue that a steady supply of oil from a friendly neighbor is the answer to rising oil prices and turmoil in the Middle East. But the Energy Department says the pipeline would have a minimal effect on prices, and there is already sufficient pipeline capacity to double United States imports from Canada.

The environmental risks, for both countries, are enormous. The first step in the process is to strip-mine huge chunks of Alberta’s boreal forest. The oil, a tar-like substance called bitumen, is then extracted with steam or hot water, which in turn is produced by burning natural gas. The E.P.A. estimates that the greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil — even without counting the destruction of forests that sequester carbon — are 82 percent greater than those produced by conventional crude oil.

The project poses a major threat to water supplies on both sides of the border. Turning two tons of tar sand into a barrel of oil requires four times as much water as producing a barrel of conventional oil. Operations in Alberta have already created 65 square miles of toxic holding ponds, which kill migrating birds and pollute downstream watersheds, a serious matter for native communities.

In the United States, the biggest potential problem is pipeline leaks. The Keystone XL would carry bitumen — which is more corrosive than crude oil — thinned with other petroleum condensates and then pumped at high pressure and at a temperature of more than 150 degrees through the pipeline.

Last July, an older bitumen pipeline in Michigan spilled 800,000 gallons of the stuff into the Kalamazoo River. A new TransCanada pipeline that began carrying diluted bitumen last year has already had nine spills.

The Keystone XL would cut diagonally across Montana and the Nebraska Sand Hills — a delicate region of porous, sandy soils — to northern Kansas before heading south to the Gulf. It would also cross the Ogallala Aquifer, a shallow underground reservoir of enormous importance for agriculture that also provides drinking water for two million people. A pipeline leaking diluted bitumen into groundwater could have disastrous consequences.

For this reason, Senators Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson of Nebraska have vigorously opposed the planned route of the Keystone XL. Still, political pressure to win swift approval has been building in Congress. Moving ahead would be a huge error. From all of the evidence, Keystone XL is not only environmentally risky, it is unnecessary.

MayDay 2011: Harper Lies About the NDP, Prices and Deficits

Stephen Harper has a Master’s in Economics, but he doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals.  Once again, we hear him spreading nonsense and lies about the NDP and Liberal platforms.

As a reminder, Steve, here are the basics:  when you have a government that is committed to competition as opposed to a corporate driven monopolistic theocracy, you get price competition as well.  Prices go DOWN.

When you’re a corporate stooge and you’re doing what the media conglomerates, oil companies and food chains want you to do, prices go UP.

Competition is what the NDP would certainly bring and it’s likely what the Greens and Liberals would bring as well on Monday.

The only prices that will likely rise are those of gas, but the whole point of carbon taxation is to discourage wasteful things.  I know we all drive, but we’re going to have to take responsibility for what we’re doing and stop passing the buck to future generations, both in terms of lack of resources, but also in terms of environment disaster.

When it comes to the deficit, it’s easy to speculate that the NDP are not in the pockets of the world’s largest bankers.  Therefore, their primary objective would be – and always has been – deficit reduction.  We’ve seen that the NDP outranks all other political stripes when it comes to budget management and we’d likely see the same continue with a coalition lead by Jack Layton and the NDP.  Research acknowledgement to Buckdog.

balanced_budgets

Finally, good financial management takes the burden off borrowing costs, lowering the interest that you have to pay to the world’s biggest lenders and financiers.  As a result, the overall real cost of borrowing drops, lowering the cost to all Canadians of carrying any debt, if any.

I hate to take you back to your school days, Stephen Harper, but once again you’re lying about the other parties in order to deflect from your own bad management.  Changing the rules for Income Trusts, benefits for only the rich, driving up the cost of EI for small employers (effectively reducing new hires) and not addressing the lack of competition in this country are just a few examples.

It’s time for Canada to FIRE YOU.

MayDay 2011: Would Harper Use Canadian Funds to Privatize Prisons?

We all agree that Stephen Harper and the Conservaclones are just copies of the more staunch and obvious Republicans in the United States, so this story should be considered fair warning for Canadians that are concerned about prison plans in this country.

First, we still don’t know what they will cost.

Second, we don’t know why they’re needed since crime is going down.

Finally, the prospect of using taxpayer funds to eventually privatize prisons is simply a disgusting waste of money.

We all know that this might happen, however.  The Ontario Conservatives used public funds to build a toll-road across the GTA and eventually sold it for a song to a private consortium, effectively relinquishing taxation powers to a private group.

This is a classic case of how conservatives (the CPC in Canada or Republicans in the US) create government waste and deficit and ultimately cry poor based on unreasonable expectations set by corporate-controlled organizations like the IMF and World Bank.  They then liquidate public assets at fire-sale prices in order to ‘balance the books’, literally giving these assets away to private companies.

Don’t let it happen in Canada.  Vote on May 2, 2011.

MayDay 2011: Reposts

As the clock winds down, I’ll be re-posting a few of the more popular articles that I’ve written over the last few weeks.  Site traffic, links and comments will be the main gauge, but I may also add in a few that I feel are important reminders of why this election is so important.

It’s been fun!

I thank all of those who read what I’ve dribbled on about and hope that I’ve helped ‘the greater good’ in understanding what’s at stake for Canadians on May 2, 2011.

I’ll also repeat this message with this and every post over the next 72 hours or so:  VOTE.  TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO VOTE.

We need it.

MayDay 2011: PMO Encouraging Tax Avoidance?

We all know that Stephen Harper is a libertarian in Conservative clothing, stating on many occasions that the only good tax is no tax, but I had no idea he would encourage what might look like tax avoidance.

OK … that might be a stretch, but an odd case that came up last week that needs to be repeated.  Apparently, the cleaning company that is hired by the federal government to take care of the Prime Minister’s office and other federal buildings was encouraging cash payments to its employees in order to dodge minimum wage requirements.

Admittedly, this is just a tiny story, but it gives a hint to the character of the PMO when they outsource simple tasks like cleaning.

MayDay 2011: The Globe Fails Canadians

The Globe and Mail is just one cog in a massive media engine known as BCE Inc.

A few days back, the Globe did the predictable and recommended that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are the ones to be trusted and voted for on May 2.

Unfortunately, it seems the Globe has not done ANY homework on the man and his party.

Does the Globe not realize that the Auditor General has effectively accused the Conservatives of stealing from Canadians?

Does the Globe not realize that Canadians have had enough of criminals running their Parliament, pretending that they represent a majority of this country’s voters?

Does the Globe not realize that hundreds of millions have been spent on media by the Conservatives on the Economic (Distr)Action Plan, profiting all of their journalists, writers, sales people and other staff as a result, tainting their opinion and effectively making it moot?

Does the Globe not realize that there are at least a dozen SERIOUS investigations pending into the wrongdoings of the 40th Parliament?

Does the Globe not realize that Stephen Harper is lying to Canadians when he blames the opposition parties for dissolution of government, when in fact it was the Speaker of the House that declared that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were in contempt of Parliament for not coming clean with expenses and costs for their programs?

Does the Globe not realize that the Conservatives are the poorest managers of money that we’ve had in this country since the previous winners of such a dubious achievement, the Mulroney government?

Does the Globe not realize that the Harper government has out-spent the Mulroney government?

Does the Globe not realize that Canada is an international embarrassment and that Canadians are ashamed of their government and our rapidly declining status as a respectable nation?

Does the Globe not realize that its time has come as well?

Too much is riding on this election for this complete show of ignorance.

If you subscribe to the Globe, cancel your subscription.

MayDay 2011: Is Stephen Harper A Zombie or Vampire?

This is the most vital question vexing all Canadians as we approach Election Day on May 2.

Is Stephen Harper a Zombie or is he a Vampire?

(OK … maybe just some).

Let’s consider the two possibilities.

The Case for Zombie

Zombies are defined as fictional undead monster or a person in an entranced state believed to be controlled by a bokor or wizard.

Here’s more from Wikipedia:

Zombie fiction … usually describes a breakdown of civilization occurring when most of the population become flesh-eating zombies – a zombie apocalypse. The monsters are usually hungry for human flesh, often specifically brains. Sometimes they are victims of a fictional pandemic illness causing the dead to reanimate or the living to behave this way, but often no cause is given in the story

One might think Stephen Harper is a zombie given the monotonous repetition of the ‘stable economy’, ‘lower taxes’, ‘must give corporate giveaways’, ‘fear the coalition’ memes that he constantly repeats, but the reality is that this is because the Conservatives don’t actually have a platform.  They use catch phrases like ‘tough on crime’ because it’s good marketing, not because it will translate to millions of Canadian captives ripe for the picking (of brains) in newly minted prison cells.

We typically see zombies roaming the streets in a post-apocalypse seeking food (brains).  The G20 summit might be a close second to this environment, but Stephen Harper was nowhere to be seen.

One might argue that Stephen Harper is under the influence of a number of ‘wizards’, including Lockheed-Martin lobbyists, Charles McVety, Tom Flanagan or others, but he still seems to exert some level of control over his own thoughts.

When you think of the potential cause for the state of delirium that he seems to be under, one might argue that he is a victim of his own massive inoculation program a few years back sponsored by Glaxo-Smith Kline, where Canadian taxpayers paid hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine to cure a seemingly fake virus (H1N1) that was all the rage with the media at the time.  This vaccine could have gone awry and disturbed whatever valuable chemical balance might have remained in the man’s system.

Finally, one could make a very convincing argument that he would love nothing more than chowing down on Michael Ignatieff’s big juicy, Harvard-trained brains.  Unfortunately, Michael Ignatieff has also exhibited zombie-like threats with his ‘Rise up’ performance.  Was he too trying to tap into the armies of undead to bring his party back to life?

I sit in the ‘no’ side of whether or not Stephen Harper is a zombie mainly because zombies were born out of post-modern opposition to ‘going along with the masses’.  Symbolically, they represent consumers and out-of-control followers that have no mind of their own, but Stephen Harper does seem to possess a light of awareness.

The Case for Vampire

Is Stephen Harper a vampire?  Let’s explore the idea.

Vampires are defined loosely as follows:

mythological or folkloric beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures, regardless of whether they are undead or a living person.

… Bram Stoker’s Dracula drew on earlier mythologies of werewolves and similar legendary demons and “was to voice the anxieties of an age”, and the “fears of late Victorian patriarchy“.

More importantly, they possess a number of traits that are sure indicators of vampirism:

  • Revulsion to garlic.  Has anyone seen Steve eat a shawarma?  Those things are LOADED with garlic!
  • Revulsion to day time / light.  I’ve seen him on the campaign trail, but I haven’t seen him outdoors recently.
  • Paleness of skin.  Well, that would be a clincher if we knew the other items were true.
  • Immortality.  We know that Stephen Harper was raised in Toronto before moving to Calgary and we’ve never seen any pictures of him when he was a child.  Where did he live before Toronto and why was he never a child?  Interesting …

But let’s think seriously about this.

It’s very unlikely that Stephen Harper is a vampire.

Vampires are the anti-thesis of religious bodies and were manifestations brought to life in the 1800s by Bram Stoker as the ultimate anti-religious doctrine and as a backlash to the religious hysteria that was controlling the Victorian Age.

But hold on a second!  I’m going to loop back on this part of the debate.

There’s nothing more profound than the proverbial ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’.  Perhaps Stephen Harper is only pretending to be a religious zealot pretending to be a stand-up normal citizen so that he can convert legions of willing (and blood-filled) Christians because they may have arteries filled with the purest and meekest of blood.

His aversion to actually addressing topics of extreme religious nature including abortion and state-funded colleges for friends may also give us clues as to his ultimate design.

Unfortunately, this may not ring true, as many of the folk who frequent places like Tim Horton’s to load up on carbs, lard and coffee are also potentially poisoning their pure and unadulterated bodies.  Pure is not the first word that comes to mind, although ‘tasty’ might.

I’ll suggest ‘maybe’ for vampire and will change my opinion when I see him chow into a big garlic sandwich.

Something Else?

So else could Stephen Harper be if he’s not a Vampire or Zombie?

Perhaps he’s some hideous hybrid of the two or something worse that might have evolved from a Tar Sands tailing pond disaster that spewed from the north and found its way down into the riding of Calgary West?  Does the Bow Valley River even mingle with the Assiniboine, one of the most polluted rivers in the world thanks to the Tar Sands?

We also know that Stephen Harper (or at least his writers) is a huge fan of the Emperor from the Star Wars series:

Perhaps we’ve all been mislead by the Dark Side of the Force (in other words, political polls, the media and so-called pundits) and Stephen Harper wants to rule Canada like Emperor Palpatine.  It would explain a lot, but the biggest question is ‘why’?  Canada represents about 0.5% of the world’s population, so surely this would be seen as folly?  It’s like running the minnow farm in an ocean filled with sharks.  Ambition of this kind could only be folly.  Sheer folly.
Perhaps he’s just a pawn in the game, like Darth Vader:

We all know that the Emperor manipulated Anikin / Darth Vader into believing that his big shiny Death Star would earn him a few planets and sleeping rights with Ewoks.  Maybe this explains Steve’s fetish with kittens?

Time will tell, voters.  Time will tell.

There are many mysteries that we really don’t want to solve on May 2.

If Stephen Harper gets his true majority on May 2, we’ll quickly discover the real Stephen Harper.

(Let’s not, OK?)