Shill of the Week
Shill of the Week: Stephan Harper
The Shill of the Week is dedicated to the chearleaders of power who will defend them regardless of the evidence. Since this is exactly what politicians and the mainstream media do for a living it is only appropriate to award those who rise above the call of duty.
Brent Jessop || January 29, 2006
The guys running our propaganda department are not going to win any creativity points with this one. With Harper getting elected and with two-thirds of the population worried about Harper pulling us even closer to the US, what is the best way to dispel some of that fear? More fake "disagreements" with the Americans.
These fake spats give the corporate media such great material for quotes. "The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper told reporters in Ottawa. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
Our brave new leader sounds a lot like the one we just got rid of. When good old Paul Martin needed a boost he started talking tough on Kyoto and proclaimed during his staged arguments with the Americans that "When it comes to defending Canadian values, when it comes to standing up for Canadian interests, I'm going to call it as I see it." This is obviously a total shame, since Martin could not have done more to keep the Americans happy.
The article that prompted all of this was about Harper's plans for building up our arctic defence despite the American's resistance to the idea. Why would the American's who are openly trying to build a North American security perimeter be opposed to improved arctic defence? Remember the whole missile defence system that Canadians wanted nothing to do with? If you are trying to defend the continent then wouldn't you want to improve the monitoring of the northern waters? Would we really use this against the American's? Would we not just let them sail through? Do you think they may benefit from the $2 billion deep water port?
Related - Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
Related - Conservative Party of Canada
Harper brushes off U.S. criticism of Arctic plan
CBC || January 29, 2006
Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper took aim at the American ambassador's criticism of the Conservatives' Arctic sovereignty plan on Thursday, in the party leader's first news conference since winning a minority government.
"The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper told reporters in Ottawa. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
A day earlier, David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said his government opposes Harper's proposed plan to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic to detect interlopers and assert Canadian sovereignty over those waters.
"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," Wilkins said as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.
"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."
During the federal election campaign, which culminated in Harper's win earlier this week, the Conservatives promised to spend $5.3 billion over five years to defend northern waters against the Americans, Russians and Danes.
"Sovereignty is something, you use it or you lose it," Harper said at the pre-Christmas announcement in Winnipeg.
Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com
His plan included the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy icebreaking ships, as well as the eventual construction of a $2-billion deepwater port in Iqaluit and an underwater network of "listening posts."
At the time, Harper wouldn't say whether he would order military action if the ships or port detected an unauthorized submarine in Arctic waters.
Wilkins said he doesn't think that kind of military buildup is necessary in the Far North.
"We are simply having a disagreement on this," he said on Wednesday. "We have agreed to disagree, and there's no reason ... to say, 'There's a problem that's occurring and we gotta do something about it.'"
Wilkins also said he expects less anti-American sentiment from Harper's minority government, and added that he called Harper to offer congratulations on his election victory.
Also on Thursday, Harper acknowledged he had "a very friendly conversation" with U.S. President George W. Bush a day earlier, and hoped to arrange a meeting as soon as the leaders' schedules permit.
The Shill of the Week is dedicated to the chearleaders of power who will defend them regardless of the evidence. Since this is exactly what politicians and the mainstream media do for a living it is only appropriate to award those who rise above the call of duty.
Brent Jessop || January 29, 2006
The guys running our propaganda department are not going to win any creativity points with this one. With Harper getting elected and with two-thirds of the population worried about Harper pulling us even closer to the US, what is the best way to dispel some of that fear? More fake "disagreements" with the Americans.
These fake spats give the corporate media such great material for quotes. "The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper told reporters in Ottawa. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
Our brave new leader sounds a lot like the one we just got rid of. When good old Paul Martin needed a boost he started talking tough on Kyoto and proclaimed during his staged arguments with the Americans that "When it comes to defending Canadian values, when it comes to standing up for Canadian interests, I'm going to call it as I see it." This is obviously a total shame, since Martin could not have done more to keep the Americans happy.
The article that prompted all of this was about Harper's plans for building up our arctic defence despite the American's resistance to the idea. Why would the American's who are openly trying to build a North American security perimeter be opposed to improved arctic defence? Remember the whole missile defence system that Canadians wanted nothing to do with? If you are trying to defend the continent then wouldn't you want to improve the monitoring of the northern waters? Would we really use this against the American's? Would we not just let them sail through? Do you think they may benefit from the $2 billion deep water port?
Related - Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
Related - Conservative Party of Canada
Harper brushes off U.S. criticism of Arctic plan
CBC || January 29, 2006
Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper took aim at the American ambassador's criticism of the Conservatives' Arctic sovereignty plan on Thursday, in the party leader's first news conference since winning a minority government.
"The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper told reporters in Ottawa. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
A day earlier, David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said his government opposes Harper's proposed plan to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic to detect interlopers and assert Canadian sovereignty over those waters.
"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," Wilkins said as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.
"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."
During the federal election campaign, which culminated in Harper's win earlier this week, the Conservatives promised to spend $5.3 billion over five years to defend northern waters against the Americans, Russians and Danes.
"Sovereignty is something, you use it or you lose it," Harper said at the pre-Christmas announcement in Winnipeg.
Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com
His plan included the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy icebreaking ships, as well as the eventual construction of a $2-billion deepwater port in Iqaluit and an underwater network of "listening posts."
At the time, Harper wouldn't say whether he would order military action if the ships or port detected an unauthorized submarine in Arctic waters.
Wilkins said he doesn't think that kind of military buildup is necessary in the Far North.
"We are simply having a disagreement on this," he said on Wednesday. "We have agreed to disagree, and there's no reason ... to say, 'There's a problem that's occurring and we gotta do something about it.'"
Wilkins also said he expects less anti-American sentiment from Harper's minority government, and added that he called Harper to offer congratulations on his election victory.
Also on Thursday, Harper acknowledged he had "a very friendly conversation" with U.S. President George W. Bush a day earlier, and hoped to arrange a meeting as soon as the leaders' schedules permit.
posted by Moxie Molly at 6:13 pm
<< Home