Clear Grit

Don't Despair!

2008-12-05T06:30:00.005-05:00

Well, the GG has exercised her prerogative, and even though I don't agree with her decision, I can see the merits of the arguments on both sides - hence why this was such a tricky decision to begin with, as the arguments of both sides certainly did have merits.

But this just gives the coalition another month to firm up its commitment to topple Harper, in much the same way as Harper delaying the confidence vote a week gave the coalition time to hammer out some more specifics. The coalition would be wise to use this time to come up with some common policy proposals, maybe even a proposed throne speech, so that it can be ready to govern the day it defeats this shameless coward of a prime minister.

While anti-constitutionalism is nothing new from either Harper or from conservatives in general, it should give the coalition further resolve to defeat this dangerous man and his cabal. They clearly have no respect for the constitution of Canada, or for the principles of responsible government on which it is based. This banana-republic prorogation alone is reason enough for Parliament to refuse to grant its confidence to this government, no matter what is in the much-vaunted January budget. (If it's anything like that farce of an economic update, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to vote against, anyway.)

My advice to the coalition: Use this time to hammer out a Throne Speech and a Cabinet. And for crying out loud, dump Dion! Precisely nobody except his most diehard supporters (the few who remain) want him to become prime minister; if this coalition is to have any credibility, a replacement needs to be found, and soon. If Dion refuses to step down himself, for the good of both the party and the coalition, the caucus should step in and put him out of his misery. Paul Martin had the class to resign as leader when it was clear Canadians had rejected him; Dion's attempts to cling to power, whatever you think of him (and I have nothing against him per se), are terrible optics, and if this coalition is to have any chance of success, it needs a leader that Canadians like and trust - and that is not Stephane Dion.

Canada's supreme political principle is Responsible Government

2008-12-04T07:32:00.005-05:00

Let's try to keep this in mind. Canada is not Switzerland; democracy is not the supreme principle governing this country. Rather, Canada is based on the principle of responsible government, as established at the conclusion of the Rebellions of 1837. It was in that moment that Canada truly became Canada, when it was established that the government of the land is responsible to the elected legislature. What this means is clear and unambiguous: the Government of Canada must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. As it is clear that this confidence is now lacking, it is incumbent upon the Governor General to attempt to create a situation in which the Government of Canada does enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. And, in my humble opinion, this means refusing Harper's request for prorogation and inviting the Coalition to form a government.

Question:

2008-12-04T06:07:00.003-05:00

What do you think would have been the reaction from Harper, the Conservatives, and the right-wing of this country if, in the last days of 2005, Paul Martin had prorogued parliament rather than face a confidence motion he knew he was going to lose?

Just asking.

Stewart, Colbert, and the zeitgeist

2007-10-22T04:52:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking along the same lines for several months now.

Proportional Representation in Canada

2007-10-12T13:26:00.000-04:00

So I was hoping to end my multi-month hiatus with the Ontario election campaign. I figured it would catch my interest, as all elections do, enough to at least write extensively about it, if not campaign in it. No such luck, as it turns out, as Ontarians were treated to one of the most boring elections in recent memory. There's nothing much to say that the rest of the blogosphere hasn't already said a few thousand times; Tory screwed up big time, McGuinty got lucky, the NDP once again found themselves the victims of a bad electoral system, and the Greens made a surprisingly large showing (almost 8%) even if they didn't win a seat due to that bad electoral system.

Speaking of which the issue that really interested me in this campaign was the referendum on mixed-member proportional representation. Well can you blame me? The only other issue, at least the only other one the premier I supported last time seemed to want to talk about was faith-based schools - and his brazen hypocrisy on the issue (opposing religious schooling but supporting and sending his kids to Catholic school) was a huge turn-off for me, so much so that I was ultimately forced to vote NDP in protest. Only the Green party actually echoed my position on the faith-based schooling issue (drop the Catholic system entirely), as did, to my surprise, Ernie Eves on CTV's election night panel. (Good idea Ernie, why not try to implement it when you ran the province?)

Thus, the referendum became my primary interest. I was disheartened to see so little being said about it by the parties, particularly the premier, who said nothing at all. As a result of this lack of this kind of discussion, and because of its impossibly high threshold of success, I figured that the referendum would fail in the end - but I figured it would fail because MMP got over 50% but under the absurdly high 60% double-super majority threshold it needed to pass; alternatively, I saw it getting just under 50%, still enough to try again next time.

What I found was that Ontarians completely rejected the system, if I'm not mistaken something in the order of 65-35. I cannot imagine why they did this - MMP is clearly the better system for a whole host of reasons I won't discuss here, as I've written an entire essay on the subject wherein the matter is approached in a bit more depth. But regardless of Ontarians' judgment, MMP was defeated, and soundly.

Why was it defeated? It would be easy to blame a lack of information, but there was in fact a great deal of information about the referendum if you just looked a bit for it. The internet and the blogosphere were brimming with discussion, as was radio, as were news programs. Really, if you didn't have at least a cursory knowledge of what the referendum was about, you were probably just not paying attention at all.

I think in the end what it came down to was that Ontarians are quite attached to the idea of the riding and representative; they don't like the idea of "list members," a fairly innocuous idea in my mind, but one that nonetheless did not play well with Ontarians.

What does this mean for proportional representation in Canada? Well, PR was rejected in Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and even British Columbia, although a caveat must be added there that PR did actually receive well over 50% of the vote in BC, it just failed to meet that ridiculous supermajority threshold. It seems to me to mean that it's not going to happen any time soon. Those who want to make the electoral system more fair should perhaps focus on an approach that would come more naturally to Canadians and not be as complete a break from tradition. There is another electoral system entirely which could be proposed - namely, the one used in France, and a similar one in Australia. (It is also used in the state of Louisiana.) In France and Louisiana this system, called "run-off," works in a fairly simple way: elections are held, and if any candidate wins over 50% of the vote, she is elected. However, in any race where one candidate did not win 50% of the vote, a second "run-off" election is held two weeks later between the top two candidates, guaranteeing that one of them will receive the support of a majority.

This system has several advantages, particularly for Canadians. First and foremost, it does not deviate at all from our tradition of ridings and local representatives. Second, it does tend to produce either majority governments, or strong minority governments - which is apparently what Canadians (or at least Ontarians) want. Third, it is far more fair - no one can be elected without a true popular majority of 50% or more of the vote, thus eliminating the primary problem (as many if not most PR-advocates see it) of a party or candidate with a minority of votes gaining all of the power. What's more, this system isn't really a big enough break as to require a costly referendum campaign - it's a fairly minor tweak to the existing system to make it more fair and modern, not a huge sweeping change requiring a direct say from the voters.

The run-off system is also used in Australia in a modified form, called "instant run-off." In Australia, instead of holding a second election between the top two candidates, voters rank the candidates on their ballot in order of preference (first, second, third, etc.) and if no candidate receives at least 50% of the first choice votes, the second choices are added to the first, and so on until someone is elected. Again, it's a fairly easy system to understand, it's been used in Canada before (the Conservatives used it to select Stephen Harper as their leader), and it is not a huge sweeping change requiring a costly referendum campaign, but a minor alteration to improve the existing system.

In my opinion MMP would be a preferable choice, but it is apparently too great a break with Canadian traditions to play well with the electorate. In the event that sweeping reform ever reaches the Senate, perhaps we could discuss a system of proportional representation for that body (10 senators per province, elected using the single-transferable vote system, just throwing it out there), but it seems to me fruitless to try to change the House of Commons and the Legislature in such a way when Canadians and Ontarians are clearly so attached to the current system of electing local representatives.

ABC homophobic?

2007-06-10T21:05:00.000-04:00

Is ABC, the network which airs Grey's Anatomy, from which Isaiah Washington was recently sacked for an anti-gay slur, homophobic? The case is made here that it is.

Personally, I don't think it's fair to call ABC homophobic. I mean, they do air what is probably the most gay-friendly show I have ever seen on network television.

Why MMP is right for Ontario

2007-06-10T20:51:00.000-04:00

Proportional Representation (PR) is a bit of a pet issue of mine, so I've been reading the blogs with great interest. As usual, the arguments against PR are leaving me a bit unimpressed. One series of posts in particular has caught my attention today. I'd like to debunk some of the arguments made in this post.

"What is the goal of our legislature? There are two basic positions you can take on this: it is about electing the best representatives who will represent the views of the people or it is a means of reflecting the momentary popularity of various parties at a certain time."

This is a false dichotomy; it belies the fact that, in Canada, the vast majority of people base their votes on party affiliation first, the leader of a party second, and local candidates last. The casual democratic citizen in modern Canada does not sit down and carefully consider the pros and cons of each individual candidate in their riding - they pick the party they like, and vote for the candidate running under that party's banner.

So there is no dichotomy here; the two basic positions are in fact the same position. The goal of our electoral system should be to elect the best quality representatives who will represent the views of the people, as expressed by the party for which they vote. As long as we have political parties, this is the way it is going to be, so it seems to me that our goal ought to be to maximize the utility and proportional accuracy of our electoral system with respect to its reflection of the will of the voters. To this end, there are really two broad options:
1) Abolish political parties - all candidates run on their own merits;
2) Create a framework through which the amount of representation a party has is directly proportional to the amount of people who voted for it.

I don't think there is much support for the first option. The second option is clearly favoured by Canadians; when most people I talk to about this topic find out that this is in fact not how our system works, they are usually quite surprised.

There is a third option, wherein we keep the antiquated system we have now. This system does not reflect the will of the majority of the voters, and it certainly does not encourage the election of the best candidates. I am not going to make arguments to this effect right now, but rather I hope to do so throughout this post.

"Here are the 2003 results for Toronto-Danforth:

Marylin Churley (NDP) 47.14%
Jim Davidson (L) 31.63%
George Sardelis (PC) 16.95%
Michael Pilling (G) 3.53%

Here are the 2006 by-election results for Toronto-Danforth

Peter Tabuns (NDP) 47.8%
Ben Chin (L) 38.9
Georgina Blanas (PC) 10.0%
Paul Charbonneau (G) 2.1%

The seven percentage point jump in Liberal support [in Toronto--Danforth between 2003 and 2006) can only be explained by the candidacy of Ben Chin. It is not reflective of party popularity at that moment. The party was getting into a lot of trouble over the placement of the new natural gas plant so close to this environmentally conscious riding but Chin was able to get voters out to support him. In short, local candidates matter."

There are many things wrong with this statement. First of all, to say that a 7 point jump in support in elections held three years apart is entirely due to the candidacy of one man is assuming a great deal. It may be true, but proving this to be the case would require a lengthy polling process; in absence of this process, it is impossible to say anything for certain.

The results shown really prove my point: look at the NDP vote - two different candidates, three years apart, received the exact same share of the vote, precisely because they were running for the NDP. The Liberals' share of the vote increased by 7%, mostly at the expense of the PCs. Bear in mind that we're talking about Toronto--Danforth here, a very leftish riding - formerly PC support going Liberal is not unusual, nor is it surprising, and it is patently absurd to claim that such a phenomenon can only be explained by the candidacy of one man.

Let's grant that at least some of this increase is due to Ben Chin, and some of it probably is - we are not talking about a huge increase here. No one is denying that local candidates don't matter, and it's a red herring to argue against such a position - local candidates do matter. But they don't matter as much as party affiliation. This is precisely why there are some ridings that are considered "safe seats;" it is readily acknowledged that the chances of any party besides the dominant one in that riding winning are extremely low, and a good local candidate for an opposing party, most of the time, is not going to change that.

Moving on to part 2:

MMP entrenches power in the hands of Ontario's political elite and takes it away from the average citizen. How? Well, simple it adds 39 seats awarded to political parties who decide who will go into the legislature. Nearly a third of the Ontario legislature will be parachuted in by partisans.

This argument is a very common one; it sounds logical, until you realize that it is being made in defence of a system - that is, the current first-past-the-post electoral system - that is seeping with partisanship, and quite regularly adorns our legislatures with partisan hacks.

So the objection it seems is not so much to a legislature filled with partisan hacks, but to a legislature filled with partisan hacks who are selected by the party they represent. But aren't local candidates selected by the parties they represent also? Of course they are - and not only that, but local candidates are not allowed to run unless they have the personal, signed approval of the leader of the party. Talk about entrenching power in the hands of the political elite!

So, then, it seems the objection is not so much to a legislature filled with partisan hacks who are pawns of the party elite (and is that not a bit redundant anyway?) but rather to a legislature filled with an amount of partisan hacks proportional to what the people voted for. That is the real objection; that is the motivation at the core of all the arguments against proportional representation. Once you get right down to it, and strip away all the obfuscations and red herrings from the arguments against PR, all your are left with is a fundamentally anti-democratic instinct - that little things like the will of the people shouldn't really have much bearing on how the legislature is constructed. I am not saying that the people who oppose PR are anti-democratic. Many of them are - and I have debated with many people who are not shy about those view - but most arguments against PR are so veiled by cant and bullshit that their true implications, as simple as they are, are sufficiently and so skillfully masked that reasonable, democratic-minded people end up making them without even realizing the implications of their arguments.

"Even assuming that parties use the most democratic means at their disposal, a one member one vote of their party membership, how many people are choosing are MPP's? How many members does the Green Party of Ontario actually have? I sincerely doubt it's anywhere close to the 100,000 people that choose each and every MPP in the legislature today."

I was rather stunned to see this argument, because it completely ignores that our current system works in almost the exact same way! Let's compare the two systems:

Current System:
Local candidates are decided by the party. The voters then decide on those local candidates.

Proposed System:
Same as above, except an additional step is added; 39 extra seats are distributed. The candidates for these seats are decided by the party. The voters then decide which party they want to vote for.

To argue against parties selecting their own candidates, given that our current system is based on that very principle, is absurd.

One good point is made however:

"By asking political parties to put forward their lists before the election you deprive them of the most democratic way of making their lists i.e. using the election results and putting in the candidates who lost close races."

I actually agree with this; my preference would be that local candidates, defeated by only small margins, should be on the top of the party lists from which the parties draw their apportionment of the 39 extra seats distributed based on a party's share of the popular vote. But this is a highly technical argument that can only really be appreciated by hardcore political geeks, and since I already agree with the subject of this Fisking, I'm not going to go any further with this, except to say that once we get the proportional system in place, it will be much easier to make small changes here and there, like improving the way the lists are written and such.

On to part 3:

"A party receives seats based not purely on the percentage of the vote it receives but instead based on its popularity in general minus its popularity locally. A party's allocation is determined by figuring out how many seats out of 129 it 'should' get and subtracting the number of seats won locally. A party that does well locally could get ZERO seats from the lists. This scenario is described by the assembly itself. Why is this a problem?"

Indeed, why is this a problem? If, according to the percentage of the popular vote, a party is supposed to receive 40% of the vote, and they win 65 of the 90 local seats (which would give them 65 of the 129 in total, ie: 50% of the seats) why should they get additional seats on top of this? They are already over-represented; they won 40% of the vote and have 50% of the seats. The purpose of this system is precisely to avoid parties being grossly over-represented in the legislature. Giving more seats to a party that is already over-represented doesn't make any sense at all.

"[The proposed system] favours parties who do poorly at the local level and disadvantages parties with strong local organization. Parties with good candidates that voters actually vote for get nothing, parties that have poor candidates that could never win locally get seats."

This is a gross mischaracterization of what the proposed PR system actually does. It does not "favour" parties who do poorly. There would still be 90 MPPs elected at the local level - that's over 3/4 of the total. Parties who do poorly locally would not receive any of these MPs. That is hardly to their advantage. In fact, in the example I gave above, the hypothetical party managed to win a bare majority government (50% of the seats) entirely by doing well locally. Parties with good candidates that voters mark their ballots for would not get "nothing" - they would get elected MPPs, the most tangible form of political currency, as a reward.

But in addition to that, the local candidates of smaller parties would receive increased attention. Moreover, the smaller parties would be even further encouraged to run the best candidates possible locally, because a strong local campaign, even if it doesn't result in winning that local seat, would still be very likely to increase the party's share of the popular vote, which would likewise increase their overall seat count due to proportional representation. And, for an additional benefit to local organizations, think star candidates: instead of a party leader bumping a favoured local candidate in favour of a parachuted star candidate, such a star candidates could just be given a high spot on the party's list. To add even further to that (the benefits just don't stop!) by giving voters two votes - one for a specific candidate and one for a party - voters will not be forced into a dilemma of having to pick between the party they support, or a candidate for an opposing party that they nevertheless like; they can vote for the candidate they like, while still voting for their preferred party - so it's a win-win situation for locally-minded voters.

So you see, far from diminishing the importance of the local campaign, the proposed system of PR would actually encourage and be a boon to strong local organizations.

Wasted votes. Fair vote and their ilk are always complaining about wasted votes. Under this system my vote would, in all likelihood, be wasted. As a Liberal in an NDP riding, I still have no say. I will admit this is not a big problem for me personally, but it is one of the reasons we are having this referendum. If the proposed system doesn't fix the problem, what's the point of tearing up our democratic traditions.

Very dramatic language which masks the fact that this argument also doesn't make any sense, because it is simply not true. Yes, Fair Vote Canada does rail against wasted votes. Under the current system, any votes which are not cast for the winning candidate are cast aside; they count for nothing. So a Liberal living in an NDP riding votes Liberal, the NDP wins, and that is the end of it. The writer of the above post apparently doesn't have a "big problem" with this, which is his right, but he propagates an outright falsehood by saying that the proposed PR system would not remedy this situation, because it quite obviously would.

Under the new system, a Liberal living in a strong NDP riding would case their vote for the Liberal candidate, and the NDP candidate would probably win; but that would not be the end of it. The Liberal voter also gets to mark a box indicating preference for the Liberal Party. These latter votes are the ones which would determine the apportionment of the 39 additional seats after the 90 local MPPs were elected. So even if your preferred local candidate doesn't win, your vote could still help yourparty of choice win additional seats.

Then again, it might not; in some cases, a party may do so well in local campaigns that they don't need any additional seats. But if this were the case, that would mean that the voter's preferred party must have done extraordinarily well in the election, hardly a reason to feel disenfranchised - rather a reason to celebrate.

"It assures perpetual minority governments... I don't mind the odd minority government but having an election every 18 months for the rest of my life is not an appealing prospect."

This is a specious argument, because the Canadian experience with minority governments is not in fact what minority governments are usually like. The fact of the matter is, minority governments are very, very, very common in the world. In fact, in almost every democratic country in the world, they are the norm. Take the example of Germany, which has an electoral system that is very similar to the one being proposed for Ontario (except in Germany's system, there are even more list seats, making minority governments even more likely). Germany almost always has minority governments - it has one right now in fact; Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats don't control a majority of seats. And before Merkel, Gerhardt Schroeder headed a Social Democrat minority government. Governments in Germany - almost all of them minorities - tend to last 3 or 4 years, hardly an election every 18 months.

So, then, why are Canada's minority governments so unstable? Precisely because of the current electoral system! The major parties capable of forming government are well aware that it is possible to win a majority government with only 40% of the vote. They do not see minority governments as a chance to actually govern, but rather as an extended pre-writ election campaign. They spend the entire time watching the polls, biding their time, and waiting for the most opportune moment to trigger an election, usually after about 18 months. This is usually once either the minority government itself cracks that magic 40% number, or once the opposition is ahead of the government in the polls. The goal in our system is always to win a majority, because it is so easy to do so.

Under PR systems, however, minority governments are not the exception, but the rule. Provoking an election every few months in such a system is pure electoral folly - since the resulting government will more than likely be a minority government anyway. Also, The People (particularly Canadians) tend to get pissy when they're dragged to the polls every few months (personally I love voting, but I'm weird like that); Canadians would surely punish a party if it insisted on continuously provoking unnecessary elections.

So the key difference is: under our current system, parties have an incentive to defeat minority governments and trigger elections. Under the proposed PR system, parties have an incentive to try to compromise in order to keep the legislature alive.

"It seems to place a higher respect for the list vote than the local vote."

Finally, this point is countered by simple mathematics: 90 local MPPs vs 39 list MPPs. Which do you think is more important? Remember, numbers don't lie.

Charges Against Khadr Dropped

2007-06-04T13:28:00.000-04:00

All charges have been dropped against Omar Khadr, a (Canadian) prisoner at Gitmo. Does that mean he'll be going free?

Not a chance. Remember, under the Bush administration's neo-fascist internment policy, the government does not actually need to lay charges against someone in order to detain them indefinitely without trial.

This boy was captured when he was 15 years old. He is now 20 - he has spent the last five years at Guantanamo Bay; given the policies of the administration, he has more than likely been tortured during this time. That he may be guilty of a crime is irrelevant - if the government has a case to make, then let them make it. If they have no case, the under law which has existed in English-speaking countries since 1215, they must release him. To deny this is to deny the most basic of all legal rights.

The Friendly Police State

2007-05-13T19:41:00.000-04:00

For your reading pleasure, Greg Weston (no Liberal sympathizer he) on the recent Conservative police-state action against the evils of leaking propaganda:

The Ottawa Sun
2007.05.13
Page 22
Greg Weston

In the latest chapter of Stevie in Wonderland, the Conservative promise of open and accountable government is fulfilled by RCMP goons slapping handcuffs on a young federal temp and hauling him off in front of his co-workers, all over a leaked piece of Tory propaganda.

If nothing else, the incident befitting any friendly police state should certainly help Stephen Harper convince voters that the Conservatives have no hidden agenda.

The supposed crime that demanded the use of police restraints on 27-year-old Jeffrey Monaghan was faxing a reporter a couple pages of draft bumpf from the Conservatives' latest environmental plan several weeks before the official announcement.

At worst, this had the effect of lessening the incredible national suspense that had been mounting in anticipation of the all-important government press release and ministerial photo op, in case you missed them.

So odious was this alleged act of felonious faxing, so damaging was it to the state, Monaghan was questioned and released without being charged.

All of which is almost funny: For months, we have been hearing horror stories involving the highest levels of the RCMP, revelations of lies, coverups and missing millions from the Mounties' pension fund.

Did any of the country's top cops responsible get yanked off their high horses in handcuffs? No way. They all got promoted with performance bonuses.

SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL

And how about all those great Canadians responsible for the sponsorship scandal? Did the RCMP march into their government offices and slap the cuffs on even one of them? Nope. For a long time, the Mounties wouldn't even investigate.

So why all the handcuffs and Hollywood high drama over a media leak of some public relations poop, little more than a sneak peek at the Harper government's environmental plan to save the planet and Conservative votes?

Monaghan is certainly no dark operative out to subvert Harper's government and spousal cat collection.

By his own account, he comes into work at 5 a.m. every day to assemble a package of press clippings for the bosses at Environment Canada, a job he describes as "the lowest ranking temp employee in the department, possibly in the entire government."

The information that got leaked was hardly spilling national security secrets to the terrorists, nor even the stuff of insider-trading on the stock markets.

In effect, the story was that the Conservatives' new plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions would be tougher than their first kick at the smokestack last fall, but not as stringent as environmental groups would like. Stop the presses.

For his part, Monaghan has no doubt why he was led off in handcuffs: "The spectacle of my arrest, the subsequent RCMP press release and the prepared statements from Environment Canada, including minister (John) Baird, have been crafted to bully public servants whom they, in a paranoid fit, believe are partisan and embittered."

It other words, the Harper government is engaging in good old-fashioned intimidation of public servants -- open your mouth to the media, and the Mounties will haul you off to jail.

This type of attempted message control, of course, is everything the prime minister and his press office have been striving for, save perhaps one additional detail -- they would really like if the Mounties would throw the cuffs on reporters, too.

It is also possible Monaghan was bitten by environment minister Baird, who may well be one of the government's most rabid anti-leak freaks.

Last year, when Baird was still in charge of Treasury Board, we gave our readers an advance preview of a federal report to parliament that he was scheduled to release a few days later. It's what we do.

The report had next to nothing to do with Baird or his department, but he went ballistic about the apparent leak anyway.

The day after our story ran, the minister buttonholed me at a social function, and told me he had already torn a strip off the official Baird was (wrongly) convinced had been the leaker. "I told him he would pay."

The whole episode struck me as inappropriate at the time, all the more so when the official he had supposedly berated on the phone denied even talking to Baird.

Whatever the reasons the government and RCMP went beyond reason this week, whoever leaked bits of Baird's beloved green plan was asking for trouble.

Was it worth internal discipline? Definitely. A firing offence? Perhaps.

But an RCMP raid, handcuffs, and the threat of prison time are, as Monghan said, "without precedent in their disproportionality; they are vengeful; and they are an extension of a government-wide communications strategy pinned on secrecy, intimidation and centralization."

Irony of Ironies...

2007-04-26T17:09:00.000-04:00

John Baird just said on Politics (not with Don Newman today :( ) that if the Liberals had implemented the Tory environment plan in 1997, we would have met our Kyoto targets.

The ironic thing is that if the Liberals had implemented the Tory environment plan in 1997, the Tories and the Reform Party would have had a fit - and no doubt would John Baird (then an Ontario Tory cabinet minister) have as well, not to mention Stephen Harper.

Sorry, but it seems to me that you can't criticize somebody for not doing something that you would have condemned them for doing. The hypocrisy of these people is just amazing...

Happy 4/20!

2007-04-20T18:08:00.000-04:00

What were you doing at 4:20 today? Me, I was writing an exam. :-(

Stephane Dion IS a Leader

2007-04-19T02:14:00.000-04:00

I really like this new Liberal ad. I think it makes the point which calls to be made, that Dion is a leader - just not the type of leader Stephen Harper is. Where as Harper plays a zero-sum game and leads by fiat, Dion is the type of leader who can bring together 182 countries and get them to all agree on a plan to fight climate change. It was a plan he had every intention of implementing as Environment Minister, and he will implement it as Prime Minister as well.

The ad runs directly counter to the Conservative lie that Dion is a) not a leader, and b) not fit to fight climate change. The ad highlights a very important example of Canadian leadership - Dion's leadership - in fighting climate change. Maybe we do have a chance after all.

It's Always Israel and Italy

2007-04-18T19:08:00.000-04:00

Have you ever noticed how every screed against proportional representation always invokes Israel and Italy as examples of how PR breeds unstable political systems? Take this editorial in the National Post. It uses all of the most predictable arguments against PR, which I've already addressed elsewhere. Among these arguments is the usual "Israel and Italy" stuff. But why always Israel and Italy?

Because those are the only two countries using PR which have particularly unstable political systems. So in fact, these two countries actually put the lie to the anti-PR argument that PR breeds instability; Israel and Italy are exceptions, not the norm. There is every possibility (and high probability) that Canada would remain as stable as ever... perhaps even more so, since most systems of PR would discourage regional parties and encourage national ones; so of all the major parties, the Bloc Quebecois would suffer the most; the same system in Quebec would mean that the Parti Quebecois could never have formed a majority government. How exactly does that lead to instability? Quite the opposite, I'd say.

A Risky Play

2007-04-13T21:04:00.000-04:00

The implications of the Dion-May accord are easy to see - it's a risky political play. I just hope Dion has the guts to follow it through to its logical conclusion. He could be acting here on a stroke of brilliace. It may not work, but at this point, he has very little to lose. If an election were held today, he'd lose pretty badly, and the Liberal party is in no mood to tolerate a loss with both Ignatieff and Rae still hoping to lead the party. He may survive a leadership vote, but he'd probably rather just avoid it altogether. And the only way to do that is to become prime minister. So it makes sense for him to make a risky play; again, I just hope he makes it.

The play I'm talking about is, of course, uniting the left. Coyne has already outlined the idea better than I could. A united left, with candidates of the Liberals, Greens and possibly the NDP agreeing not to run against each other, but against the Conservatives, similar to the arrangement Mackenzie King had with the Progressives in 1926. In many ridings, Liberals and Progressives did not face each other, and many ran as Liberal-Progressives, because they shared a common enemy - Arthur Meighen's Tories. It worked then, and it could work now. Dion wouldn't be crazy for trying, he'd just be trying to hold onto his job.

689

2007-04-13T03:12:00.000-04:00

That's the number of votes which separated Conservative Belinda Stronach and Liberal Martha Hall Findlay on election night 2004. Oh what might have been... Findlay would almost certainly have been placed in the Liberal cabinet had she taken down a Stronach in Aurora and Newmarket. What would her 2006 leadership campaign have brought her if she could also claim cabinet experience on her resume?

Then again, it's just as likely likely that she wouldn't have run that first-mocked but eventually lauded leadership campaign - lauded as it was for focusing on the grassroots as opposed to the party machine - had she not been so slighted by that party machine. The party machine which unceremoniously shoved her aside in the Spring of 2005, replacing her, the duly nominated candidate for Newmarket--Aurora and up until then gearing up for a rematch against Stronach, with Stronach herself. That's gotta hurt.

Just on a whimsical note, it's funny to imagine a future date: Liberal Leadership, 20XX (I don't want to try to predict that one...) Martha Hall Findlay emerges as the first female leader of the Liberal Party, leaving Belinda Stronach - who returned to politics to give her leadership ambitions one last shot - in the dust. It would be one of the most perfectly sublime moments in Canadian political history - and thus, will probably never, ever happen. Still, one can dream.

I don't mean I dream of seeing Belinda humiliated, that's just a consequence of the life she chose to dabble in, inexperienced, unready. I don't blame her for wanting to leave that world - it clearly wasn't for her - but the fact that she is deliberately leaving the door open for a future return to politics is to be a bit silly. Because let's be clear - if she gets out now, she's out for good. Oh she could probably return as an MP if she wanted - she has shown she can win Newmarket--Aurora as a candidate for either major party - or maybe even a cabinet minister. But that's it. The Conservatives will never take her back, and the Liberals from this point on are going to see very little use for her, besides her money - and the new fundraising laws make it very hard for the party to use her money as an asset. She could return and try to run for leader, but the party will never buy it now.

The party may have bought it. Had she stuck around, day in and day out, doing the difficult but rewarding work of being a Member of Parliament, and then maybe done her time in a new Liberal cabinet led by Stephane Dion, the party may have said, "Well, she's really proven herself." But ultimately, may have wasn't good enough for her - and that's alright. If she didn't see the outcome she desired at the end of the line, she had no reason to keep on going, subjecting herself to public humiliation (some of it her own making, much of it not) and gossip about her love life (which, admittedly, is pretty juicy). Maybe that's it - this thing with Tie Domi's apparently still going; if that's true, I certainly wouldn't blame her for wanting to be out of the spotlight. I wouldn't particularly want to be in a relationship chronicled by the media.

So she deserves no ill will (well, maybe from Peter MacKay), but in my opinion, she should not return to politics. Because the only reason she'd want to return would be to be leader, and she's shown by getting out that she's just not up to that job.

A Quick Thought on Stronach

2007-04-11T22:16:00.000-04:00

I'm surprised, but I guess in retrospect I shouldn't be. She'll pull in millions of dollars in private life, as opposed to the six-figure salary of an MP. This certainly doesn't quash her leadership ambitions, however. She's already served in a Liberal cabinet, which is the one thing all Liberal leaders have had in common. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but Stephen Harper was elected in 1993, served about three years and the House, left politics and returned to save his party from the political wilderness. So it's not unheard of...

Why Iran Did It (Or, Bill O'Reilly is an asshole)

2007-04-04T15:49:00.000-04:00

Bill O'Reilly is an asshole. I don't think I need to explain myself if you've seen this recent explosion of bloviating arrogance.

Of course, the reason O'Reilly exploded (besides being an asshole) is fairly obvious: the Bushies, the theo-conservatives, and the rest of the pro-torture right have been defending frequent US violation of the Geneva conventions on prisoners of war. It is therefore now impossible for the US to take the moral high ground against Iran. By torturing prisoners in US custody, the United States has been in frequent violation of Geneva. Granted, Iran has also been in frequent violation of International Human Rights law of all sorts, but that was never the point. Of course the Iranian government tortures people! They're the bad guys! That's what bad guys do! But the United States ceded the right to lecture other countries on following the Geneva conventions when its official policy became to openly and consistently violate the conventions. The United States has joined that list of nations that used to be known less than ten years ago in America itself as "the bad guys."

This is why O'Reilly exploded. He knows that all of the above is true, and that no amount of spin can get him out of the ideological hole he's dug himself. So the only thing he has left to do is pull out all the usual tricks - "You're blaming America!" "You're attacking America!" "You hate America!" and on and on - that have served him so well. People aren't buying it anymore, Bill. Your particular brand of bullshit went out of style in November of 2006. Get with the program. What Bill should really be angry about is the fact that the Bush administration has just handed all of its most vile enemies a huge propaganda victory. No longer can the United States condemn them with any credibility.

Iran definitely had a reason for this little diplomatic game. My theory at this point is that they knew they could embarass the hell out of the United States. Britain faced some embarassment itself, as it is generally thought that Britain is likely not capable of winning a war with Iran on its own, and this incident reinforced that perception. But the United States came away from this the far greater loser.

Throughout the standoff, no one seriously seemed to believe that this was going to escalate into a war because it is well known that the United States is in no condition to fight a war with Iran. It would certainly will militarily, but occupying the country is simply out of the question at least until Iraq has been dealt with, and even then it would likely prove impossible. If you think Iraq is particularly bad, you obviously haven't thought about the Vietnam-waiting-to-happen that is Iran, which is more than double the size of Iraq. So a military strike against Iran was never seriously on the table.

Moreover, the United States was alienated from the entire process. Its own flouting of the Geneva conventions was drawn out into the open when they started to lecture Iran about them. US credibility was futher hurt when the prisoners were released unharmed earlier today, unlike many of the prisoners in US care. Not only had it ceded its credibility on the issue of Geneva, but Bush and co.'s tough-talking stance was actually a set-back, according to the Brits. In other words, "Go away, George, you're not helping."

The Iranians never had any intention of provoking an incident. They simply wanted to watch Bush and Blair squirm for a few days, as well as make it clear that they are prepared to defend themselves if attacked. That's my theory, anyway.

Time for a Liberal Program

2007-03-30T03:57:00.000-04:00

With the Conservatives enjoying staggering leads in some polls - 12 to 14 points seems to be the average - it has become blatantly obvious that the Liberal Party needs a radical change of course. But what kind of change?

Stephen Harper has managed to pull off a cruel tactical maneuvre - he has cornered the Liberal Party on the left of the political spectrum, and broadened his reach across the centre. He's in majority territory now, and it would not be surprising to see him force an election some time after Easter, eagre to capitalize on Dion's perceived weakness. And, unless Dion has only been pretending to be a rather ineffective opposition leader, Harper would probably win, likely with a majority. Scary stuff. But there is an option that doesn't include simply waiting for the inevitable electoral slaughter to come.

Being cornered on the left, the time has never been better to attempt to unite the centre-left behind one party. To that end, the Liberals need a plan which will appeal to the types of people who usually mark their ballots NDP or Green. But at the same time, ceding any more ground in the centre would be foolhardy. Thus, the party must also make it clear that it is still the best choice for the middle class. The Liberals need to spread out in both directions, tapping all of four bases of the Liberal coalition - business liberals and middle class suburbanites of the centre-right, and welfare staters and social liberals of the centre-left. And of course, the hope would be to add a fifth base to that coalition - environmentalists of all political bents.

To have such a broad appeal to so many different groups, the Liberal platform will need to be fresh, dynamic and innovative - the fact that Bob Rae and Scott Brison are its co-authors is an encouraging start, as they're both very bold men. The platform should include a healthy tax cut aimed primarily at the middle class to satisfy the business community and give middle class voters a very visible incentive to vote Liberal. It should include plans to expand Canada's social safety net - the hard years of the 1990s are over, and Canada can afford to spend on its citizens' most basic needs. It should include a detailed environmental action plan - I don't want to say the Liberals should blatantly steal the Green platform, but stealing from it would be a good start - covering the major issue of global warming, but also addressing smog, and the poisons in our food, air and water. (If Dion wants to lead the green charge, he had better become very good at promoting these issues.) Finally for the social liberals, bold steps forward on drug law reform (including the legalization of harmless substances like marijuana), euthanasia, prostitution and stem cell research would give the activist crowd who usually go NDP and Green an additional reason to vote Liberal, and would have the added bonus of forcing Stephen Harper to take some pretty ridiculous and indefensible positions, most of which Canadians generally (especially the urban voters Stephen Harper needs to get his majority, and also to some extent suburban voters who are uncomfortable with knee-jerk social conservatism) would reject.

This is my prescription for the Liberal Party. I believe that this is what is necessary to win - and even if we don't win, at least we will have gone down fighting for something, instead of just pulling a John Kerry and going down fighting for nothing.

Tax Cuts

2007-03-28T16:12:00.000-04:00

Why didn't Canadians get a tax cut in the 2007 budget? Easy, because Quebecers got one instead - paid for by the Rest of Canada, of course. This after Charest and other Quebec leaders constanly saying how desperately they needed more money from Ottawa to fund social programs, thus exposing the Big Lie that is the fiscal imbalance.

But what does Jim Flaherty think of taking other peoples' money and literally handing it over to the people of Quebec? He's fine with it.

"Beware Autonomism"

2007-03-27T07:28:00.000-04:00

It appears I'm not alone in my reticence. Declares Braeden - "Charest learns the hard way: Appeasement does not work."

I echo the sentiment, although I don't like the word "appeasement" because of its unfortunate connotations. Also, I don't think Mario Dumont is really that right-wing; on a global political spectrum, Harper is way to the right of Dumont (or at least, pre-2006 Harper).

But superficialities aside, Mr. Caley makes an excellent and note-worthy point:

"It is important to keep our goals in perspective. Federalism is not just about whether we have a country, but about what kind of country we have."

I couldn't agree more. As I said, I fear for federalism.

Gilles Duceppe - Now or Never

2007-03-27T06:34:00.000-04:00

If Duceppe wants to get out while the getting is good, now may be his only shot to do it without looking like a captain abandoning his own ship, letting his crew go down instead.

Given the PQ's propensity for stabbing its leaders in the back - even the legendary and loved Levesque - Andre Boisclair's days as leader of the PQ are very likely numbered. The obvious choice to assume the mantle is Pauline Marois, the woman he defeated for the party's leadership in 2005. However, there is another name who could definitely give Marois a run for her money.

Gilles Duceppe turned down the invitation to run for the PQ leadership last time around, officially because there was a federal election around the corner and he had to lead the Bloc's charge. Unofficially, most people think that he only turned down the job of his career - remember, most sovereigntists consider Prime Minister of Quebec to be the highest political goal, not leader of the Bloc Quebecois - because the BQ's prospects in the 2006 election were looking so enormously high at the time.

The BQ's commanding lead in Quebec has since dissipated. Odds are if Duceppe leads the BQ into another election, he will be leading them to slaughter at the polls. They still stand a good chance of walking away with a majority of the seats in Quebec, but there is almost no chance they will be able to repeat their high water mark showing - 54 seats in both 1993 and 2004 - again. If Duceppe wants to get out while the getting is good, now may be his only shot to do it without looking like a captain abandoning his own ship, letting his crew go down instead. And in the process, he could become the leader and messiah-apparent of the Parti Quebecois. Duceppe is still very personally popular in Quebec - much more so than Boisclair ever was - and could at minimum save the party from being shunted aside in an election which may just see the PQ fighting to survive in a post-ADQ Quebec. Or, in a best case scenario (for Duceppe), he could lead the party to a miraculous electoral recovery and majority government, and cement himself as the unquestioned leader of the sovereigntist movement.

It's hard to imagine, quite frankly, any reason for Duceppe to remain leader of the Bloc Quebecois. By making a run for the PQ leadership, Duceppe risks losing very little, but stands to gain in ways that can only be described as historic.

I Fear For Federalism - The Third Way

2007-03-27T01:22:00.000-04:00

"Autonomism." We may as well get used to it, because apparently, about a third of Quebeckers have chosen to park their votes with a party which essentially represents a Third Way of looking at the national question. We have federalism. We have sovereigntism. And now, we have autonomism. I think Mario Dumont's ADQ surge represents a disillusionment with both the sovereignty movement and the federalist cause.

Federalists are celebrating tonight because the PQ did so poorly - a good reason for any federalist to celebrate - but I am a bit more apprehensive. Dumont claims that he is not a sovereigntist, but an autonomist. He wants more autonomy - political, economic - for Quebec, though is uninterested in separating from Canada.

But in a way, what Dumont wants resembles separation from Canada in many respects. I fear Stephen Harper has emboldened these autonomists by playing their game - giving more money to Quebec, and also the nation resolution. This may have blunted sovereigntism, but what of autonomism, now the greatest numerical adversary of federalism in Quebec? I fear we may have only seen the beginning of a push for greater "independence" for Quebec within Canada (read: given yet more no-strings-attached money from the Rest of Canada) - despite Quebec already receiving more special favours than any other province. And I fear any attempt to resist this push could lead to a revived sovereigntist movement (maybe, just maybe, led by Mario Dumont). I fear for federalism.

Personally, I'm not a fan of any of the parties. In all likelihood, had I a vote, it would have gone to the Parti Vert. But this new paradigm - and that's exactly what this seems to be - makes me very, very wary. Dumont is neither an ally nor an enemy of federalism, which makes him unpredictable, which makes him interesting to watch. But it also makes dealing with him hazardous territory.

If Dumont eventually takes power, he could lead a push for Quebec independence within Canada, and if jilted, this could turn into a push for Quebec independence without Canada. But perhaps the more likely (and thus, more threatening) possibility is if Dumont ever takes power, and he is able to enact a centre-right program, Quebec may become less dependent on the Rest of Canada to prop up its economy. If any leader will be able to get Quebec into a position, institutionally, where it could survive as its own country, Dumont seems to be the man.

I think federalists need to take a long look at the new political climate in Quebec before coming to any conclusions about whether or not tonight was a victory of a rebuke for a united Canada.

He stays

2007-03-27T00:16:00.000-04:00

Well, Jean Charest's political obituary has been written before. He's got a tough job ahead of him, but if he's up to the challenge, he'll come out the stronger for it.

The paint on the walls is drying

2007-03-26T23:42:00.000-04:00

And it looks to be a very, very pale shade of red. It's hard to see how Charest can hang on as premier after a result like this, though he did hang onto his riding, so he could continue on if he wanted to. Boisclair is probably gone. Dumont is, of course, the real winner tonight. He is right where he needs to be - he is in a position to prove to Quebeckers that he is ready for power. The time between now and the next election, for Dumont, will be about proving to Quebeckers that he is ready to govern - we'll see whether he is up to the task, Dumont being a populist (more so than a right-winger, as he is often portrayed), it was a victory for the people of Quebec, who were apparently tired of the two establishment parties.

The only thing that could really shake things up at this point is if Boisclair decides he can stomach Dumont as premier over Charest, and throws his support to the ADQ. But that seems the least likely possibility at this point. Still, this election has been a huge surprise to everyone, so stranger things have happened.

Mario Dumont as premier? Even with a Liberal plurality?

2007-03-26T21:48:00.000-04:00

It could easily happen. If Charest loses his own seat (which seems a distinct possibility at this point in the evening), he will probably resign as premier. This would leave the only logical choice for premier as Mario Dumont, even if the Liberals actually win more seats than the ADQ.

Implications?

2007-03-26T21:18:00.000-04:00

Still trying to decide what to make of this. A Liberal victory was what Harper thought best to his own fortunes, and a PQ victory would probably have helped Dion out, but ADQ? Hard to say whether this buggers Harper's chances, or just makes them even better.

Quebeckers have been doing some surprising voting lately, haven't they?

2007-03-26T20:55:00.000-04:00

(First things first: 5 seats to over 40? Congrats to the ADQ, obviously.)

The Conservative beachhead in 2006. The ADQ surge in 2007. I think it's safe to say that Quebec politics is undergoing a massive sea-change at this point. However, I would hesitate to call this a right-wing surge. I think it rather reflects a desire on the part of Quebeckers to move past the federalist-separatist paradigm of the past 30 years. The nation resolution and Mario Dumont's ambivalence towards the separatist/federalist debate have certainly helped to shape this. I think Dumont really tapped into those who agree with his "autonomist" vision of Quebec - he voted "Yes" in the 1995 referendum, but he has no taste for another referendum as long as Quebec gets what it wants from the federation. Dumont represents someone the federal government can work with - not as staunch an ally as Charest, perhaps, but certainly a better result for federalism than a Boisclair victory.

Still, it's important to keep in mind that the three parties are in a statistical dead heat looking purely at the popular vote. Under a more proportional electoral system, the three parties would be almost dead-even in seat counts, as well.

Budget/Quebec 2007 (Harper's sold his Albertan soul)

2007-03-24T05:42:00.000-04:00

If I lived in Quebec (and I could if I moved a few kilometres north), I think it's safe to say that I would be a partisan of the Quebec Liberal Party. I like its history, I like its policies, I like its leader - or that is to say, I liked its leader. Jean Charest always struck me as a bit more principled than some of his fellow politicians. He's proven this week that he is just about as opportunistic as you can get, and not coincidentally, Stephen Harper showed once again his own lack of principles.

How else can you characterize this joke of a budget? I didn't think the last one was particularly reprehensible, but this one is just beyond the pale. Leave aside the general lack of principles in the budget itself - it looks like something that Paul Martin would have sent back to the drawing board for spending too much and accomplishing too little. But this complete sell out to Charest? Stephen Harper should be ashamed. After years and years of railing against Alberta's (and Ontario's, but he didn't really care about Ontario) tax dollars financing Quebec's lavish social spending, he is essentially giving Quebec over a billion dollars - that's $1,000,000,000, in case you missed it - of other Canadians' money.

Harper was quite clearly and transparently trying to buy the current provincial election for Charest, his biggest ally and asset in the province. (He made that clear by telling Quebeckers that if they wanted more where that came from, they'd better re-elect Charest - a comment from which Charest, Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair and Action Democratique du Quebec leader Mario Dumont all quickly distanced themselves.) Harper needs a stable federalist government in Quebec if he hopes to implement his preferred election strategy there (ie: buy the votes of Quebec with the money of other Canadians). If the Liberals had delivered a budget as big-spending and lacking in tax cuts as this one, Stephen Harper would have had a conniption. If the Liberals had delivered a budget which was blatantly and openly an attempt to buy an election - and maybe two - in Quebec using the tax dollars of Albertans and Ontarians, well, Stephen Harper's head would have spun around and exploded.

Don't get me wrong - I support equalization. But giving in to this "fiscal imbalance" nonsense and then paying Quebec money it doesn't need is not something I can support. First of all, Quebec already enjoys the best social services in Canada - no other province spends so much per citizen, even despite its huge deficits. Did you know you can go to university in Quebec for $1500 per year? $1500! The government subsidizes car insurance. It has a great education system. Quebeckers are doing pretty well for themselves already.

But alright, let's pretend that Quebec actually needed this billion-some dollars to, I don't know, help pay its staggering debt and deficit? Or perhaps to further fund Quebec's social programs, for which Charest was saying his province so desperately needed more money from the federal government. What does Charest do with the money?

He turns it into an across-the-board tax cut for the people of Quebec! What? What about those programs Quebec so needed other Canadians' money to fund? What about that huge deficit that needed to be checked before it ruins the province's finances? Bugger than, there's an election to be had! This proves beyond a doubt that the fiscal imbalance (or the "fiscal balance" as the sickeningly sunny Conservative propagandists are now calling it) was a myth, is a myth, and shall remain a myth. If that money was so urgently required to fix this so-called "fiscal imbalance," why wasn't it spend, you know, fixing it, instead of handing out hundreds of millions of dollars of basically free money - courtesy of the rest of Canada - to Quebeckers? But worse, it just stinks of dishonest, disingenuous, dirty politics. Stephen "Firewall" Harper's sold his Albertan soul - to the premier of Quebec.

That's why, if I lived in Quebec, I could simply not bring myself to stomach voting for Charest. I don't support separatism, but I could help but consider the PQ - at least they probably believe the lies they're telling regarding the fiscal imbalance. (Not a huge stretch, considering most of them believe their own lies regarding Quebec's economic prospects after separation.) And I don't really lean to the right, but I would simply have to consider the ADQ - at least they've got a dynamic leader.

With a tight three-way race, I'll certainly be glued to the TV Monday night - it's been a very long time since politics in Canada was this interesting. I'm quite excited to see the outcome - I just hope it's not Charest.

Could the Budget Have Exposed the Tories' Right Flank?

2007-03-24T05:00:00.000-04:00

If there's one thing everyone can agree on regarding the federal budget, it's that it was rather unexpected. Jim Flaherty, the right-wing neo-conservative Finance minister under Mike Harris, delivered a budget for Stephen Harper that is, quite unbelievably, the highest spending budget in Canadian history. Paul Martin under Jean Chretien was actually more, well, conservative than the Conservatives. Hard to believe, but numbers don't lie.

Stephen Harper, being the long game strategist that he has shown himself to be, probably has a few more tricks up his sleeve, but by and large, I think this budget tipped the Tories' election hand. Their plan: to spend more liberally than the Liberals. It is true that most observers were predicting a big-spending budget, I don't think anybody was expecting a big-spending budget that didn't include large tax cuts, targetted specifically at the middle class. That these cuts were not included means that the Tories are probably planning to promise them to voters in the next election. But the problem this creates is - why should fiscal conservatives trust the Harper government to implement their program when the Liberals under Martin and Chretien were doing a much better job of that?

This raises the question - are the Conservatives at risk of losing their right flank? Not the social conservatives - the Tories have them in a bag at the moment, because they have nowhere else to go. Maybe if the Tories fail to do anything substantive on the big social conservative issues, they will lose those voters to a splinter party, however not for many years yet. But the tax cut craving supply-side conservatives could possibly be wooed - by the Liberals.

I'm aware that it is probably crazy to be speculating about the Conservative Party of Canada losing its right flank to the Liberals; nothing like that has ever happened before in Canadian politics. Well, unless you count the PC/Reform split in 1993. But certainly neither major party has ever defeated the other by cutting into its base. Well, unless you count the Diefenbaker Progressive Conservatives' two victories in 1957 and 1958 - victories achieved in large part because Diefenbaker campaigned to the left of the Liberals. Hmm. Well, alright, maybe there is precedent for that happening.

Fiscal conservatives can't be happy with this budget. I'm not really a fiscal conservative myself - not in the sense of people like Mike Harris and Ralph Klein - but Coyne is, and he makes an excellent barometer of the eco-con mood. And he is not happy with this budget. Really not happy. (Incidentally, he also explains why the Tories are being dishonest when they say this budget actually does have tax cuts.)

The appeal the Liberal Party could make to voters with an eye for the deductions portion of their paycheque is simple: look at the 90s and early 00s. A decade of fiscal discipline, spending cuts, and tax cuts. Compare to the last two Conservative budgets - one of which saw a tax increase, and one of which saw large spending increases, but no real tax relief. "Why bother going with those guys when we've already proven that we're better for you?"

It's an appeal they might be able to sell. Or it may flop - but it's certainly a move worth considering. After all, with polls showing Harper in majority territory recently, it's clear the Liberals need a radical change in direction if they hope to end up anywhere after the next election except the Opposition benches across the aisle from a majority government. If Harper wants to fish in our pond, fine - let's fish in his.

Prohibition

2007-03-24T01:40:00.000-04:00

In "Well, duh" news, yet another scientific study - this one with participation from and agreement from police, fyi "law and order" types - concludes what most intelligent people already know: alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than marijuana.

"The researchers asked two groups of experts — psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise — to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, and LSD.

Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other, but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances.

Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was ecstasy...

Tobacco causes 40 per cent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. The substances also harm society in other ways, damaging families and occupying police services...

While experts agreed that criminalizing alcohol and tobacco would be challenging, they said that governments should review the penalties imposed for drug abuse and try to make them more reflective of the actual risks and damages involved."

No one is going to argue that cannabis is good for you, but to say that it is so bad for you that it needs to be illegal, and that people who use it ought to go to jail and/or have criminal records, in the face of so much credible scientific evidence, is not only patently absurd, but utterly totalitarian in its implications.

It's a bit surprising that the study concludes LSD and ecstasy are less harmful than cannabis, but I could see why this would be the case - neither cause damage to the lungs the way cannabis can, and while the negative effects of, say, LSD (flashbacks, anyone?) can be worse, they occur far less often.

The complete list of drugs, and how harmful they are, can be found here, along with some invaluable commentary. And of course, I found the study here, along with this useful tidbit:

"The results seem pretty self evident to me. As someone who has done his fair share of drinking and smoking marijuana, I know which one had significant negative effects if I did too much of it. In short, smoking too much pot just made me sleepy. It never made me emotionally volatile, or had me doing things I regretted the next day. It never caused me to spend hours in the bathroom vomiting. It never left me incapacitated with a terrible hangover the next day. All of my worst party-related experiences in college were the result of too much booze, not too much pot.

As for gateway drugs, I did cocaine once in my life, over a decade after I smoked my first joint, and, interestingly enough, at the end of a night of heavy drinking. I never felt the urge to do stronger drugs after smoking marijuana."

When are people going to realize that marijuana is not the demon seed, and it's not any of the government's business whether or not informed adults use it?

Some Friendly Advice (AKA: Why Harper is Nixon)

2007-03-18T10:50:00.000-04:00

Really? Really?? Isn't this a little creepy?

Let's concentrate on the best part of that article - the opening sentence:

"A Conservative staffer is being paid through the House of Commons budget to shadow Liberal leader Stephane Dion."

Brilliant! So let me get this straight - it's an unforgivable sin if taxpayer dollars are used to fund Liberal political activities, but it's just fine for Conservatives to do it. I do just want to make sure we're all on the same page here - this is the standard being set by the government of Canada, after all. We should be perfectly clear on what they think is okay and not okay. Okay?

Well, after all he was doing "opposition research." You know who else was doing "opposition research" when he was arrested? G. Gordon Liddy. Now, I'm not saying that this is Watergate and that Harper is Nixon (well, Harper may be Nixon...) but what I am saying is that this isn't too many steps away from Watergate.

So just some friendly advice to the Conservative Party, unsolicited, 'cause I'm giving that way:

1) If you are going to recreate the scandal for which all scandals since have been named, get a better spy. Maybe whoever the mole in the Liberal camp was/is; that guy's pretty clever, and I'm sure someone inside the Big Blue Machine knows who it is.

2) Avoid recording audio evidence of your involvement in the scandal. (The question here is, is Harper as paranoid as Nixon? Well, given that he doesn't allow his MPs to go to the bathroom without his permission, I'm gonna guess that he's pretty damn paranoid.)

3) Regardless of point 1, don't hire a psycho like G. Gordon Liddy. (Seriously, Harper and Nixon are both uncharismatic, incredibly secretive old-fashioned conservatives with massive chips on their shoulders who pretend to care about the environment because it's the fashionable thing at the time but they really don't give a shit about it at all, or as Nixon put it, "I'm so sick of the goddamn environment I could die." Harper is Nixon.)

Movies

2007-03-11T18:06:00.000-04:00

I saw "Ghostrider" a while back. It sucked. It was basically, so far as I could tell, an allegory about a manly, red-blooded redneck beating the shit out of some poseur gothfags, which is not nearly as satisfying as it sounds.

As for "The Queen," Helen Mirren absolutely deserved that Oscar.

Then there's "300." While I haven't seen it yet - gayest movie ever?

Are the knives out already?

2007-03-11T17:46:00.000-04:00

I hate to contribute to the life of this story by repeating it, but it's not exactly a secret that there are already whispers in the corridors of power about knives being sharpened. The common thinking goes that Stephane Dion only has one election in him, not by his choice, but instead because the leadership camps of his former rivals are already preparing to topple him in the event of an election loss. Now, I could certainly imagine some dissension in the ranks - the Liberal party isn't as unified today as it has been historically - but an outright coup? I highly doubt it.

Still, this email I received gave me pause for thought. It was entitled "Bob Rae Launches Liberal Leadership Bid," though I'm still not sure who sent it:

A Crazy Idea

2007-03-02T04:45:00.000-05:00

In light of the recent poll putting the Liberals 9 points behind the Tories, and the Green Party at 13% support, I couldn't help but suggest...

Stephane Dion should try to make a deal with Elizabeth May; if she runs as a Liberal and wins, she will be the next Liberal Environment Minister, and promise to implement the Green Party's (surprisingly sane) environmental platform. It has its disadvantages, but its potential advantages are obvious - it would give Dion more credibility on the environment, and it would siphon away a lot of Green support.

The Government of Canada is Above the Law

2007-02-14T23:28:00.000-05:00

At least, that's what the Conservatives seem to think. This is particularly rich coming from a party that stresses "law and order" (read: locking up harmless potheads in droves) isn't it?

The House of Commons has passed a law demanding that the government live up to its Kyoto commitments. Under parliamentary tradition, the government is responsible to the House of Commons. If the Conservatives do not implement Kyoto, they will be in breach of the law. Pretty simple math.

Accountability Looks a Lot Like Patronage

2007-02-13T13:03:00.000-05:00

The Conservatives really are something, aren't they? After years of complaining about the courts being stacked with "liberals" (a bogus allegation) they're doing the same thing in reverse, stacking the courts with conservative ideologues.

Canada's legal community raised fears that the selection of judges will be politicized in "bare-knuckle partisan battles" that will damage the credibility of those who sit on the country's superior courts.

Well, that would be what they want, wouldn't it? It's a well-known fact that the Conservatives have little to no respect for the judiciary in this country, though Canadians have consistently expressed a great deal more confidence in judges than in politicians. If the goal is to reverse that trend, what better way than to appoint a bunch of partisan hacks to the bench?

It gets better. How are they doing this? Simple: stacking the judicial nominating committee with unqualified hacks with ties to the Conservative Party, including firefighters and graphic artists.

Gee, aren't you glad the "corrupt" Liberals are gone, replaced by the "accountable" Conservatives?

The Budget

2007-02-11T12:44:00.000-05:00

This has been said, but it bears repeating.

The "fiscal imbalance" is a crock. Most serious people familiar with the issue know this; to this day, I have never seen a convincing case made for its existence, and have seen countless ones made claiming, with sound and solid numbers, that it is a myth. Stephen Harper is a respectably intelligent economist, and thus surely knows it doesn't exist. Jean Charest and Andre Boisclair probably know too.

Nevertheless, Jean Charest and Stephen Harper have something critical in common: they both need to fix the fiscal imbalance if they want to meet their primary political goal - in both cases being re-elected, in Harper's case with a majority.

If Charest loses the coming Quebec election to the Parti Quebecois, the Conservatives will be at a disadvantage in their campaign against the Liberals, the Liberals being traditionally seen as the party best able to handle the threat posed by the PQ. This raises the question of the so-called "fiscal imbalance" - the ridiculous notion that Ottawa has too much money and doesn't fork over enough of it to the provincial governments. Nevermind the fact that Ottawa actually gives more money to the provinces than the originally postulated size of the imbalance. But being that it was a myth to begin with, it's hardly surprising that the size of the imbalance can be changed to suit whichever political actor needs to use it to his advantage.

Quebeckers, for their part, are convinced that the imbalance exists - mostly because all of their major political parties say that it does - and that Jean Charest promised to fix it. That means Jean Charest's chances of winning his election depend in no small part on his success or failure on this issue.

Harper and Charest need each other. Expect the federal budget - due around March 20 - to contain lots of goodies for the provinces in general, and Quebec in particular. This will give Charest a boost and possibly deliver him the election, and Stephen Harper will defend a weak flank. It's a win-win politically for them, though given that the fiscal imbalance is a myth, it's hardly a win for Canadians.

Proof that the White House lied about WMDs?

2007-02-08T13:15:00.000-05:00

I don't want to get too excited about this, but Patrick Fitzgerald, the (very clever and very aggressive) prosecutor in the Scooter Libby perjury case seems to smell something bigger, and Sully thinks he might know what it is:

"Cheney was scared - so scared he took a huge risk that eventually led to the loss and public humiliation of his most trusted aide, Scooter Libby. But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place. He knew, even if the president was blithely convinced otherwise, that the WMD evidence was weak, and his success in distorting the evidence was threatened by Wilson. Not that Wilson had all the goods - Cheney must have known this was a minor matter. It was the danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it's impeachable. I don't want to believe it. But I find it increasingly plausible that this is what Patrick Fitzgerald smells in the Libby case. He can't prove it yet; he may never prove it. But he's getting warmer; and he won't give up."

If Fitzgerald somehow pulls off a miracle and finds substantial evidence - or better yet, proof - that Cheney and his cronies rigged the WMD evidence to serve their own neo-conservative/war profiteering ends, then what we on the left of the spectrum have long-suspected is the case will finally be vindicated, and the Bush/Cheney presidency will be sure to be remembered for what it really was - criminal.

Rising Star?

2007-02-08T13:06:00.000-05:00

David McGuinty has been getting a lot of face time lately, hasn't he? More than his older brother, that's for sure. McGuinty, as the Liberal environment critic, is being the best apologist for the Liberal environment plan I think I have ever heard, and he's doing it almost daily. His frequent appearances on political talk shows and news channels lately have offered a spirited attack on the Conservatives' environment front, as well as a clear elucidation of Liberal views on the matter. He's also been performing well on committee, particularly when he goes up against John Baird.

I must admit, I've never really had much of an opinion of McGuinty one way or the other - again, I usually associate the name "McGuinty" with the premier of Ontario - but lately he's been impressing me. Where as previously I would have figured he would be unlikely to carry over his shadow cabinet responbility into a cabinet responsibility should the Liberals win the next election, but now I'd say it's a distinct possibility.

I'm going to make a prediction and say McGuinty will be someone to watch in the future, possibly as future (way down the line) leadership material; he's certainly young enough - the same age as Gerard Kennedy, actually - and seems pretty quick on his feet. (Wouldn't it be funny if the next leadership race featured McGuinty v. Kennedy?)

One more reason to be for floor crossing...

2007-02-07T12:23:00.000-05:00

In the last few years, the Liberals have picked up Scott Brison, Keith Martin, Belinda Stronach, and now Garth Turner. They've lost Pat O'Brien, David Kilgour, David Emerson and Wajid Khan.

On balance, I have to say the Liberals came out on top. The only real loss out of that bunch was Emerson, but he's toast in the next election, anyway. O'Brien, Kilgour and Khan didn't leave soon enough, as far as I'm concerned.

As for Turner himself, well, we'll see how that goes. Hopefully his experience with the Conservatives has shown him that the secrecy of caucus is sacrosanct, and there will thus never be any (legitimate) reason to boot him from caucus. It's a huge loss for the Green Party, obviously, and to be honest I was hoping that he would sit as a Green, mostly because I want Elizabeth May to be included in the leaders' debates.

One thing I must say is that it was a stroke of genius for Turner to promise to contest a by-election if Harper called by-elections for Khan, Fortier and Emerson. That won't completely eliminate his inevitable characterization by Conservatives as a hypocrite, but it should blunt their words a great deal, as Turner has made it clear that he would be happy to live up to his principles, as long as they were applied consistently. (It's a convenient coincidence that by-elections for Mississauga--Streetsville, Vancouver--Kingsway, Halton and wherever Fortier were to run, would probably result in Liberal victories.)

Anyway, I join many others in welcoming Garth to the light side of the Force. I did leave a comment on his blog to the effect of, "You should join the Greens," but this works too.

Generations II

2007-02-04T09:53:00.000-05:00

To make some further observations, as always trying to label individuals by the standard of a collective is difficult if not impossible. I believe the point is, though, that even taking into account the vast amounts of variance found amongst individual human beings, the overall character of a generation as a collective cannot help but be shaped by the forces of history, namely the stages of the cycle they inhabit when they are born and come of age, and with this character so shaped, they cannot help but impact the stages in which they live their midlife and old age.

To take my category, Heroes (Civics), we are born during an unravelling and come of age during a crisis. This generally causes the early lives of a Civic generation to be relatively easy, though characterized by uncertainty about the future. Civics then come of age during a Crisis, which really shapes them. The current, "just deal with it" Millennial generation does indeed have more in common with the "suck it up" GI Generation than it does with its immediate Gen X "whatever" predecessors, or their "love is all you need" Boomer parents, and the preceding "make your own future" Silent generation, which saw many young people in the aftermath of World War II immigrating to the Americas from Europe (like my grandparents, who are both a part of that generation). I mean think of the catchphrases that are so popular with our generation, "Deal with it," "Get over it," "Get over yourself," "Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it." That kind of heartless crap hasn't really been popular in western parlance since the GI generation, really, and I do think it's very much a product of the fact that most of us were born in the Unravelling of the 1980s or 1990s, a paradoxical time of both terrible uncertainty, economic prosperity and reduced government services resulting in more poverty. And my own experience sort of gives some credibility to both the idea that people are individuals and thus not entirely shaped by their generation's norms - as I more often than not find myself rejecting this sort of "deal with it" rhetoric - but at the same time individuals cannot help but be shaped at least in some way by the collective - as I find myself more often than I'd like to admit giving into that cold, toughen-up attitude.

Meanwhile, the coming Artist (Adaptive) generation will be shaped by the Crisis in which they are born; a world of increasing warfare, shifting global powers and alliances, and of course the consequences of decades of social neglect of the poor and the ever-shrinking middle class, spurred on by more and more globalization resulting in lower and lower wages and a continuing stratification of social classes. Actually, I think the shrinking middle class could be a defining characterisitic of this generation, as more and more families find themselves on one of two sides of a divide of well off or poor - and of course, it's the poor who usually end up fighting in wars. Mix that with continuing global conflicts, and you've got a generation very similar to the previous Artist generation, which was very much shaped by the fact that they were born and grew up during the twin crises of the Great Depression and World War II, while their older brothers and parents fought to survive in both war and the peace that preceded it.

"Punishing the West?"

2007-02-04T07:54:00.000-05:00

According to a Strategic Counsel poll in the Globe and Mail today, the vast majority (63%) of Canadians think we should at least attempt to keep our Kyoto commitments, while less than a third (30%) believe we should attempt a "made-in-Canada" solution. (7% don't know.)

What's most striking is that the poll numbers out west are:

Kyoto - 55%
"Made-in-Canada" - 37%
Don't know - 8%

If environmentalism in general and Kyoto in particular is "punishing the west," as so many opponents like to claim, then the west must be pretty masochistic.

Fuck

2007-02-03T12:15:00.000-05:00

Question: which movie holds the current record for most uses of the word "fuck?"

The answer is a bit on the nose.

Generations

2007-02-03T09:28:00.000-05:00

I thought this was kind of neat. True, it could be seen as a bit wooly, and very Anglo-America-centric, but it's also striking in what it reveals.

I'd venture a guess that a good number of bloggers are part of the same generation, known variously as Millennial, Generation Y and Generation Next, and would typically be those born between 1979 or 1982 and possibly somewhere between 2001 or 2003, depending where you want to draw the line. I think 2001 is a good place to draw it because of September 11th, and how much that event has impacted the world since. 2003 works too, though, because of the invasion of Iraq, which stands to have long-range consequences itself.

According to Strauss and Howe, history occurs in fairly consistent cycles. This is a somewhat more sophisticated version of the oft-repeated idea that history is like a pendulum. Each cycle has four stages, as a year has four seasons, and as a year is marked by two extremes (Summer and Winter) and two transitionary periods (Spring and Fall) so two is a historical cycle. The two extremes are an Awakening and a Crisis, and the transitions are a High and an Unravelling. The imagery this evokes is, needless to say, pleasing in an aesthetic sense, as one can fittingly imagine Spring being a High, Summer as an Awakening, Fall as an Unravelling and Winter as a Crisis.

The way the historical cycle that we're in right now (the "Millennial Cycle," from 1943 to about 2025-ish) starts as always with a High (1943-1960; economic prosperity, technological innovations, advent of television) followed by an Awakening (1961-1981; the consciousness revolution, hippies, anti-war movement), then an Unravelling (1982-2001; collapse of the Soviet Union, the US as global hegemon, beginnings of the rise of China, India and religious radicalism) and finally, we're now in a Crisis, which seems to make sense, given what's going on in the world these days.

There are four different types of generations. Prophets/Idealists (born 1943-1960) are typically born during a High, come of age during an Awakening, live midlife in an Unravelling and old age in a Crisis. This is probably the generation of the younger generation's parents, AKA the Baby Boomers. Before them were the Missionary Generation (born 1860-1882), who ended up being, among other things, part of labour movements, the first generation of black leaders after the American Civil War, leaders of temperance movements, and in their elder years those who led the fight against fascism in World War II.

Nomads/Reactives (born 1961-1981) are born during an Awakening, come of age in an Unravelling, spend midlife in a Crisis and old age in a High. This generation could represent some younger parents or possibly some young adults. Also known as Generation X. The previous ones were the Lost Generation (born 1883-1900), who fought World War I and had their numbers severely culled as a result (hence "Lost").

Heroes/Civics (born 1982-2001) are born during an Unravelling, come of age in a Crisis, spend midlife in a High and old age in an Awakening. This is my generation, known alternatively as Generation Y, Generation Next, the Millennial Generation, etc. The last generation of Heroes were the GI Generation (born 1901-1924), who fought World War II and then gave birth to the Baby Boomers and generally acted all stuffy during the consciousness revolution and think the 1950s was the greatest time in the history of the world (god I hope I never end up like that).

Artists/Adaptives (born 2002-2025?) are born during a Crisis, come of age during a High, spend midlife in an Awakening, and old age in an Unravelling. The youngest children today are a part of this generation. They're variously titled the New Silent Generation, or Information Generation. For a vague idea of what they have to look forward to, the last Artists were the Silent Generation (born 1925-1942), some of whom fought in World War II even though they weren't technically old enough to do so; others were just kids during the war, like my grandparents. In England they were called the Air Raid Generation. They were considered "silent" because they were caught between the GI's/"Greatest Generation," and the "world-changing" Boomers. They generally suffered through war and depression as youngins, making them more sensitive, hence "artists." They tended to be a bit more okay with the 1960s than the stuffy GIs, but still not a real part of it like the Boomers.

If the cycle continues to hold, the next 15 years or so should see the playing out of a major secular upheaval, followed then by about 20 years of peace and prosperity, and finally a new spiritual awakening after that.

More thoughts later...

Just goes to show you...

2007-01-27T07:31:00.000-05:00

...what morale can do for a team. I guess a personal endorsement from America's favourite jackass (well, maybe not, there's some stiff competition for that one) is enough to push a lousy team* over the top. Seven straight victories following his endorsement? That's impressive.

Still, I was kind of looking forward to seeing Colbert wear an Oshawa jersey on his show. (I grew up near Oshawa.) Ah well, guess I'll have to live with Stephen Colbert Day.

*I'm told they're a lousy team, anyway. To be honest, I've never seen them play because I just don't care all that much.

On the other hand...

2007-01-27T07:24:00.000-05:00

Here's a hypothetical: if while on the set of their hit television series Grey's Anatomy, Patrick Dempsey, with his hands around the throat of a co-star, had said in reference to Isaiah Washington “I'm not your little n***** like Isaiah,” would there be an uproar in the mainstream media? Would it be a “hard news” item?

It's pretty safe to assume that the answer to both questions is a resounding yes. And few, outside of white supremacist groups, would argue the case should be otherwise.

True, that. I suppose what I was saying before is that while I don't think Washington should have said the word, therapy is, to put it lightly, a bit much.

Redneck Saga

2007-01-27T06:18:00.001-05:00

This is interesting, to say the least.

Hedgehogs and Foxes

2007-01-27T05:56:00.001-05:00

Here's an interesting idea to mull over. Political philosopher Isaiah Berlin once wrote that there are two kinds of thinkers - hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs have one big idea, foxes have lots of little ideas.

Now, I'd argue that while hedgehogs can make for great philosophers, they make poor leaders. Foxes are far more preferable as leaders than hedgehogs. Some hedgehogs can be great leaders, it's true, but much of the time, their "big idea" is harmful, and they're very reticent to back away from it, no matter how much damage it does, since it basically defines them as thinkers and leaders.

For example, I give you exhibit W: the current president of the USA. W is a hedgehog personified. He displays very little understanding of the world beyond his ideals. He believed that the war in Iraq could be won with this idealism - he does not pay attention to details and facts, because he simply does not care for them. You could see this in his debates with Al Gore and John Kerry. Gore and Kerry, definitely foxes, concentrated on details. W just stuck with a theme. Now, thematic argument is more appealing aesthetically, and since presidential debates are essentially performances, it is easy to see why W came out on top in the mind of the public despite being so thoroughly schooled.

I also present for example W's idol (no, not Jesus), exhibit 666: Ronald Wilson Reagan. (Note: the exhibit number is simply based on the number of letters in each of his names.) 666 was perhaps one of the most harmful presidents in US history. Well, before W, anyway. 666 was a hedgehog all the way, never caring much for details. In true Colbertesque fashion, it was not facts that mattered, but the overriding idea of what he called "freedom" (but what most sane people call "rob the poor to feed the rich.") 666 never deviated from his worldview, even when it proved harmful. The result was a staggering increase in the national debt and deficit, (he's not W's idol for nothing!) which during the next two presidencies, would cost each American $500 a year in interest alone. His 10% per year increase in defence spending, coupled with massive tax cuts... it's not even elementary economics he violated, but simple common sense - don't spend what you don't have! But it was all for the cause of "freedom," so to him, it was a-okay. Sounds familiar somehow...

Contrast that with exhibit NSBBCE (read: not so bad by comparison, eh?) and exhibit Chubbychaser, 666's two immediate successors. I'll be the last person to offer open praise of the current president's father, NSBBCE, but you do have to give him credit - he was not blinded by some idealistic worldview that made him make bad decisions. Oh sure, he invaded a country to protect his buddies' oil, but he had the good sense to not leave that country in a situation where hundreds of people were routinely killed as a matter of everyday life. And he did try his best to fix the damage 666 had done - and he was hung for it by the fanatics who were then beginning to take over his party (oh Newt Gingrich, you miserable bastard...) As for Chubbychaser, he presided over eight years of peace and prosperity, and for that was also viciously and personally and intimately attacked by the same miserable bastard. What these two men have in common, besides being two competent presidents in between two incompetent ones, is that they're both foxes - they didn't concentrate on one big idea, and that allowed them to adjust. They weren't ideologically driven, and to the extent that they tried to implement their agendas, they did so in a way that took into account those important little things called facts and common sense. Basically, W should have called for his daddy's help a long time ago, because daddy is a hell of a lot more competent than he could ever hope to be.

The Nothing Election

2007-01-26T00:38:00.000-05:00

A good piece from James Travers .

When Gay Rights becomes Postmodern Feminism

2007-01-24T20:18:00.000-05:00

Well that was quite the hiatus.

Anyway, it's no secret that I devote a good portion of my space on this blog to talking about gay rights, perhaps not surprisingly as it's an issue that directly affects me on a personal level.

As such, this is a story I've been following with some interest. At first I didn't really care; I thought Mr. Washington shouldn't have used the word obviously, but I did not pay it much mind. But as the story continued to appear again and again on gay news sites and then in the mainstream media, I was forced to take notice.

Eventually, it turned into a full-on PC-fest, with Washington making the obligatory rounds with gay groups, going through the motions and promising to be more sensitive in the future, and blah blah blah. It's all a big show, of course. Washington is an actor, and actors market their public image. Essentially, even when they're not on set, they're still acting. Washington's apology was forced and meaningless, much like the apologies of Mel Gibson and Michael Richards after their infamous anti-semitic and racist slurs last year.

I thought that would be the end of it. He'd apologized, done the damage control, and moved on. But, in a chilling sign that the gay rights movement may be dilluting its morally correct position by going down the path of lunatic, post-modern feminism, some crazy things have happened. First I read this, which just blew me away. Make Washington's character gay? That wouldn't make sense within the show's continuity, something of which fans of the show are well aware.

It makes sense in a twisted sort of way. The PC Police want to control reality, so why should they not also want to impose their up-is-down, Orwellian vision of the world on fiction, as well? But to push this to even more absurd lengths, Washington has entered counseling (that's right) in order to understand why he said what he said.

Understand why he said what he said? He called someone a "faggot" in anger. It's not brain surgery, and you don't need $100/hour therapy to figure it out. I've used the word, in jest and in anger. It's only a word, and like all words, is meaningless without context. The important thing is not that he used the word, but whether or not he actually is homophobic, and quite frankly, that's none of our damn business. Leave this poor man alone!

If gay activists want to concentrate on homophobia in the entertainment industry, they may want to turn their attention to why this travesty of a writing decision was undertaken. (Read the story and the comments, they're quite illuminating.) I actually found the calls to retcon Washington's character into a faggot to be kind of ironic, considering that another TV character has so recently been retconned into a breeder.

He admitted mistakes

2007-01-10T22:02:00.000-05:00

George Bush admitted he made mistakes in Iraq. It's a miracle.

I knew I wasn't that clever... :(

2007-01-04T14:30:00.000-05:00

What should appear on the Liblogs feed right next to my post? Aww...

Do the Cabinet Shuffle

2007-01-04T13:23:00.000-05:00

It's hard to think of a worse choice for Environment minister than John Baird. First of all, this is a man who is very clearly not given to reasoned debate or consensus-building. He's more the "shout at the top of your lungs so as to drown the other side out" type. Not exactly surgical or nuanced in his handling of the issues of the day.

Second, his record speaks for itself. He is one of those "government involvement is always bad" types, not really the best position one can hold if the goal is to actually make any substantive moves forward on the environment. I suspect, as do many others, that Baird was given the portfolio not because he particularly competent or suited to the role, but because he is good on his feet and has an uncanny ability to twist any discussion into a self-rightous tirade about the Liberals. It shows that Harper's main concern on the environment isn't so much damage control of the ecological type, but rather damage control of a more political type. Just what you'd expect from Harper.

The United States Practices Torture

2007-01-03T12:50:00.000-05:00

So says the FBI.

``I did observe treatment that was not only aggressive but personally very upsetting,'' one agent wrote, describing seeing a man left in a 100-degree room with no ventilation overnight. ``The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently literally been pulling his own hair out throughout the night.'

That's torture. Leaving a man overnight to bake in an oven is torture. And there are still people who defend the indefensible, and others who deny that the United States tortures prisoners. They call themselves conservatives; I call them sadists.

And another thing...

2007-01-03T11:14:00.001-05:00

I can't understand for the life of me why so many conservatives, who frequently attack those who aren't right-wing crazies for being anti-religion, or call the entire left-of-centre atheists etc., are so... unChristian. It never ceases to amaze me how completely the message of Christ seems to be lost on these self-appointed defenders of the faith. Take this for instance. I will grant you that Saddam Hussein was an awful human being, but... I wonder if Jesus would have approved of taunting a man as he was put to death? Hell, I wonder if Jesus would have approved of executing people in general? The point is not that Saddam Hussein did not deserve to be executed; by most standards he probably did. The point is that it is wrong to kill people in cold blood, period.

Incidentally, I wonder who personally signed more death warrants in the period between 1996 and 2000 - the president of Iraq or the born-again governor of Texas? Something to ponder.

Why are conservatives so obsessed with polygamy?

2007-01-03T11:08:00.000-05:00

I think it's a legitimate question, given how many of them complain about it... even though it isn't legal, and most people don't think it should be. Oh, it probably will be legal some day. But that will only happen if and when a majority of people think it should be - in which case, what's wrong with it, anyway?

Iraq in 2007

2007-01-02T12:30:00.000-05:00

What to do? A clear and cogent, if depressing analysis. It's almost unbelievable how bad the situation in Iraq has been allowed to get. I can't understand how anybody can still support George Bush. In a less civil time and place, as the commander-in-chief of the military, he would be required to commit ritual suicide for this rank incompetence.

Saddam

2006-12-30T09:37:00.000-05:00

The world's reaction on Saddam Hussein's execution seems to be mixed, of course. No word from the Canadian government yet that I've heard, though. I doubt we'll hear anything from Harper or MacKay, and if we do, it will be a generic comment about a fair trial and whatnot. But Harper and MacKay would probably prefer to not comment on this at all; MacKay supports the death penalty, and I'm pretty sure Harper does too. That's not something they want the Canadian public thinking about, just like so much of what they believe.

Equality Goes Both Ways

2006-12-30T09:35:00.000-05:00

Isn't this delicious?

"Gonzalez, 17, has become something of a target since November, when the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on her behalf against the Okeechobee High School principal and school board for refusing to let her establish a Gay-Straight Alliance, an after-school club that promotes dialogue and tolerance... She is suing under the 1984 federal Equal Access Act, which ironically was initially pushed by evangelical Christians after some public schools banned after-school prayer meetings and other religious gatherings. It says that if a public school allows any extracurricular activities to meet on campus it must allow all groups to do the same."

Merry Christmas

2006-12-24T04:32:00.000-05:00

Christmas is great. For a few years, I haven't really had much appreciation for the holiday. On the one hand, it celebrates one of the most important days of a religion in which I hold no faith. On the other, it is crass, materialistic, gaudy and a reflection of what is wrong with western culure. But then I realized something - Christmas is a celebration of the sum total of the component parts that make up the history of the evolution of western society, not just Christianity. The Christmas tree is a perfect example - it's actually an old pagan tradition, adopted by Christians. (Just like the holiday itself.) There is undeniably a secular side to it, representing the increasing secularism of the west. There is a fun side to it for the kids - Santa and what not. And it's pluralistic - everybody, no matter their faith or lack thereof, is entitled to a holiday on the 25th of December, unless of course they work in a job that doesn't permit such a thing.

In short, it's a holiday that unites everybody in at least some way, even if it is a superficial one. In that vein, Merry Christmas.

Ben Mulroney interviews "Christopher Walken"

2006-12-20T09:33:00.000-05:00

Some pranksters trick Ben Mulroney into interviewing a Christopher Walken impersonator. Good stuff.

Good news for drunk drivers

2006-12-19T10:56:00.000-05:00

Apparently, drinking can help you survive a car crash. Well isn't that... useful.

The Power of Television

2006-12-19T10:50:00.000-05:00

This is why I get so concerned about things like this.

Marijuana > Corn

2006-12-19T10:15:00.000-05:00

Guess what the number one cash crop in the US is? I'll give you a hint - it's not corn.

Now, given that America's pot is worth $35 billion annually, does it really make sense to continue spending billions of dollars trying to keep it illegal? Of course it doesn't. That's a $35 billion industry driven underground, so that the only people who can make a worthwhile profit off of it are crime lords. Essentially, decent people are sent to jail every year so that the heads of the criminal underworld can grow rich from an industry that is theirs by way of a government-manded monopoly. This isn't just an injustice, and it's not just a waste of money - it's insane. Utterly batshit one-flew-over-the-cuckoo's-nest insane.

Fun Fact

2006-12-19T02:12:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon's annual budget is more than double Canada's entire annual budget.

Cute Break

2006-12-18T00:15:00.000-05:00

It sneezed!

A Scandal of Macdonaldian Proportions?

2006-12-17T16:32:00.000-05:00

All I can say is, if this is true, Stephen Harper's devious election tactics put Sir John A's to shame.

Canadian Newsmaker of the Year (2)

2006-12-17T16:27:00.000-05:00

Just to amend my previous post, have you ever seen such a piece of fawning, sycophantic tripe? I usually give that particular news chain credit for being relatively unbiased in their reporting, but that was just ridiculous. Not one bad thing is said about Harper in the entire article, which would be fine, if it didn't list his accomplishments, while practically lauding them. Pretending that that is independent, impartial journalism is an utter farce.

Canadian Newsmaker of the Year

2006-12-17T15:15:00.000-05:00

Guess who.

The world's most cantankerous body

2006-12-17T13:16:00.000-05:00

An interesting article about age and the US Senate. Did you know the average age of the incoming Senate is 62? Yeah, 62!

Greens seek recognition

2006-12-17T11:24:00.000-05:00

Elizabeth May is arguing (unsurprisingly) that she ought to be included in the leaders' debates in the next election. I would urge the signing of the Green Party's petition to be included; if nothing else, someone as smart as May should be at the table. Democratic discourse is served best when bright people like May are given a voice. I've been consistently impressed with Elizabeth May ever since I heard her nuanced and reasoned comments on abortion and gay marriage. She has shown herself to be both reasonable and passionate, and very thoughtful - unlike her predecessor, whom I never could bring myself to like. She deserves a spot in the debate, and Canadians deserve a chance to hear her speak.

Careful analysis

2006-12-17T11:16:00.000-05:00

With which I disagree, at least tactically; I don't think Mr. Dion needs to change his tune on federalism - the tune that has served him and the Liberal party well for the last 30 years.

Palestinian Civil War

2006-12-17T10:25:00.000-05:00

Alright, perhaps that's a bit extreme. But rival factions Fatah and Hamas are engaging in some pretty serious combat in Gaza, with shots being fired at the president's home. President Abbas has called for Palestinian elections. One would quixotically hope that the results show a Fatah victory, though who knows how this violence will affect the outcome. On the one hand, people could become galvanized behind Hamas. On the other, they could be so disillusioned with Hamas that they simply vote them out of power. I wonder, then, if they would relinquish power? Oddly enough, a Fatah victory could actually result in more violence among Palestinians if Hamas refuses to go quietly.

Civil Unions aren't good enough

2006-12-17T10:24:00.000-05:00

One more reason why.

Before or After?

2006-12-17T00:56:00.000-05:00

A topic I'm sure many politically aware Canadians will be thinking about over the holiday season is whether there will be an election in the Spring. Given that both the Bloc and the Liberals seem determined to defeat the government in the Spring, I think it's safe to say we're looking at an election some time before July, likely earlier.

So that raises the question - would it be wise to defeat the government over the budget? Or would it be better to force the fall of the government over Afghanistan or Kyoto? Personally, I'd have to say the latter. I don't know what's going to be in the Tory budget, but it's rumoured to be laden with tax cuts. I question the wisdom of going into an election against a sitting government that is bringing in a budget that will cut taxes so heavily. The Liberals were able to crush Stockwell Day and the Alliance in 2000 due in no small part to their tax-cut heavy 2000 budget. It would be difficult to oppose such a budget and then fight a campaign on it; the thought of doing so worries me greatly.

"Don Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defense the nation has ever had."

2006-12-16T21:48:00.000-05:00

So says Dick Cheney.

The pathology of these people knows no bounds.

Frontrunner

2006-12-16T21:38:00.000-05:00

The current Democratic frontrunner for president is no longer Hilary Clinton, it seems. (And thank God for that.) The spotlight is now on a new frontrunner: John Kerry's '04 running mate, John Edwards.

And it's not a small lead, either. The Iowa poll (Iowa and New Hampshire being the two most important states in the primaries) looks like this:

John Edwards 36%
Hillary Clinton 16%
Barack Obama 13%
Tom Vilsack 11%

That's gotta hurt for Vilsack, what with the home field advantage. One can also assume that Edwards would have a significant advantage in the next state after Iowa and New Hampshire - that is, South Carolina. Edwards is from North Carolina, was born in South Carolina, and won South Carolina last time around.

Edwards and Obama are probably the Democrats' best choices, in my opinion. An Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket would be a force to be reckoned with.

Finally, a poll I trust

2006-12-16T21:06:00.000-05:00

There are only two polling companies in Canada that I tend to trust - Ipsos-Reid and SES Research. SES Research notably predicted the results of the last election to within 0.2%, and Ipsos-Reid's numbers are usually comparable to SES'.

The poll out today is an Ipsos-Reid one, and it's good new for the Liberals, at least in Quebec:

Bloc Quebecois - 44
Liberals - 31
Conservatives - 13

Nationally, the numbers aren't incredible, but still decent:

Liberals - 36
Conservatives - 34
NDP - 13

It looks like Dion is really paying off in Quebec.

Democrats could lose the Senate?

2006-12-14T20:50:00.000-05:00

Two pieces of horrible news.

Lord's Future

2006-12-14T20:37:00.000-05:00

Bernard Lord's career in provincial politics is over at the tender age of 41. Obviously, he's still got a good 2o to 30 years to devote to politics. The fact that he has twice been scouted to run for leadership of the federal Conservatives probably bodes well for his future success; on the other hand, provincial politicians have a dismal record as leaders of federal parties. Add to that the fact that Lord lost the last election, and before that barely held on to his majority (by one seat), and Lord's stock just isn't as high as it was two or four years ago. A run in federal politics is almost certain for Lord - a former premier retiring at age 41? I don't think so - but he may have missed the boat.

He could probably have been annointed federal PC leader in 2003, and he is one of the only people in Canada who could have beaten Stephen Harper for the Conservative leadership in 2004. Now? He'll have a harder time of it. If he runs for the federal Conservative leadership next time around (which is still very likely) he will have a harder time winning. He'll still have a decent chance of course - let's not overestimate the talent in the Conservative party; Lord could well be the best they can do - but the cold hard fact is: he lost. The once-untouchable Bernard Lord is now damaged goods.

Dion taking NDP support

2006-12-14T20:35:00.000-05:00

At least, that's what this poll suggests.

The Decima Research survey, conducted during the week following the former environment minister's win, suggested the Liberals had the support of 35 per cent of decided and leaning voters. That compared to 32 per cent for the Tories, 12 per cent for the NDP, 11 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois and seven per cent for the Green party.

Decima CEO Bruce Anderson said the New Democratic Party's support is not only down from last January's election, but it seems to be soft.

"I guess the question for the NDP is, if Stephane Dion is positioned as a centre-left, environmentally-preoccupied, social-justice-motivated leader, does that further put pressure on the NDP voter pool?," he said

"So far, I think, the evidence is yes it does. The NDP numbers are soft."

Good news for the Liberals, bad news for the Tories, terrible news for the NDP.

First, fix the Commons - Globe editorial

2006-12-14T10:05:00.000-05:00

An editorial in the Globe and Mail today calls Harper's bluff on Senate reform - namely, that if he's so concerned about democracy, why is he flouting it in the House?

"It is oddly incongruous for Mr. Harper to position himself as a champion of parliamentary reform when in government he has reverted to the same sort of high-handed tactics that he once condemned Liberal governments for using. For example, rather than permit chairs of standing committees to be freely elected by members, something he advocated while in opposition as essential for 'reining in the powe rof the Prime Minister,' Mr. Harper undermined the reform by choosing his own candidates for the jobs, candidates whom Conservative MPs then dutifully elected.'"

I'm all for democratic reform, myself. But I'd prefer it be done in a way that didn't strike me as extremely disingenuous. I honestly don't think Harper wants democratic reform, but he knows he must appear that he does to the Reform base. He's already appointed an unelected Senator, appointed that Senator to the cabinet (two things he promised he would never do), and has decided that what's good for the goose isn't so good for the gander when it comes to democratic reform in the House, manipulating committees chairs just as blatantly as his predecessors, whom he condemned, let's not forget, for doing exactly what he is doing today.

Soy is turning children gay

2006-12-14T05:11:00.000-05:00

You'd think that was an Onion headline, wouldn't you?

Guess again.

The Hero of the Right

2006-12-12T09:23:00.000-05:00

The most disturbing thing about Augusto Pinochet, who is now dead, is not that he seized power from a democratically-elected government. It's not that he never faced justice for his crimes. It's not that he was supported by the United States government. It's not even that he tortured and killed thousands of innocent Chileans. No, the most disturbing thing about Augusto Pinochet is that he is adored by the right, many of whom act as apologists for his brand of dictatorship.

What's so disturbing about this is that a not insignificant number of conservatives consider Pinochet, on balance, a good guy. I mean sure, he tortured and kill thousands of people. Sure, he stole his country's wealth and robbed its citizens blind. But hey, look on the bright side: he believed in free markets! What's disturbing about this is that so many of these right-wingers consider themselves decent human beings, and yet they make every excuse for this murdering, torturing bastard. It's almost as bad as the left's inexcusable support of communist regimes during the 60s and 70s - I say almost because the full extent of the damage to be done by Communism was not fully known at that point. However, what Pinochet did to thousands of innocent Chileans at the Villa Grimaldi complex is well known.

Reading the tribute to him at NRO is truly stomach-turning:

"The reason Augusto Pinochet was universally hated by leftists and many academics worldwide was not because he was so brutal or killed so many people (he hardly figured among the 20th century’s most prolific political killers, admittedly a difficult company to get into) but because he was so successful..."

"Human rights did suffer under Pinochet... But Pinochet will also be remembered as leaving the country better off than he found it."

"And unlike his fellow Latin American generals, he let market-oriented civilians lay the basis for Chile’s economy — the most productive in the region. Can his fellow caudillo in Cuba — soon to be among the departed as well — say the same?"

(ed note: Right, because the failure of the Cuban economy has nothing to do with the 45-year-and-still-going-strong embargo against trade with the evil commies of Cuba... even while trading at ever-growing levels with the evil commies of China. Incidentally, I have no love for the regime in Cuba whatsoever, I'm just pointing out the facts.)

"The crimes of Pinochet may be unpardonable. But at least he tried to redeem them."

(ed note: I'm curious as to how one redeems oneself for institutionalized, and particularly brutal torture?)

"Pinnochet saved Chile from becoming another Communist hell. God bless him for that, and may he be forgiven for his later aberrations. Not only in Chile does power corrupt."

"Augusto Pinochet was a tragic figure. Instead of being remembered for saving Chilean democracy from a communist takeover, and starting the country on the longest-lasting economic expansion in Latin America, which he did, he will be remembered mostly for carrying out a brutal campaign of human-rights abuses."

Grundies

2006-12-12T02:55:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Gilles Duceppe wants to fight an election on the Afghanistan issue.

Or is this just harmless posturing? If Duceppe does introduce a motion, the Liberals would have to find a pretty good reason not to support it if they didn't want to force an election. Given that most Liberals voted against the 2-year extension, I'm guessing that could be difficult.

Breaking Ranks

2006-12-12T02:40:00.000-05:00

These are the MPs who broke ranks with their party on the SSM vote - what's odd is that the number is mostly identical on both sides. So much for the Liberals not allowing a free vote (a line some are still trumpeting, unbelievably.) In fact, more Liberals broke ranks with their leader than Conservatives - and the Conservative caucus is bigger. Those who still insist on claiming that Dion threatened MPs into supporting his position are just out to lunch, unless they want to concede that Harper did the same thing.

Liberals:
Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, ON)
Gerry Byrne (Humber--St. Barbe--Baie Verte, NF)
John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, ON)
Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, ON)
Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough--Agincourt, ON)
Wajid Khan (Mississauga--Streetsville, ON)
Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River, ON)
Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton, ON)
John McKay (Scarborough--Guildwood, ON)
Dan McTeague (Pickering--Scarborough East, ON)
Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, PQ)
Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, ON)
Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, ON)
Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, ON)

Conservatives:
John Baird (Ottawa West--Nepean, ON)
Lawrence Cannon (Pontiac, PQ)
Bill Casey (North Nova, NS)
Mike Chong (Wellington--Halton Hills, ON)
David Emerson (Vancouver--Kingsway, BC)
Gerald Keddy (South Shore--St. Margaret's, NS)
Peter MacKay (Central Nova, NS)
Fabian Manning (Avalon, NL)
James Moore (Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam, BC)
Christian Paradis (Megantic--L'Erable, PQ)
Jim Prentice (Calgary North Centre, AB)
Lee Richardson (Calgary South Centre, AB)
Josee Verner (Louis-Saint-Laurent, PQ)

It continues...

2006-12-12T01:29:00.000-05:00

Apparently, I'm not making myself clear enough. I'll try again, and try to be brief.

First, it is claimed that I equated the pro-life movement with the movement to legalize sex with children. I did no such thing, and a reading of my words will show that. I used them to make a rhetorical point - that is, a student council should not be forced to give funds to causes with which it disagrees, a principle with which I thought conservatives were in general agreement - but I did not equate them, which implies some sort of moral equivalence. I did no such thing.

But then, TT once again shoots a hole in his argument:
First off, NAMBLA is advocating something that goes against both the law and the Charter of Rights and freedoms, so no, they should not receive funding from the University.

Replace "NAMBLA" with "pro-lifers." There you have it: a group which advocates something that goes against the law should not receive funding, and since the Charter is part of the supreme law of the land (the constitution), groups advocating things that go against the Charter (like pro-lifers) should not get funding.

I am then called to task for making a partisan attack (ah, because TT is completely innocent of this) and my views on the matter are misrepresented. Allow me to quote myself:

"As I also stated, I don't agree with this position [banning pro-life groups from campus] 100%. But my objection to it is not with regards to the money, but with regards to barring the groups from council-managed spaces. I do disagree with that, and would go so far as to say it quite possibly breaches a Charter right. But money is a different issue; governing bodies must have a right to decide where their money will be spent." (emphasis added)

Do I need to make it any clearer?

Governing bodies have a right to distribute money how they choose. This isn't what's being argued.

It most certainly is, and attempting to argue otherwise is simply a red herring. It is precisely that right that is being challeneged here. A governing body is being told that it must, not should, but must as a matter of human rights provide funding to groups with which it disagrees.

Conservatives love to complain about courts "inventing rights." Well, that is precisely what is happening here. There is no right that exists in the Canadian constitution to receive money in order to promote one's political views. If there is, point it out to me, I'd love to see it. There is a right to free speech - which is being violated, not by witholding funds, but by not allowing the group to demonstrate. That is unconstitutional, and should be struck down.

You try to back away from an indefensible position by half condemning the CUSA decision

What? So being intellectually honest, and stating my real position on the matter (condemning the CUSA decision to ban the group from campus, and stating that while I disagree with their decision to withold funding, I support their right to do so, as I support the right of any governing body to decide how to spend money - emphasis added) is "backing away from an indefensible position?" Please. If my position is indefensible, than the idea of responsible government - that a governing body's most important function is managing a budget, and it must be free to make tough decisions regarding money - is meaningless. Should this same principle be applied to the government of Canada, than any political interest group - any at all - could claim a right to receive government funding, and could claim discrimination against their viewpoint, and sue the government for funding. And if my position is indefensible, they would win, and the government would be ordered to give them money. Indefensible? It is indefensible to be so irresponsible!

I'm sure glad you only get one vote.

I'm glad I only get one vote too - any more would be superfluous, and any fewer would be unfair.

Dion to Follow Through

2006-12-11T17:46:00.000-05:00

Good to see the new Liberal leader already confirming that he's going to follow through on a promise, even if it's one I don't entirely agree with.

As an alternative to this, I'd propose a different plan, though it would be legislative, not simply the prerogative of a party leader. I would propose that each riding elect both a male and a female MP. That way, no one has to worry about a more qualified candidate losing the nomination because of their gender - and we would get total gender parity in the House. Win-win.

Are you fucking kidding me?

2006-12-11T01:08:00.000-05:00

Alright NBC, what the hell is going on? Are you telling me that, in 2006, you can't have a minor, peripheral character on a TV show be openly gay? Are you telling me that this character can be conceived, written and basically taken for granted as gay, confirmed as being gay by the show's creators, and then be ret-conned into a straight boy, after he's essentially come out, after the thematic parallel between his coming out and a major character's hidden secret has already been firmly established? And are you telling me that no one is prepared to offer an explanation as to why this has happened? Are you fucking kidding me?

Let me tell you, I take what I can get. It may be difficult to understand for straight audiences, but gay people have to put up with almost complete invisibility in our pop culture, aside from stereotypical and offensive representation, both positive and negative, and in between. Very often, the only representation we see besides that is when the show decides it wants to tackle either "the gay issue," or "the AIDS issue," and thus seem progressive and inclusive, when really it's being anything but. Even the most famous gay couple in history was reduced in epic docudrama to being little more than affectionate friends. (True, if one reads between the lines it's easy to see their erotic love for each other, but considering their on-camera affection is limited to a few hugs, while there is an extremely explicit and heterosexual sex scene with a woman of far less importance, I can't help but feel a bit cheated.) In the 21st century, it's ridiculous and outrageous that this is the state of affairs, and yet it is.

So that's why I take what I can get. And if what I can get isn't even a mostly unimportant, peripheral character, then I'm more than a little bit disheartened.

Abortion for some, miniature Canadian flags for others!

2006-12-10T19:34:00.000-05:00

Predictably, I've received quite a bit of feedback on the abortion post, so much so that I felt it necessary to respond in a second post - in particular to this. So let's break it down, first from my comments section:

If CUSA is going to take student's money to fund groups they should give it to all groups regardless of the view they are putting forward.

So... if NAMBLA wanted funds from CUSA, it should get them? I don't think so. Sorry, but there are only a limited amount of funds to go around, and considering those funds come from students' tuition, I think students should have at least some say in where they go.

Im really quite shocked that you see nothing wrong with this.

I disagree with the principle of taking student levies and giving them to political groups in the first place. If I'm paying for an education, I want an education, not advocacy for causes I don't agree with. So I consider this issue quite secondary to that, hence why I can't get too up in arms about it. Any scaling back of this kind of advocacy funding is fine by me.

Im sure the far lefties in these groups are just salivating at the thought of cutting off pro-Israel student groups.

As would be their right, but they would certainly have a fun time dealing with the fallout.

Clear Grit, show me an example of this happening anywhere else the other way around and you may have half a point.

I already did; the University of Toronto doesn't use student levies to fund its on-campus gay group, which by the way isn't even a political advocacy group, but a support group.

However, I would've thought it wiser for the school to simply say "we want no part of the debate" and stop sending money to groups on EITHER side.

As would I, and as stated above, this is my position. As I also stated, I don't agree with this position 100%. But my objection to it is not with regards to the money, but with regards to barring the groups from council-managed spaces. I do disagree with that, and would go so far as to say it quite possibly breaches a Charter right. But money is a different issue; governing bodies must have a right to decide where their money will be spent. My point is that
a) It's not a big deal, and
b) It's their right to do so

And now from those lovable Toronto Tories (TT), who I feel I must point out, just to show how fair-minded they really are, the other day declared marriage dead:

"baby murder" vs. "anti-choice" is just moving away from the real debate.

I think it's a far more accurate reflection of the views of both sides, actually. I do realize that anti-abortion advocates truly do believe that babies are being killed. I'm also confident that in most cases they're wrong (calling what is aborted a "baby" at any stage before sometime in the second trimester is quite a stretch to make scientifically). But I do understand where they're coming from. Why, then, can they not understand that women honestly feel threatened by what they are pushing, and do consider it a serious breach of their rights to be told what they can and cannot do with their own body? But I suppose this is a side-issue.

I support a choice for women wholeheartedly, but I equally support the right of others to hold a contrary position.

I can't say I disagree with this, but does supporting free speech mean one must also support giving money to groups who hold views which, if implemented into law, have already been determined contrary to the Charter of Rights? Again, as far as the money goes, there is no reason why a student association should not be allowed to withold funding from any group to whom it feels a majority of students would be uncomfortable giving their money. CUSA went too far - let me repeat that, CUSA went too far - by refusing to allow these groups even a voice on campus. But they are under no obligation to support groups financially with whom they disagree.

CUSA is committing the same, although on a less drastic scale, crimes against human rights that radical islamists do.

For someone who complained so vociferously about Bill Graham making an apt reference to Goebbels with regard to propaganda techniques, blowing it up, twisting it, and making it seem as if Graham had called the Tories "Nazis" when he did no such thing (Goebbels is famous for being one of the most effective propagandists who ever lived; the fact that he was a Nazi is merely incidental in this case) TT is certainly showing quite a willingness to make his own comparisons to murderous regimes. Only in this case, instead of referencing them with regard to propaganda techniques (as Graham did), TT is actually accusing the Carleton student government of human rights abuses comparable to those of the Taliban. Classy.

Now, as for my earlier question about the Liberal bloggers and their response to this.

That's unfair. I've had two very committed Liberals disagree with me on my blog over this issue.

I will use the example of Clear Grit. He calls himself a former Progressive Conservative who quit after the merger. Well, I can't say I'm going to shed a tear over losing this ignorant and intolerant Liberal.

In my comments section, TT extended an invitation to me to address his posting on this issue. When he did so, I assumed that he wasn't going to resort to personal attacks. I guess I was expecting too much.

His argument is that since "Conservatives are the ones who like taking away funding from minority groups", they shouldn't mind this happening.

This is a gross, utter and complete distortion of what I actually said. For those of you who are interested in the truth, and not in TT's attempt to make me look stupid, this is what I actually said:

"[I]t is usually conservatives who are opposed to taking money from the unwilling and giving it to the demanding."

Is this not an accurate reflection of what conservatives, in general, believe? Opposing the levying of taxes intended to be spent on others?

But wait a minute, who is really being intolerant here? Do we really need to review again the importance of free speech, and how ridiculous this is? If I were the Liblogs webmaster, I'd try hard to disassociate with this kid who is a bit out of touch with reality. I don't usually think that Liberal supporters are that radical, just arrogant.

Yes, TT then has the temerity to suggest that I be removed from Liblogs over this. This, amazingly, in the middle of a rant about the value of free speech. Honestly, I hope they ask Cherniak to do this. I really do. This just shows how out to lunch these nutjobs really are.

Clear Grit's IQ: -1

And mature, too.

Not every Liberal has it wrong. Kyle from Northern Liberal did what I expected rational Liberals would, and agreed with what I've said here. Glad to see we have some worthy opposition out there.

And finally, we have the post's delicious conclusion. After ranting and raving about tolerating other points of view, we have this stunningly, embarassingly hypocritical statement: that the only "worthy opposition" is an opposition which doesn't oppose at all. How telling.

Habeas Corpus

2006-12-10T12:46:00.000-05:00

It's over in America. The foundation of western law since 1215 is now irrelevant in the "greatest country in the world." And there are people who think that gay marriage will cause the collapse of civilization.

Abortion Debate at Carlton Shows Conservative Hypocrisy

2006-12-10T07:09:00.000-05:00

I realize that abortion is a touchy subject, and therefore emotions can get in the way of looking objectively at what is going on. That is why it is unsurprising to see certain individuals raising such a fuss over the Carlton University Student Association's refusal to fund pro-life groups.

Most of the people who are opposed to CUSA's decision are conservatives, and they're crying "free speech" and the like. The irony is, it is usually conservatives who are opposed to taking money from the unwilling and giving it to the demanding. Yet that is exactly what CUSA voted to do. Do I agree with their decision? Not 100%, no. But then, let's look at it this way. A majority of Carlton students do not want their student levies being used to support groups that are essentially attacking the rights of women. One may disagree with the position of those students, but conservatives, I thought, would certainly support a move to stop money from being transferred from and unwilling majority to a minority. I guess where I erred was in assuming that conservatives value the principles they claim to value.

I am willing to allow for some leeway here; surely there must be some principled conservatives out there who would be willing to re-examine the facts of the case, and to them, I would put forward one other example:

When I was at the University of Toronto, the student council there voted to deny funding to campus gay rights groups. I didn't hear conservatives making a stink about that. I don't think anyone needs to guess at the reason for that.

Nuremberg

2006-12-09T22:32:00.000-05:00

"Now I'd like you to use your imagination for a second. Let's assume the unthinkable: that America had embraced Mr. Bush's "Program" in the Second World War; that German, Italian and Japanese fighters had been waterboarded, subjected to the cold cell and techniques like "long time standing." Do any of you think for even a second that these nations would have been our allies and friends in the following generations? Think of how much darker, colder and more hate-filled our world would be than it is today...

A short time ago, in Germany, I spoke with one of the senior advisors of Chancellor Angela Merkel. I noted that a criminal complaint had been filed against Donald Rumsfeld and a number of others invoking universal jurisdiction for war crimes offenses. How would the chancellor see this, I asked? There was a long pause, and I fully expected to get a brush-off response. But what came was very surprising.

"You must remember," said the advisor, "that my chancellor was born and raised in a totalitarian state. She cannot be indifferent to questions of this sort. In fact, she views them as matters of the utmost gravity and they will be treated that way. The Nuremberg process happened in my country. It was painful for us. But we absorbed it. It became a part of our legacy. An important part of our legacy. We will not forget it. But I have to ask you: why has your country forgotten?"

- Scott Horton

Toxicity

2006-12-09T04:35:00.000-05:00

I have no fundamental disagreement with this legislation and I hope all parties support it. Sure, it's meant to distract Canadians from Ambrose's unambitious (to put it generously) environment legislation. But it's good policy.

The funny part about this crew

2006-12-09T04:33:00.000-05:00

They could all get along with each other fairly well, one imagines... bearing in mind that Mulroney has, at some point, grievously insulted the other three, particularly Campbell.

Forget the Blogging Tories...

2006-12-09T03:10:00.000-05:00

I should have gone here. Conservatives in moments of candour:

"Is homosexualtiy WRONG? That depends. Is there anything wrong with pounding another man up the back end for a twisted orgasm and pretending you're a family?"

"Dirty Filthy Animals"

"Dirty cuz it is certainly not holy. Filthy cuz it starts with lust. Animals cuz people who are obsessed with sex are no different than pigs."

"It's a serious threat to public health and demographics."

"I consider it rather selfish for homosexual couples to adopt children."

"Homosexuality is WRONG, it is now and always has been. They are the only group of people I know of that will knowingly and willingly give deadly diseases to their friends and loved one. Subhuman behaviour."

"I almost believe that recriminalization is needed as they seem to overstep their boundaries once this was removed. The only other way is to have judges with backbones and actually would rule with what the Charter says, not what it doesn't and therefore would shut out the homosexual lobbyists."

"Tell that to people whose teen sons and daughters have been seduced and/or molested by predatory older homosexuals. Tell that to people who contracted AIDS and hepatitis 3, because irresponsible homosexuals donated blood and contaminated the blood supply. Tell that to women whose "bi-sexual" perverted husbands have given them AIDs and other terrible diseases because of their extracurricular activities."

"The sexual union of a man and a woman is supposed to be symbolic of the union of Christ and the Church. That's why the Church is called "The Bride of Christ". A man putting his penis into the anus of another man - I couldn't think of a better way to insult God."

(Incidentally, if the Church is the Bride of Christ... does that mean Christ is going to fuck the Pope?)

"Shown by who? You. When animals demonstrate homosexual activity is because they are gender confused ie. a steer mounting another steer, in the wild, homosexuality is bred out, do to their lack of procreation."

(What? Then wouldn't it be "bred out" in humans, too?)

"75% of the FD posters believe that homosexuality is wrong, I would agree with them. Is recriminalization neccessary? Maybe we need to, maybe we dont, but Trudeau is stupid and we all know it. At least we have a consensus on this issue."

"Until very recently, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. It was only when aggressive lobbying and a sizeable dose of political correctness dug its claws into our mental health establishment that it became a "lifestyle choice.""

"HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG. And that is why, after the vote to re-open the ssm debate was debated, I jumped on the Alberta nationalist bandwagon, along with many FD'ers."

"We may have the free will and capacity to commit incest, yet in sexually perverse Canada two consenting adults will be prosecuted if they are a mother and a son, as happened in Ontario last year. (The son was almost 30 years old I believe.) Is it spiritual blindness that prevents Canadian Christians from recognizing there is no sound reason to advocate keeping sodomy legal?"

"The the rule of govt should reflect its correct mandate, to help protect us from harm to person and property, in I guess what would be called a constitution, so that no politician could stray outside this mandate. The only thing we'd elect then would be army generals, police chiefs, and possibly a small number of other positions. And within this govt, there'd be no APPOINTING of anyone. Then we wouldn't have to go commie on anyone, homos could do what they wanted without us fearing for our lives and right to religion, and if they tried to go near our kids then the police would do their correct jobs."

"No unlike most heterosexuals homosexuals are indeed obsessed with sex and in disproportionate numbers homosexuals are obsessed with young boys or in the case of lesbians girls."

We'll end with this:

"Yes, homosexuality is a sin. I also believe it was a terrible thing for Trudeau to remove homosexuality from Canada's criminal code. For those who believe homosexuals have the right to engage in their sexual practices but are opposed to homo adoption and marriages etc... I submit by allowing homosexuality to come out of the closet the incessant demands from the newly liberated homosexual lobby was inevitable. Until homosexuality is recriminalized it will continue to be pushed in schools, churches, media, in public, etc.....

Legalizing homosexuality was an act of rebellion against God.

Criminalizing the practice is the only logical answer for those who recognize the behaviour as wrong and want to protect children and society from the homosexual lifestyle and the agenda's corrupting influence.

I believe the genesis of our loss of religious liberty and free speech through the actions of hate crimes laws and pro-homosexual human rights tribunals can be found in Trudeau's decision to legalize homosexuality. I believe the world over you will find homosexuality and Christian liberty to be mutually exclusive."

"Goodness, what if someone were to actually take my advice?"

2006-12-09T02:32:00.000-05:00

The best Savage column ever. (Warning: explicit.)

Hottest... priests?

2006-12-08T22:34:00.000-05:00

I'm... once again at a loss for words. Isn't this a bit... gay?

Would you refuse to testify against your kidnappers?

2006-12-08T22:13:00.000-05:00

I'm really not sure what to make of this. Personally, I'd want to see them pay. Does that make me a bad person?

Unite the Left

2006-12-08T12:30:00.000-05:00

Great article, though I do think Meighen's short-lived government was more reactionary than Harper's. But that's just a minor quibble.