On hostage situations

I've noted before that one of the most dangerous elements of the Cons' efforts to cling to power in facing an impending non-confidence vote was their willingness to do deliberate harm to the country if they didn't get their way, effectively taking Canada hostage in support of their political interests. And at the time, I wondered what the strategy's success might mean in the future.

Now, we may have our answer. Having allowed Harper to succeed in his past hostage strategy, Michael Ignatieff is apparently trying the gambit for himself - declaring that if his party doesn't get its way in wanting to destroy other parties working for (more) progressive change, then the country can't get rid of its current destructive government. And far too many Kool-Aid drinkers seem to be entirely eager to go along with the plan.

So let's make it clear that replacing Harper with someone who's equally eager to subordinate the public interest to his political ends isn't progress at all. Which means that Ignatieff can choose between either acknowledging that his party is better off succeeding in cooperation with other parties than failing on its own - or proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that a vote for Ignatieff is nothing more than a vote for Stephen Harper 2.0.