Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Situational Ethics

Have you ever noticed that just before getting royally screwed someone will always make it a point to tell you how honest they are?

Whenever I hear, “have I got a great deal for you” or, “just trust me”, I grab my wallet with both hands and back quickly and carefully away.

As sleazy as those characters might be nobody, and I mean nobody, takes bottom crawling to the same depths as politicians, especially federal ones. These days when I hear the word “Honourable” used in reference to elected officials my ears burn, my lip sweats and my skin crawls as if covered by fire ants.

Only someone with no honour at all would insist on using that word in their title.

Someone once said, a politician’s first job is to get elected. Their second job is to get elected and their third job is to get elected. When you apply that logic to an entire party it’s easy to see how everything else gets pushed aside, especially those pesky little problems facing the cod tongue gumming crowd back home.

Whether we’re eventually offered some sort of compromise on the Atlantic Accord or not, in the past few months the battle over the issue has stacked up a long list of casualties and ethics have been thrown out the window. We’ve all heard how Harper broke his election promises, how the Accord was torn up and how our future is in jeopardy. Fair enough, but how many of us have stopped to consider the reason Harper did what he did or why Hearn, Doyle and Manning refused to stand up for their people?

Simply put, Harper’s Conservatives want to win the next election and they hope to do it by pandering to Ontario and Quebec. Even more frightening for ALL Canadians is the fact that, in the process, they decided to buy a provincial election in Quebec by sending billions there.

Democracy surely is dead.

In that context Newfoundland and Labrador is nothing more than collateral damage, a casualty of a much bigger struggle.

When it comes to our “honourable” members of parliament the only sign of ethics they display on a regular basis are “situational ethics”. They’re willing to stand behind anyone, vote for anything and even eat their own if it protects their position in the halls of power and ensures the survival of the party.

Some people blame that kind of mentality on the system rather than on the person. They say it’s sickening that our federal system encourages politicians to perform morally reprehensible acts against the people who elected them. Bull!!!

A system is nothing more than those who are a part of it. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

Morals and ethics are not situational. They’re an integral part of a person’s nature. You either have them or you don't. Unfortunately, when it comes to successful politicians in this Country, whatever character trait is required for ethical thought appears to have been surgically removed at birth.


Starrigan said...

As always Myles, well said.

The next election will clearly show how people feel about ethics.

Look at how the PC's were decimated after years of Brian Maroney's arrogance. It will be intersting to see how the C.R.A.P bunch does after the next election.

Anonymous said...

Just in case anyone missed it, a poll released just before the holiday weekend showed that the stand taken by NL and NS over equalization is starting to hit home in the rest of canada.

Harper might want to rethink this breach of contract.

Here is a news report from June 29:

Atlantic support low for Harper: equalization poll


A new poll suggests that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has only single-digit support in Atlantic Canada for his equalization policies, and hasn't won over the rest of the country, either.

The survey by Decima Research suggests that 69 per cent of people in the region side with the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on the issue, with only six per cent saying they feel closer to Harper's position.

The poll, made available exclusively to The Canadian Press, also found that Harper hasn't got a lot of support in the rest of the country for his equalization policies.

Nationally, 27 per cent of respondents leaned toward Harper's position, while 32 per cent sided with the premiers.

Although the margin of error for the Atlantic Canada numbers could be as high as eight percentage points because of the small size of the sample, pollster Bruce Anderson said the difference remains significant.

"I think what it's showing is, for the Conservatives it's quite a divisive issue, and the problem for them is there aren't many people in Atlantic Canada who are on their side in the equation," he said.


"You'd call it polarizing, except that there aren't two equal poles on this issue. There's really a point of view in Atlantic Canada that is predominantly different from the one that the prime minister has expressed."

Premiers Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Rodney MacDonald of Nova Scotia have campaigned hard in recent weeks against the equalization proposal handed down in the March federal budget.

The new system forces Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to accept a cap on their offshore revenues, based on the fiscal capacity of Ontario.

The provinces say that breaches the Atlantic Accord they struck with Ottawa in 2005 and will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

The poll suggests that only a minority of Canadians say they understand the issues at stake, but they still tend to sympathize with the have-not provinces.

"There's at least a slight tendency on the part of most voter groups to want to see the government err on the side of doing more to help those regions," Anderson said.

For the Tories, that means a national, not just a regional problem.

"This is a tricky issue everywhere for them, not just in Atlantic Canada."

WJM said...

Morals and ethics are not situational. They’re an integral part of a person’s nature. You either have them or you don't. Unfortunately, when it comes to successful politicians in this Country, whatever character trait is required for ethical thought appears to have been surgically removed at birth.

From many electors, too... especially those who get frothed up about lies that are said to have been told by federal politicians, but allow Danny Williams to lie and break promises with absolute impunity. What's up with that?

Patriot said...

Yeah, what's up with that?

Anonymous said...

I have a question, I am wondering why would the Ottawa Federal Government have toed away two politicians from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, namely Manning and Sullivan? Did it have anything to do with the Feds desire to weaken Premier Danny Williams Government? It appears to be too coincidental for it not to have any relevance. Nevertheless, it is just a question that I would like an answer to.

Ed Hollett said...

Why would you think that there was a deliberate effort to weaken the provincial administration?

In Manning's case, he was punted from the PC caucus by the caucus before the federal election.

In Sullivan's case, he quit over Christmas of his own volition and later took up an appointment.

It's not like either one leaped immediately from one job to another.

If that wasn't enough, your question assumes there'd have to be a reason why the Premier was so important. What reason would there be?

Anonymous said...

Manning was wooed by Federal Minister Peter McKay and Sullivan was given an Ambassadorial position with DFO.

What would you call that?

Ed Hollett said...

Again, anon, I'd call it by looking at the timing, sequencing and impact.

MacKay specifically denied speaking with Fabian Manning at the time the Premier made the original accusation, i.e. long before Manning decided to seek the nomination.

Did the loss of Manning and Sullivan so dramatically shake the government?

Starrigan said...

Crazy Eddy said:
MacKay specifically denied speaking with Fabian Manning at the time the Premier made the original accusation.

Wow Eddy, MacKay specifically denied that, so therefore it must be true, MacKay after all is a politician and God knows an inaccuracy would never pass his lips. You a$$hole, sometimes I wonder if you even think before your diarrhea splatters on to this blog. Smarten up, you might be an a$$hole but we expect better than that from you, you're slipping down to Ottawally's level.

Anonymous said...

"There you have it FOLKS!!!!" If thats not in your face truth ,what is .!!!AMEN To that Brother Starrigan !!!

Anonymous said...

Ed said, "MacKay specifically denied speaking with Fabian Manning..." as if that means anything. I have to agree with Starrigan, (if not the language) I'd expect more from you than that.

To use a politician's public statement as some kind of evidence of fact is really going to the extreme.

Anonymous said...

Have you noticed the Globe and Mail is printing some very positive articles on Newfoundland and Labrador?

Read Tuesday's Globe and Mail article titled:

SHAWN MCCARTHY (This article can be read on the Globe and Mail shared internet files.)

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail."

AND ANOTHER TITLED: "HARNESSING THE CHURCHILL - The chess game between Quebec and Newfoundland continues.In 1967, Quebec was the clear winner. Newfoundland wanted to develop the hydroelectric potential of the upper Churchill River in Labrador, to sell the electricity to hungry U.S. markets. Trouble was, Quebec refused to let Newfoundland transmit the power through a Quebec corridor, and the federal government, which had the power to impose such a corridor, feared that doing so would feed the separatist cause. Newfoundland had two choices: walk away from the table or agree to terms that would pay a little to Newfoundland and a lot to Hydro-Qu├ębec. Newfoundland premier Joey Smallwood signed a deal that still has the people in his province gnashing their teeth, since Quebec's take is so much greater than Newfoundland's and the contract won't expire for almost another 35 years. (This is just a paragraph you will need to purchase this article.)

I am starting to become so impressed that again I want to say "THANK YOU VERY MUCH" Globe and Mail.

babe in boyland said...

"MacKay specifically denied that, so therefore it must be true, MacKay after all is a politician and God knows an inaccuracy would never pass his lips"

by that logic, we shouldnt believe the premiers version of the story either. who do we believe when two politicians tell us different things?

Anonymous said...

Tories call open line shows every day lately attacking Fabian.

Someone comes on here anonymously making up some big conspiracy story and people like starrigan and the other anonymous people chime right in.


Artfull Dodger said...

With all due respect to the poster preceeding me, aren't you also anonymous? Are you Fabian's PR person?

Anonymous said...

With all due to respect to an artful dodger, no, I don't work for fabian.

Who do you dodge for?

Artfull Dodger said...

Nobody, I'm totally NON-PARTISAN.

Who do you anon for?

Anonymous said...

a non-partisan dodger, but a dodger all the same.

I anon for myself.

Starrigan said...

Very clever anon, I wish you would use an alias so I could put you on my A$$hole list. Jeez what a knob.

Anonymous said...

Ever read the telegram terms of service, dere starry-boy?

Didn't think so.

Eddy got you good.

Anonymous said...

starrygan when does your confederation building security pass expire

Starrigan said...

? got me good? where?

Anonymous said...

you had a comment at the telly, eddy bitched and now its gone.

how many starrigans are there?

Starrigan said...

It's possible, I'm pretty sure my comment was directed towards Ottawally and Simple Simon. I dont' believe Crazy Eddy had posted anything there. What topic was it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah. That's the one. you called em assholes.

Eddy said something about violating terms of service and abuse.

Your comment disappeared.

Anonymous said...

bill hickey has staminay

Starrigan said...

I would never call them assholes!!! That's simply preposterous, I would use a$$holes, not the same thing at all!!!!
This might require a repost. Interesting that Crazy can't mind his own business, has to pick up for his buddies.

A rat's ring said...

Interesting that in the real world, asshole comments get punted. Here they are encouraged.

Then again, starrigan, anagrams are fun.

Starrigan said...

Anon do you remember which article I posted on. I can't find the original or any comments by WJM or Simon.

Anonymous said...

Wangersky's column from last weekend?

Starrigan said...

Thanks heaps anon, that is exactly right. I think I'll have a little more fun with Crazy Eddy and Simple Simon.


A rat's ring said...

The point was starrigan that your useless comments got cut from the Telly

Starrigan said...

Excuse me while I weep. You may be pleased that it got cut but frankly I could give a rat's a$$. Your life must be pretty empty. How long did it take you to come up with the anagram "a rats ring"? That's kind of spooky, I can't figure out if you're an a$$hole or some kind of freak, get a life weirdo. JEEZ

a rat's ring said...

All you do is call people assholes and you call me a weirdo?