Leader's Debate..Welcome to the Liar's Club

There's been a lot said and written this morning in the newspapers and on the radio and television, concerning last night's debate.
You could read or watch these reports and commentaries all day long and you still wouldn't be half-done.
But most stories were be boring and repetitive, nothing much happened in the debate and I doubt that voter perceptions were changed.
Perhaps tonight, in the one-on-one debate between Jean Charest and Pauline Marois, we will hear something more substantive.

As is my custom, I'll try to bring forward a few facts and opinions that you won't hear elsewhere.
Here is a short critique of the four Leaders.

FRANCOISE DAVID

If ever I move to Shangri-la or the Garden of Eden I would surely vote for Madame David.
She would make a perfect ruler of a world where we didn't need fossil fuels because everything ran on renewable, clean energy and where cars and airplanes would be a thing of the past.

It is a world where everyone over eighteen receives a guaranteed salary, just for existing and everything her government provides citizens is free, including medicare, education and housing for all who can't or won't provide for themselves.
All this would be paid for by taxing to death the few people in Quebec who earn more than a 100 million dollars a year and by increasing royalties on mining companies to 8000%.
If this is not enough , perhaps manna will shower down from Heaven, but probably not because nobody in this land believes in God.

It is a world of equality, where all the minorities would be allowed to wear their native garb while embracing the Quebecois culture of poutine and maple syrup. They would all happily sing "Alouette"and watch hockey, swigging down beer and pizza and smoking Export 'A.'

It would of course be an independent country, free of the constraints of Canada and those pesky economists .
There would be no debt and there would be no savings or bank accounts, the government would provide everything.
Banks would be outlawed and bosses and shareholders sent packing.

Citizens! All this can happen, just vote for Amir Khadir and Francoise David.

It amazes me that the Quebec Solidaire holds only 6% of the vote, according to pollsters.
I'da think that this type of program would appeal to the moron and idiot class which I always pegged at about 15% of the population.
Sheesh, Madame David can't even fool them!

JEAN CHAREST

Predictable. Same old same old.
Everyone knows he's a good debater and he has a knack for selective facts and figures that he trots out to defend himself and his government.
His attack on Marois over an alleged illegal campaign contribution fell flat and he never really got to pound away on the question of law and order.

One thing that seemed strange was the reaction shots of the Premier smiling like a Cheshire cat while being lambasted by Marois or Legault.


PAULINE MAROIS
Madame Marois is the most skillful of all leaders at not answering a question.
Ask her a YES or NO Question and she will launch into a long-winded response that has nothing to do with what was asked.
The television moderators were no match for her, unlike a radio commentator last week who stopped her mid-sentence and asked empathiclly if she would PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Of course when she did say something substantive, it was utter nonsense.

As is her custom, she told one helluva whopper that nobody in any media outlet picked up on.

Let's deconstruct that statement, it is nonsense any way you look at it.

According to Marois her husband gave his doctor to his son because his didn't have one and the son had a newborn.

Marois didn't say her husband "GAVE UP' his doctor, she said that he gave the doctor to his son, perhaps like a Christmas present.
But it did sound like he gave up his doctor in favour of his son, something so utterly unbelievable that how anyone could accept such a nose stretcher is beyond belief.

Imagine, the upstanding, reputable and by the book Claude Blanchet being without a doctor because he gave his up in favour of his son.
This sacrifice from a guy who could waltz into the Westmount Clinic any day he wanted and receive all the treatment in the world as long as he paid.
Oh, but I forgot... He is too reputable and honourable for that, we all know that Mr. Blanchet has a reputation as a straight-shooter, never bending or breaking the rules and always following the letter and spirit of the law.

Readers, would you be interested in some swampland in Florida?


FRANCOIS LEGAULT
Francois Legault was a bit out of his league, but didn't lose any points or support, I imagine.

Anglos, were roundly ignored by all the leaders, except Mr. Legault, who took the time to do a little bashing.
Here he makes the claim that you can't get served in French in downtown Montreal and that Bill 101 is not being enforced with enough vigour.

Anglos, get in line to vote for him!!!!
.

 By the way, of all the issues that Radio-Canada brought up as discussion points, the provincial debt was never mentioned.
As I said in a previous post, there is no debt crisis in Quebec as long as all the politicians agree in advance to never discuss it!

Readers, I leave the last word to you in the comments section.

Housekeeping - Volume 10

Like most readers, I watched the leaders debate Sunday evening, which did not give me a lot of time to write a proper post about it.

Never fear!
Sometime later tonight or tomorrow morning that critique will appear and you will have ample time and space to air your opinions as to who won or lost, who made the most salient points or who made no sense at all. 

Please don't post comments about the debate to this post, wait until that post appears, tentatively entitled... 'LIAR'S CLUB'....

Since I last wrote a 'Housekeeping' article, readership and participation has actually taken a satisfying spike upwards.

You may have noticed that the little counter of monthly pageviews in the right margin has been climbing slowly, but surely, and now shows over 50,000 views per month.

This counter is not particularly accurate but it gives a sense of where we are and in what direction we are going.

Here is a more accurate snapshot of readership, a detailed study by Google Analytics.
You will notice that the pageview count is much, much higher than what is shown in the margin each day. Google is actually reporting over 75,000 pageviews last month.

Of course I'm convinced that our success comes from the fact that there are not many websites offering an anglo perspective of Quebec, a site that is unafraid to voice harsh opinions and a place where the frustrations and anger of a community finds an unapologetic tribune in the comment section.

Before I go on to talk about the comments section specifically, I want readers to understand that this blog is viewed and your comments are read, all over the world.

Last month we had visits from over 100 countries in over 1400 different cities.

Our blog is read in embassies and consulates and the halls of government across the world.

I know this because of the contact I have with many who make private inquiries via email.

I also have the ability to see the town or city from where readers arrive, the blog posts they read and the links that they click on.
I can tell you that it is always surprising when a visitor from Washington, Beijing, or London follows a link to a political story about Quebec, written in French!

I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to get you to understand our impact. 

And yes, our blog is followed closely by the vigile.net crowd, who as I said before are attracted here like moths to a flame.
I find it amusing that we are denigrated as 'angryphones' a pejorative that I wear as a badge of honour.
I do however correct all who refer to me as such, because I am way past being angry and more appropriately like to think of myself as a 'furiousphone'

I take great pleasure in the fact that each time militant sovereigntists visit our site, they are subjected to insulting cartoons or photos and are subjected to your unapologetic comments.
Militant separatists are a largely grim and serious lot with decidedly thin skin. It hurts a lot!
Nothing but nothing annoys these people more than being mocked on a worldwide stage and I am happy to oblige.

Now to the comment section, which is an integral part of this blog.
Many people write to say how much they appreciate what goes on in the comment section.

We have a fantastic corps of contributors, varied in opinion but sharing some common traits, being extremely literate, well-read, educated and knowledgeable.
Their posts are informative and interesting.

I again want to stress how many people around the world read your missives and so I'd like to offer a little friendly advice.

• Take a few minutes to review your post and ask yourself if it is interesting to others or is it just self-gratification.
• We are not obsessed with spelling or grammar, it is opinions that count, but it wouldn't hurt to use a spell-checker.
• Rage is fine, but sometimes adding a gratuitous insult takes away from the discussion. If you want your opinion to be considered by the opposite side or those who are neutral, you really aren't helping your case with a profane, cruel or ad hominem  attack.
• Also, it goes without saying that it is never a good idea to comment when over-tired, angry or under the influence. Resist the temptation!

Now I'm going to make a very, very gentle suggestion to commenters, that if you can, please write your comment in English.
Now this does not apply to those who are not comfortable or proficient in English.

They are always, always invited to write in French.

But we have a surprising number of Anglos and ethnics who are perfectly comfortable writing in French and do so on and off. Actually it is very impressive!

I would hope that they would reconsider. Most of the people coming to this blog from outside
Quebec don't speak French and many comments are, as they say, 'lost in translation.'
The francophones who visit with us all understand English, otherwise they couldn't comment, even in French.
This is just a very gentle suggestion, do not feel obligated.

One last point about the comment section.
As editor and moderater, I try not to interfere in the comment section other than to remove unfit material.

I READ EVERY COMMENT.

But I add my two cents rarely, because I believe that the comment section is a tribune for others.
I think 50-75% of the comments are fantastic and believe me, I change my mind about issues constantly after reading your posts.

Strangely, or perhaps not strangely, the longer comments usually seem more interesting.
It is easy to dash off a one-liner, but to write out a well thought out comment, a couple of hundred words, takes a lot of concentration and effort.
I do appreciate the time you take to develop these responses and congratulate you on your effort.
You are commended and perhaps rewarded, (like all writers) in knowing that many, many people all around the world are interested in what you have to say.

At the other end of the spectrum, write a banal one-liner, with an insult attached and everyone just skips over it.
And no, I'm not referring to one of our prolific commenters, S.R, who I actually like as a contributor.
When he is at his best and he writes something sarcastic and biting,  I laugh, even when his target is aimed at me.
There is no room for a thin-skinned here!

As for promoting our views, a lot of readers ask me how we can get the message out and how we can encourage more people to visit our blog.

Here, I must ask for your help.
The best way to get people to read this blog is to promote it through the social media.

If you find a story interesting please use the FACEBOOK icon to post a link to the story on your personal page.
This is by far the most effective tool for propagating our message.
You can also add a link when commenting in the comments section attached to news stories  in mainstream media.
One good link in a national newspaper can steer 200 or 300 people to our site.

Some of you with TWITTER accounts can re-Tweet a link to a blog post to those who follow you.

And by the way, a special shout-out to ERIC who does re-Tweet religiously.

Another thank-you to THE CAT for helping out with translation, it is much appreciated and of course I want to again thank my lovely wife for editing and critiquing this blog before going to sleep each night. Sometimes it is a chore, but she never fails me, she is a jewel!
(We are married for almost 40 years!)

Thanks to all for your contributions and let us remember that none of us are paid to do this, it is a labour of love.

To those who are shy and wish to remain lurkers, I do appreciate you visiting our site regularly. You count!

In fact, everybody counts and contributes!

Come to think of it, I wish the separatists would understand that concept!

Pauline Marois- A Clear and Present Danger

Back in 1977, when the then PQ government introduced Bill 101, a law designed to restrict English rights, some anglo commentators were ridiculed for wondering out loud, that if a government could restrict our language, what is to stop it from restricting our religion?

Welcome to Pauline Marois' world.

I want to preface this blog piece by saying that I've lived my entire life in Quebec as an Anglophone, working professionally for almost forty years in a French milieu and have never felt an ounce of bigotry or discrimination, but I do admit that I am not a visible minority.

At any rate I remain a fan and admirer of Quebec society, warts and all.

In fact readers, the very first time I heard a 'racist' comment was on a business trip to Edmonton, when I was just twenty years old and where my host asked me how it felt to be an Anglo in that Goddamned 'FRENCHIE" province.
....YIKES!!

With all the separatist rhetoric over the years, I never felt in danger or threatened, even with the election of the PQ led by Rene Levesque way back when.

In fact all the leaders of the PQ until now were fairly decent chaps who based their sovereignty aspirations on respect for all citizens and the belief that an independent Quebec would be inclusive.

Yes, that even includes Jacques Parizeau, whose injudicious remarks on that fateful referendum night sealed his fate as a leader.
And let us not forget that he did the honourable thing and resigned.

I know I'll catch a lot of flack for this, but Parizeau was not the racist he is made out to be, his personal life and political record tells a different story and readers, who of us, in a moment of EXTREME disappointment hasn't said something we regret, something that we didn't really believe.

But Pauline Marois is different.
It isn't because she is a woman, it is because she is everything all the previous leaders of the PQ were not.

I can think of many words to describe her, but if I had to choose one, it is this:

"INDECENT"

Pauline Marois is the nastiest piece of work that ever led a Quebec political party, save Maurice Duplessis.
 
She is cruel megalomaniac, insensitive, power-hungry and ruthless.

Committed to separatism, she will use any and all means to achieve statehood, even if it means bankrupting Quebecers or destroying any semblance of a functioning society.
And yes, she abhors Anglos and Ethnics with the passion of the zealot class.

Worst of all, she is an idiot, who is out of touch with reality, who lived her entire professional life closeted in a world with like-minded fools.

Marois finds herself in a peculiar position, verging on a majority government carrying only her traditional separatist base, a situation that will allow her to win without giving a hoot or a holler for the two-thirds of Quebecers who will reject her and the PQ on election day.

With this incredible stroke of luck, Marois can play to this separatist minority, no pandering necessary to those other pesky taxpayers that finance this province.

And so Marois is happy to reveal her true self. Her campaign, only two weeks old, is a frightening overture to the horror show that is to come under a PQ government.

What are Madame Marois plans?

First of course, a beefing up of Bill 101, an act of faith which will serve to feed the insatiable appetite of vengeance and hatred of the English, a fundamental characteristic that drives language militants.
After all is said and done, Montreal will remain English and therein lies the rub. Students refused entry to English cegeps will make other arrangements.
What will the government do when they still choose to assimilate into the English community?

With Bill 101 out of the way, Marois has promised a Bill making official state secularism the law of the land.

The devil is in the details and already the PQ is at odds with itself as to how to go forward.
The banning of 'ostentatious' religious articles by public and para-public employees is unclear and obviously ill-thought out.
When asked by a reporter if a small Jewish skullcap is 'ostentatious' a PQ candidate said it was not, only to excuse himself later after having been corrected by the Marois clan.
Apparently, it is now official PQ policy that no matter how small, a kippah is always offensive.

Now there aren't many Sikhs, or orthodox Jews working at the license bureau, in fact I'll venture to say that the only people affected by this assault, will be the few Muslim women who wear hijabs, a headscarf, and who do work at the license bureau and many other government offices. These women are the true target of the law, as they are thoroughly loathed by PQers for wearing an article of faith which in the view of secular militants is an oppressive symbol of male dominance.

But hold on there!
What about a doctor at the Jewish General Hospital, where I have seen a few wear small kippahs.
As para-public employees, whose salary is paid for by the government, will they be included in the ban as well?
It seems a little strange to ban a skullcap in the Jewish General Hospital and I'm sure it will make for great worldwide press. I will let readers speculate as to what sarcastic headline would grace the Drudge Report.
And what about Parliament or city council, I know of one Montreal councillor who does wear a kippah to City Hall.

While the new law will supposedly ban ostentatious religious symbols, it will be silent on cultural symbols and so while a town councillor won't be allowed to enter City Hall wearing a kippah, he would be entitled to wear a Mexican sombrero or a Mickey Mouse hat on top of his head to cover up the affront to Quebec sensibilities.

What about those pesky symbols of Christianity, including the crucifix over the chair of the Speaker of the House of the National Assembly, Quebec's Parliament?

Marois dipsy-doodled around this one rather neatly, telling everyone with a straight face, that the crucifix must stay because it is part of our Quebec heritage!

A PQ candidate, Djemila Benhabib, a Muslim who is fiercly secular, took issue with the leader, saying that although it is PQ policy for the crucifix to stay, she would like to re-visit the issue within caucus.
She too was quickly called to order by Marois and forced to apologize for her remark.

The issue of secularism hit a nerve with the ever controversial and eminently quotable mayor of  Saguenay Jean Tremblay, who raged at Ms. Benhabib for attacking Quebec values, calling her a foreigner with an unpronounceable name, the best racist barb of the campaign so far! Link
Asked if he was against the proposed secularism law, the good mayor said that he had no problem with it, because it was only half discriminatory, against the half that isn't Christian!
Well-said Mr. Mayor!

The inherent problem with the law, other than the fact that it cannot survive the most basic constitutional challenge, is that it will set a dangerous undertone of intolerance.

If the Hijad is banned at the licence bureau, how long before problems occur in the workplace or on the street, where secular fanatics will attack the religiously observant.
I myself witnessed an incident in a Canadian Tire store where a female francophone senior citizen berated a cashier for wearing the hated 'symbol of oppression," to the point of making the young girl cry.

I promise you that if this law passes, it will be the most divisive law ever enacted in Quebec.

As for Quebec's debt problem, Marois doesn't see things the same way as most economists, her philosophy seems to be that as long as you can borrow, there is no problem.

In a radio interview, when a reluctant Marois was pushed to describe PQ policy towards the provincial debt, she said that lowering the debt would be impracticable.

In fact, she actually promised that a PQ government would INCREASE THE DEBT! (I'm not making this up)  Listen to the interview in French

(By the way, the projected deficit for Quebec set in this year's budget, is two billion dollars.
Two months into this fiscal year and Quebec is ALREADY $1.9 billion in the hole.)

Maybe she should watch this video....

See Quebec's debt grow in real time HERE

As for preparing the ground for sovereignty, Marois has said that she intends on making unreasonable and loud demands on Ottawa, demands that will raise federal/provincial tensions to new levels.
Her twisted logic being, that when Ottawa rejects these unreasonable requests, Quebecers will be insulted and vote for sovereignty.
How is that for a strategy?

We're not even at the halfway point in the election campaign and already we've been seeing la vrai nature de Pauline Marois.
It is a frightening spectre of hate, incompetence and political insanity.

A Pauline Marois PQ government will de-stabilize the province economically and politically. 
She has promised to wage war on the English, Ethnics and religiously observant. 
She has promised to transfer more wealth from those who earn it to those who consume without a commensurate contribution.
She has committed to drive Quebec further into debt.

Pauline Marois, like Emperor Nero will play the sovereignty fiddle while the province burns to the ground.

And who knows if this slash and burn policy isn't just part of a plan to advance her ultimate dream.
Perhaps she is ready to destroy Quebec society so that sovereignty will become a viable option to a frustrated, downtrodden and desperate people in a province brought to financial and social ruin.

It can happen.

Separatist Radio-Canada Smears Jean Charest

"Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images...."

If longtime readers conclude that my least favourite group is politicians, they would be making a decision based on the many disparaging posts I write, directed at all politicians of all stripes, who I have characterized as largely self-serving, mostly incompetent and always selfishly looking after their own political interest.

But that conclusion would be faulty, because it is in fact dishonest and self-serving reporters that rankles my sensibilities far worse than politicians, who cannot always be blamed for their ineptitude because in most instances, they haven't got the smarts or skills to do their job effectively.

The Press however, and more specifically those reporters who cover the politicians, are generally smarter and better trained at their jobs than the politicians they cover (and they revel in that fact), but are generally more devious, cynical and just as dishonest.

Therein lies my utter disdain and disrespect.

Reporters are a smug, sanctimonious and self-important lot and because they have the power to build up or destroy, they develop a superior and haughty complex shared only with those occupying the benches of our courts.

And like judges they are generally impervious to attack, hiding behind cloak of confidentiality like a thirteen year-old pimply faced video game maven, using a 'Shield of Invulnerability,' picked up on level six.

It befalls editors to insure that reporters using anonymous sources do so ethically and honestly. Readers will note that the information that anonymous sources provide is almost always impossible to second source and the decision to print or air a story based on one anonymous source becomes a question of integrity, something sorely lacking in the competitive world of journalism.

A veteran editor once told me, that to a reporter, a scoop is like heroin to an addict, impossible to resist under even the most dubious circumstances.

One of the more sinister aspects to these anonymous-based stories, is when the reporter is given inside information to leak, in an underhanded manoeuvre to circulate a story (usually negative) that will give the source or his political party an advantage.
The reporter and editor must weigh whether being used by the leaker to further a political goal is less important than the public's right to know, and readers, you know where the decision will fall, clearly on the side of heroin.

The third and most ominous aspect to quoting an anonymous sources, is when a biased reporter uses the information to help or hinder a politician or political party.
While we demand that reporters act ethically and impartially, it is seldom the case.

Look at those reporters like Pierre Duchesne of Radio-Canada who magically transformed himself into a PQ separatist politician soon after he gave up the supposed impartial world of reporting.

And do not think this is exclusively a Radio-Canada/ Parti Quebecois phenomenon. 
Let us remember Senator Mike Duffy who jumped into his Conservative senate seat directly from his nationally televised, afternoon political interview show on CTV and Peter Kent another high profile English television news personality who went from a news anchor's chair straight into the cabinet.

These type of journalists are the ones I absolutely loathe, they feign impartiality, while subtlety influencing the stories they produce on air.

Which brings me to the hatchet job on Jean Charest unloaded last week by Radio-Canada journalist Alain Gravel.

It was a classic case of the third example I described above, of a reporter attempting to politically injure a politician, when it hurts the most, that is, during an election campaign.

Let me start with the story that Mr. Gravel and his flunky Marie-Maude Denis presented to the public.

Very briefly, it is a tale about an SQ investigation of a union leader they suspected of being corrupt.
The day after a televised report by that same Alain Gravel about alleged corruption of another union boss, the SQ decided to follow one of his colleagues, to see where he went and who he met with.
It was plain and simple a fishing expedition.
When it comes to crime detection it seems that the SQ is the last to know.

You can watch the Radio-Canada report HERE in French.

The undercover officers were following the suspect around town, when in the afternoon, he attended a political function in a hotel in Montreal where a gaggle of politicians both federal and provincial, were meeting with native leaders, including Jean Charest.
The target of the investigation was seen exchanging pleasantries with Mr Charest for between thirty seconds or two minutes (depending on who you believe) and minutes later the officer in charge of the operation terminated the surveillance abruptly.

That readers is the whole story.
Everything else that comes after is rank speculation by Mr. Gravel or the leakers, who were some of those police officers involved with the surveillance and who were peeved that the operation was called off.

In fact one of the officers speculated that the officer in charge called off the operation because he panicked seeing the subject meet Mr. Charest.

"The officer in charge of the operation simply panicked when he saw the suspect meet Mr. Charest and decided to call of the surveillance."

Now look at the Radio-Canada headline about the incident.

"Surveillance of an ex-directer of the FTQ Construction called off after a meeting with Mr. Charest"

That readers, is one of the most misleading headlines I've ever read in my life!

If you didn't go on to read the story, you would likely assume that Mr. Charest had ordered the surveillance to be called off in a meeting.
Accident or design?

"The gist of the radio-Canada report on the incident intimated that there was some sort of political interference that brought the investigation to a close, an allegation that a furious Charest denied.

"Premier Jean Charest found himself in denial mode Thursday after a Radio-Canada report suggested that he arranged for the plug to be pulled on a police investigation of a Liberal supporter named Eddy Brandone in 2009." Link

And so readers, that is how to run a textbook smear operation!

Touché and congratulations Mr. Gravel, mission accomplished!

Perhaps UQAM should offer Mr. Gravel a guest lectureship in yellow journalism in their communications program entitled  "How to destroy federalists through activist journalism."

Readers might ask themselves why these police officers waited until now, over three years after the incident occurred, to leak a story that happened in May, 2009.
Can anybody come to any conclusion other than it was to hurt Mr. Charest politically during an election campaign?

Did Mr. Gravel and his team not understand or care that they were being played or were they overjoyed to massage and distort a story to hurt the Premier during this critical period?

And by the way, the reason for halting the surveillance is easily explainable.
The officer in charge probably did panic, his unit was on a fishing expedition which paddled into some dangerous waters.
You don't spy on the Premier of Quebec without a damn good reason and one can easily see how prejudicial it would be if it got out that the SQ was watching the Premier surreptitiously.

Now Mr, Gravel should know what every one else in high places knows, that is, that the SQ isn't controlled by anyone, they are a force unto themselves.

The SQ may not be particularly competent, but it is incredibly powerful.
It is to my knowledge, the only state or provincial police force in North America that actually has veto power over which politician will be chosen by the Premier to be the Public Security Minister, the direct political minder of the SQ.

The SQ is fiercely independent and the idea that a Premier can call up the SQ boss and tell him to nix an investigation is complete and utter fantasy.

The SQ does on occasion act to protect the government or politicians, it is part of its mandate.

A couple of years ago, when the SQ became aware, through wiretaps, that the stripper daughter of the then Justice Minister Marc Bellemare was associating with alleged dope dealers, they informed the Minister in order that he head off trouble.

Was that a conflict or were they acting diligently?

Lost in all this is the fact that if we accept Mr. Gravel's intimation that Mr. Charest somehow influenced the SQ to curb a criminal investigation, then the SQ is a corrupt organization all the way down to officers controlling surveillance operations.

It's worse than trash journalism, it's activist journalism, meant to manipulate public perception in favour of separatists.

Promises, Promises... Separatist Politicians Ignore Reality

Henry Louis Mencken

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum

Today readers, we will be discussing (I say we, not in the royal sense, but rather because you will have your part to say  in the comments forum) the unbelievable promises being bandied about in this current election campaign, mostly by the separatist leaders of the Parti Quebecois and Quebec solidaire.

Now the Liberals and the CAQ are making some promises of their own, but modest compared to the billions and billions being thrown out there by the PQ and QS and at least are making some provisions to pay for their them.
Francois Legault has put forward a couple of cost saving ideas, including getting rid of school boards, that layer of administration between the education department and the schools themselves, plus getting rid of the deadwood in Hydro Quebec and in the civil service.
Heaven knows there's enough of that!

As for Jean Charest, he's on record for increasing student tuition as well as the imposition of an additional health tax on families.
But all these measures, according to the Liberals and the CAQ will only serve to finance new spending.

All parties have forgotten to make mention of Quebec's ballooning debt, as if it wasn't there and that paying it down not a priority.
As an election issue, it appears to be taboo, as if speaking of debt reduction is the political kiss of death in Quebec.
It seems that voters aren't interested in being reminded that collectively our credit cards are overloaded and like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand, we live with the fantasy that if we don't talk about it, it may not be a problem. Sure....

It's the same policy adopted by Europe over the last two decades, refusing to deal with the elephant in the room, the national debt that had been piled up over decades of decadent over-spending.
Whether Quebec is in as bad a situation is debatable, but it is true that in terms of Canada, Quebec is in the worst financial position of all the provinces owing a collective debt of $250+ billion or about $39,000 per Quebecker or more than $60,000 per taxpayer.

The idea that this debt is but a trifle is the political philosophy of PQ star candidate, Jean-François Lisée, who actually believes and writes that Quebec really doesn't have a debt  problem at all.
Mr. Lisée reminds me of that seven-day a week, all-day tippler, the drunk who swears up and down that his drinking is no big deal and that he has it under control.

The rank stupidity and callous disregard for the truth by these separatists reminds of the famous quote by Henry Louis Menken, who I will quote and paraphrase extensively throughout this post;

"There's no underestimating the intelligence of the Quebec voter" 

As voters go, Quebecers are probably no smarter or dumber than your average North American, but that really isn't saying a lot, which brings me to my third quote from that witty journalist.

Demagogue: one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots"

Politicians who abuse the rank stupidity of the masses with unbelievable promises that attempt to bamboozle them into voting a certain way, are usually called to order by a vigilant Press, which is supposed to be the guardians of truth.

But somehow this element is lacking in Quebec.
When Madame Marois makes the most idiotic of proposals, there's nary a contrary peep anywhere, mostly because our journalists are decidedly separatist as well.
Even the English press misses the boat, as it collectively concentrates on the narrowest of issues, which is language and the collective angst of Anglos over having nobody to represent them.
 
And so we get the utterly ridiculous proposals put forward by the PQ and QS, proposals that are so patently stupid, it would prompt a thinking person to throw up one's hands in disgust.

As for Mr. Khadir and Francoise David, I can forgive them their excesses. They can promise the Moon, it is of not matter, even their own constituency recognizes that they are not serious.

The QS will likely elect no more than half the members it takes to host a bridge game and as such, they can say and promise anything they want.

Mr. Khadir's best line of the campaign is the one where he advises us to "sortir du fatalisme de l'austérité," that is, that we should give up the on idea of being obsessed with austerity.

Does Mr Khadir really believe that these last decades, the government of Quebec has been operating on a strict budget and sticking to an austerity program?
It's statements like this that should have the Press howling in derision.

He then goes on to propose an $8 billion social spending increase, without decreasing spending anywhere else. This 12% increase in the provincial budget would be paid for by a $5,000 tax increase on those making over $250,000, by buying generic drugs and cracking down on tax evasion.
Hmm....Perhaps someone can buy Mr. Khadir a calculator Link{Fr}

But as I said, I shall nor critique his proposals, as I said it is a fantasy and a dream.

As for Madame Marois I shall not be so generous, she is making promises that she cannot keep, and if she does, the provincial debt will spiral up even more.

First she has declared that she will eliminate the new health tax and roll back the tuition increases put in place by the Liberals.
Among her other promises:

• increase the amount of $7 a day daycare places
• Increase salaries to family doctors.
• Use the Caisse de dépôt's (our pension money) to fight off hostile takeovers of Quebec companies.
• High speed internet for all.
• Additional kindergarten starting at age four. 
• A $500 tax rebate to families that enroll their children in sports.

Aside from all this, Marois proposes a massive spending program in the  'regions' as she promised in her trip to the Gaspé.
All this in the first ten days of the election and I shudder to think what is coming.

To pay for this Marois proposes taxing the 'rich' families who make over $80,000 a year and an increase in royalties on minerals. (Oh if it were that easy!)

More spending, more taxes, this in the highest taxed province or state in North America and only in Quebec can a family with an income of $80,000 be considered 'rich.'

This is the type of responsible government that the separatists propose, one that ignores the fiscal reality and one which will paradoxically insure that their own independence project will remain unaffordable and unrealizable.

We are just in the beginning phase of the campaign and political parties save announcements of new spending projects, to be parcelled out as the campaign progresses, to keep interest alive.
So I imagine we can expect more, much more idiotic spending promises.

I close with some more sage political advice from the above-mentioned H. L. Menken;

To the Parti Quebecois;
"Economic independence is the foundation of the only sort of freedom worth a damn."

To Pauline Marois;

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. 

To the Quebec solidaire;
"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."

To Amir Khadir;
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic."

To the Liberal Party;
"People constantly speak of "the government" doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men. They may have some better man working for them, but they themselves are seldom worthy of any respect." 

To Jean Charest;

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office."

To the OQLF;
"No one ever heard of the truth being enforced by law. Whenever the secular arm is called in to sustain an idea, whether new or old, it is always a bad idea, and not infrequently it is downright idiotic."  

To French language militants;

"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true."

To Jean-François Lisée;
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong.

To voters everywhere;

"A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar"

To  all political parties;
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right."

To readers of this blog;

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."