Pat Robertson: Disgraceful Religious Fanatic

UPDATED & BUMPED: The Ottawa Citizen's Andrew Potter has an interesting take on this controversy - he poses this provocative question, which can certainly generate some more conversation: 

So here is the challenge, for all those Christians who were offended by Robertson's remarks: If God isn't punishing Haitians for their pact with the devil, what is He up to? What's your explanation?

 

 

ORIGINAL POST (01/14/10):

With the death toll mounting amid the widespread devastation in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, what better time to scold them for their lack of Christianity: 

 

 

Haiti's ambassador to the US responds here.

 

Doesn't it seem strange that Pat Robertson is so convinced that a god exists who would willingly cause this earthquake, killing tens or even hundreds of thousands of people? And that this is a god he and his followers worship and ask the rest of us to worship? They consider this a god of love?

 

I would also point out to Pat Robertson and those that think like him that Peru is an overwhelmingly Christian country, yet that didn't prevent a devastating earthquake in 1970 which claimed 100,000 lives. Although, perhaps Pat would say they're the wrong kind of Christian or they weren't acting Christian enough.

 

Sadly, this is really nothing new from Pat Robertson - he made similar comments in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the September 11th attacks.

 

What's really disturbing is that this man still commands a significant folllowing.

 

UPDATE: Rex Murphy argues that Pat Roberston has no business speaking for Christianity, and it is only anti-Christian bigots who would like to think that he does. However, this response to Murphy's column argues that perhaps Roberston is a true Christian in that he's following the logic of much of the Old Testament.

 

Further thoughts on this controversy from Lorne Gunter and Curtis Stock.

Herald Column: Embrace Recall - Don't Ban Floor-Crossing

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the recent controversy surround the defection of two MLAs from the PCs to the Wildrose Alliance, and the subsequent debate on whether voters should have a direct say in such matters:

...But bumping the defections from the headlines may have also derailed the conversation about floor-crossing itself. It's still a conversation worth having: should Anderson and Forsyth have to seek a new mandate from their constituents?

Both have maintained that there is little need for them to do so. Both believe they have the support of their constituents and that a byelection would be a costly and needless distraction.

There seems to exist, however, an underlying assumption in this debate - certainly on the part of those arguing for byelections - that party banner is of primary concern to voters. PC MLAs were elected in these two ridings, therefore a violation of trust has occurred.

Yes, voters elect a party, but that includes the candidate, the leader, the platform, and the broader vision.

To view floor-crossing as the only decision worthy of warranting a direct consultation with voters is to miss the bigger picture.

Edmonton-Castle Downs MLA (and new Employment Minister) Thomas Lukaszuk is among those who have fallen victim to this narrow view. Lukaszuk announced soon after the defections that he was preparing a private members bill requiring floor-crossers to face a byelection before joining their new party.

The bill, though, wouldn't require a byelection if an MLA were to simply quit and sit as an independent. But why not? The voters clearly did not elect an independent.

The bill also wouldn't have any bearing on a party leader's decision to expel an MLA from caucus. Were such a law to apply today, then Anderson and Forsyth would have to run in a byelection, but Guy Boutilier - who was booted from the Tory caucus - would be free to join another party.

Again, why? Boutilier's constituents voted for a PC MLA - perhaps the Premier should not have been allowed to expel him.

It also leaves a major loophole: declaring one's discontent and desire to switch parties would surely leave a leader little choice but to expel that MLA from caucus. The floor would then be cleared for crossing.

As much as MLAs ought to respect the voters' verdict, circumstances do change. For all the focus on switching parties, how is that any more a violation of voters' intent than a broken or unfulfilled promise? Or a dramatic shift in direction?

One could argue that in electing Anderson and Forsyth, voters in both ridings cast ballots for a party that had maintained a balanced budget backed by a law which forbade deficits. If Anderson and Forsyth must resign and run in byelections, perhaps the entire Tory caucus should, too.

If we are truly interested in allowing the voters to respond in between elections to changes in circumstance, voter recall may provide the answer.

It may have been a shrewd way deflecting criticism, but immediately after welcoming the two defectors, the Wildrose Alliance announced it would soon table a bill giving voters the opportunity to "recall" their MLAs.

Under the proposed law, a byelection would be triggered if the signatures of one-third of the eligible voters in a riding are gathered on a petition.

Would the other parties support such a bill? They should. In fact, they once did - the Liberals proposed such a bill way back in 1993 (oddly enough, Heather Forsyth broke party ranks to support it).

There are many ways an MLA can betray his or her constituents. The narrow approach of banning floor-crossing ignores all but one of them. Recall addresses them all. Common sense tells us the latter is the way to go.

 

Herald Column: A Not-So-Happy New Year for Stelmach Government

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the problems facing the Alberta government - problems beyond the most immediate one, mind you: the defection of two MLAs to the Wildrose Alliance - and the threat of more to come.

 

A rough year shaping up for Stelmach & Co.:

Having finally reached the end of a torturous twelve months, does the government now face the horror having to relive it all?

Not that Premier Stelmach is likely to find himself in a Groundhog Day-like scenario where he awakes to find it is January 1, 2009 all over again.

Rather, the likelihood that the political missteps, intransigence, and hubris that made 2009 such an unbearable year will be ever-present again in 2010.

Moreover, it would seem as though most of 2009's political headaches - energy royalties, the deficit, spending cuts, health care - will carry over into the new year. Those largely self-inflicted headaches remain as such because the government seems incapable of devising a coherent strategy for dealing with them.

Some of these issues are new or ongoing challenges, but the question of energy royalties was one that the government had ostensibly dealt with.

Now, as 2010 begins, we find ourselves awaiting (yet another) set of changes to the royalty structure.

Of course, the raging populist battle cry of "our fair share" has been replaced by the cold reality of the damage done by the government's first round of changes.

As noted in 2009's Global Petroleum Survey from the Fraser Institute, Alberta had become the least attractive Canadian province for oil and gas investment. The report's coordinator remarked that it was a clear rebuke of the Alberta government’s "misguided policies".

Of course, "misguided policies" might be a suitable way to sum up 2009 for the Stelmach Tories.

The one firestorm that might not carry over into 2010 is the H1N1 flu situation, as the abating of the outbreak has led to an abating of sorts of the backlash against the handling of the vaccination campaign.

However, just as people were perhaps ready to put that controversy behind them, an apparent hypersensitivity to criticism on the government's part has helped thrust the matter back into the spotlight.

Following the vaccination fiasco, the opposition Liberals called for the resignation of Health Minister Ron Liepert. The Liberals subsequently laid out their case at a website they set up: liepertmustgo.ca.

Last week, however, the Liberals were informed that the website had to go. None other that the Speaker of the Legislature himself, Ken Kowalski, has determined that the website is an inappropriate use of public funds since it "singles out" one MLA.

Of course, the Liberals could simply use party funds to pay for the site, but it's an absurd demand from the Speaker's office - one that also sets a disturbing precedent. Should opposition parties refrain from criticizing individual ministers - or the Premier himself - and simply offer vague critiques of "the government"?

The order also reveals a tendency on the government's part to attack the messenger - much like the Premier's comments at November's Tory convention where he blamed the media for his woes.

With the same controversies and same attitudes from this government, will 2010 be any different? Other than the names on the cabinet office doors, given the expected cabinet shuffle this morning, I fear very little will change.

As the government found itself plunging in public support - to the point that they trailed the Wildrose Alliance by 15 points, and the Premier's own personal approval rating hit 14 per cent - it showed little indication that a change in course was in the offing.

 

That much must have seemed obvious to now-former Tory MLAs Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth. Their defections to the Wilrose Alliance must now confirm for disgruntled Tories that change is to be found elsewhere.

The resounding approval of Premier Stelmach's leadership at the November party conference only served to convey the impression that the Tories were totally disconnected from Albertans.

Having now dug themselves a very deep political hole and having entrenched a deep desire for change in Albertans of all political stripes, it's hard to see how 2010 is going to be much merrier for the Alberta government than was 2009.

If all we get is more of the same, it could actually be worse.

 

As for the defections, my condensed thoughts are contained in today's on-air editorial comment, which reads as follows:  

Whatever one might think of the defections of now former Tory MLAs Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth, it is certainly a more risky move to depart the government benches then to join them. The fact that these two indivuduals were prepared to walk away from the safety and trappings of government would and should indicate that there are serious issues within the Tory caucus. It may be naive to argue that the decision to bolt to the Wildrose Alliance was 100% based on principle, but I think we have to take their criticisms very seriously. Should the two MLAs resign and re-run in byelections? There's a compelling case to be made. However, if we're going to mandate byelections for floor-crossers, we need to mandate political promises. It's not just a party banner politicians are elected under, but a vision. If the vision changes or promises are broken, that's as much a betryal of the voters as is switching parties. In sheer political terms, it's a major boost for the Wildrose Alliance, which has already been on a roll as of late. They come out of 2009 already leading the Tories in at least one major poll, and now have even more momentum going into 2010. The tories were already facing enormous challenges entering the new year. Just four days into 2010, things got even worse for them. It's going to be an interesting twelve months.