Orgy of Excess

The Liberal party today made headlines in no doubt every news publication in Canada today by calling the expenses of the G8/G20 summit in Toronto & The Muskokas an "Orgy of Excess".

I am not going to defend or attack the expenses of the summits, as I think each Canadian needs to make that decision for themselves.

But what is it about the term "orgy" that generates so much interest in the media, and indeed, with average Canadian readers?

Dictionary.com defines the term as:

1. wild, drunken or licentious festivity or revelry.

2. any actions or proceedings marked by unbridled indulgence of passions.

3. Informal. A boisterous, rowdy party.

While there are a few different definitions, they are all rather similar, and do not leave a lot of room for duplicity in meaning.

However, none of the three terms are overtly provocative. Yet, somehow, throughout the centuries, the term has always held it's connotations of being lewd or dirty.

The particularly lewd connotations stem from the ancient Greek civilization. Specifically in the way certain gods were worshipped. I suspect, the acts of worshipping in this fashion was considered inappropriate with the adoption of Christianity.

Yet even thousands of years later, the term is looked upon as being provocative and even shocking in nature, and thus, is used rarely. This allows the user of the term to be noticed, and considered to be making a rather harsh observation.

It works not only in politics, but with everyday conversation as well. For example, if an online reviewer of televisions, who probably writes reviews on dozens of TVs each year were to state that the new Sony Bravia television was "An Orgy to the Senses", one could guarantee that it would likely be the most viewed or discussed product all year.

So if it is such a powerful term, why exactly is it used so rarely?

I think because no matter how often the term would be used, it would always have that slightly childish, negative slant. Even if the word were to be only used in a positive way (as in the above example). Eventually, the person or publication frequently using the term would be viewed as the dirty uncle wearing a trench coat while reading adult magazines at the gas station.

While it can be a fun and poignant term, use it wisely! It is a powerful word.

Rainn

Harper Prorogues Parliament

So Harper successfully managed to petition the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until the end of January.

I have difficulty believing that this is in the best interest of the Nation, rather than the Conservative Party of Canada.  How, when Canada is facing an economic crisis, is it worthwhile to STOP working for two months, rather than let a coalition of people get to work and deal with the problem?  

This is purely a move on the Conservative Party to retain power, rather than to help the Nation.  

And shame on the Gov. General for bending to the will of Harper.  Granted the Gov. General position is primarily figurehead status, and has little real power in our current political system.  But considering that this is probably the first time in nearly a century that the Gov. General had a decision to make that actually effected all Canadians, she should have taken a different course of action. 

Since this was relatively uncharted territory in the History of Canadian politics, the Governor General SHOULD have consulted the British Monarchy for advice on how to proceed.  After all, that is her job.  She is a representative of the Queen.  Do not mistake her position as a Regent.  She is not to rule, but rather to represent the Queens authority.

Not only did Governor General Michael Jean NOT consult the Queen when making her decision, but now she has set a very dangerous precedent for future minority governments.  By choosing to prorogue Parliament, she has allowed any minority government to halt parliament whenever they may risk falling to a motion of confidence.  This gives almost any minority government an inexcusable amount of power.

So now, we wait another two months while the Conservatives wage a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign against the coalition, and the economy will continue to crumble.

I would like to be able to sit in a room with Stephen Harper for just 10 minutes, so that I might begin to understand his line of thinking.  The Conservative economic update not only lacked a stimulus package for Canada, but also included eliminating the right of Unionized public servants to renegotiate their contracts (granted I think most of them are already over paid, but they should still have the right like everyone else does), and limited the ability of women to sue for pay equity, but it also eliminated the political subsidies provided by Elections Canada to all of the political parties.  

Regardless of whether or not you feel the political parties should receive subsidies to help them focus on working, rather than fundraising, Harper had to know it would cause a political backlash.  And to save $26 million?  It's a drop in the bucket compared to the billions the economy needs in investment.  I have a hard time believing that Mr. Harper sat at his desk, feverishly looking for an area where he could save a few pennies.  I have a feeling it had more to do with the ability to potentially cripple his opponents under the guise of 'cost cutting'.  I think he expected it to go over better than it did.  But, if I am correct and that was his real motivation, I think the man is too stupid to be allowed to be Prime Minister!  Forcing your political competitors into virtual bankruptcy does not show good faith.  Especially to voters that you haven't convinced yet to agree to your way of thinking!

I would strongly suggest removing the man from leadership of the Conservative Party before he causes more political fallout.  Oh, that's right.  We can't.  Parliament has been suspended!