Showing posts with label reductio ad argentum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reductio ad argentum. Show all posts

31 May 2011

If this is Friday, it must be yes…

Or is it no?

First, they were going to give Danny his cash for his hockey team.

Then 24 hours later they decided  - emphatically and unequivocally – that the new answer was “no” because the government did not fund that sort of thing.

But now with Danny nipping at their heels and few of his loyal toadies croaking away, Kathy Dunderdale is now telling Danny that if he submits another request they’ll have another look at the idea and maybe give the multi-millionaire and his buddies a few hundred thousands taxpayer dollars every year to help them rent some jock straps or something.

Perhaps Kathy was persuaded to shift her position – yet again - by Danny’s earnest reminder of how much money had had given to this and that and the benefits he’d delivered to the other:

"...I've given my heart and soul to the city and the province," said Williams. "I've given to the PC party, to my colleagues in the cabinet and the caucus, including Kathy Dunderdale but this will not affect my zeal or drive to do things for this province."

All principle converts to cash, indeed.

- srbp -

20 April 2010

Desperate Remedies

All principle converts to cash.

The official policy is reductio ad argentum.  As your humble e-scribbler put it only a few weeks ago:

Take a look at the current administration and you can quickly see the prominent role money plays.  In fact, money is the only real measure of anything.  News releases typically refer to how much money will be spent and how much has been spent.

To wit, from the House of Assembly, The Native, returned again from sunnier climes, and on the first day the House sat in three weeks, bristles as his own weapon – the condescending lecture – is turned against him:

Thank you for the Sermon on the Mount. That was lovely; I really appreciated it. I do not need a lecture from you or anybody else, I can tell you that much.

We are trying to get this resolved. There is a letter that is going out this afternoon that is putting $79 million of public money on the table and offering close to Atlantic parity which is exactly what the doctors have been looking for….

Mr. Speaker, what did we do when the ER-PR situation came up? What did we do when the oncologists wanted to meet? What did we do when they wanted to have a raise? We acted immediately. We gave them a significant raise which virtually put them close to Ontario parity. So we stepped up immediately.

What have we done as a government? We are now up to, I guess, close to $2.6 billion or $2.7 billion. That is what we have done; we have dramatically increased it. We have put money into information technology. We have put money into equipment. We have put money into long-term care facilities. We have put money into nurses.

Neither the issue or the sides in the current dispute are important for this discussion here.

Rather, notice that the only perspective the Premier took was one that considered how much money had been spent or how much he was proposing be spent.

Action is spending money and spending money is the only action the Premier seems to understand.

In another part of his exchange with New Democratic Party leader Lorraine Michael, the Premier put it this way:

There is never enough money around because all you want to do is criticize; get on the bandwagon!

That last exclamation  - as misplaced as it is even in a sentence that itself makes no sense – adequately conveys the essence of the rather bizarre tirade which the Premier delivered in his responses to Michael’s questions.

But there is no mistaking the connection the Premier makes between spending money and displaying interest, concern or attention.

It is always about spending money.

-srbp-