With the Liberal party facing its greatest popularity crisis since Stephane Dion assumed leadership, the Liberal party stepped up its attack against Harper today, releasing two more ads.
This, added to a spot released three days ago, frankly show the Dion campaign in full panic mode, pulling the George W Bush card in a desperate attempt to polarize this election.
The first spot -- released on September 27 -- insists that Canada is "falling behind" under Stephen Harper. The Liberals are trying to counter-brand Harper as regressive and backward thinking:
The ad tries to portray Stephane Dion's Green Shift as in line with global trends by noting the other countries that are investing in Green economic growth. Newspaper clippings denoting the policy advancements by various countries -- Britain, Germany and (ironically) the United States -- appear cast against a fluttering image of each country's flag.
The ad then abruptly shifts, accusing Harper of cutting $60 billion to "Green jobs" (naturally, the spot doesn't mention that Harper quickly restored the funding under re-designed -- but similar -- prograns).
For the first time, the speaker providing the voice overs for the Liberal ads sounds increasingly outraged as the ad goes on. As one will see with today's pair of ads, this is becoming thematic of the Liberal campaign.
The second two ads push the anti-Bush button, and play it hard:
The first ad brings up an issue from five years ago, mentioning Harper's support for the Iraq war.
Soldiers are shown marching in between inter-cut photos of Harper with George W Bush, noting that if Harper had his way, Canadian troops would be in Iraq. The ad then turns to Afghanistan (ironically, a war the Liberals themselves committed Canada to) and questions Harper's commitment to withdrawing groups.
A now frantic-sounding male voice asks "Can we really trust him on something so important? Do you really want to find out?"
But the true desperation of the Liberal campaign comes shining through in the third spot, entitled "Harpernomics and Bush":
The first Liberal ad claims the Canadian economy is in a "tailspin" and accuses Harper of parroting and emulating Bush by claiming the economy is strong and allowing industry to self-regulate.
However, following a Bush-riddled attack on Harper, the ad then tries to abruptly shift into Liberal promises to "strengthen the social safety net in tough times" -- something they previously did the opposite of -- balance the already-balanced budget, and "put people first".
The spot concludes by telling Canadians the Liberal party is "always there for you."
These latter two spots coincide with the launching of a slick new website promoting a hypothetical Bush/Harper campaign.
A George W Bush impersonator greets visitors to the site, saying "welcome to our website. My pal Steve and I have the same economic plan... if you can call it that. Heck, he would've joined me in Iraq and you'd still be there. I'm going back to Texas. But if you vote for Steve, it'd be just like I moved up there with y'all."
Certainly, this new concentrated anti-Bush push may garner the Liberals some support. Or, conversely, all Canadians may recognize the party as simply desperate -- just as Canadians recognized Paul Martin as desperate when he challenged Harper to talk about abortion in the tail end of the 2006 campaign.
(Unfortunately for Stephane Dion, his primary collaborator, Elizabeth May, also holds some conservative views on abortion, so he can't pull that particular card.)
If this is the best Hail Mary play Stephane Dion could pull out of the playbook, the Liberal party has just conceded defeat in this election.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Leave This One to the Pros, Kids...
Cruickshank, Carlin not alone in their assessment of Mallick's "Mighty Wind"
In the wake of the CBC's mea culpa regarding Heather Mallick's "Mighty Wind" op/ed column, a distinct odour is spreading through some of the darkest corners of Canada's left-wing blogosphere.
It's the familiar stink of outrage.
The CBC is merely being gutless, and caving into right-wing interests, the consensus seems to be.
Yet the consensus among media professionals -- people who actually confront issues such as those surrounding the infamous Mallick article -- is that the CBC was precisely right in its judgment. As the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente points out, one need not even be a Palin supporter to figure this out:
But, hey, don't ask them -- they're merely professionals. What do they know?
In the wake of the CBC's mea culpa regarding Heather Mallick's "Mighty Wind" op/ed column, a distinct odour is spreading through some of the darkest corners of Canada's left-wing blogosphere.
It's the familiar stink of outrage.
The CBC is merely being gutless, and caving into right-wing interests, the consensus seems to be.
Yet the consensus among media professionals -- people who actually confront issues such as those surrounding the infamous Mallick article -- is that the CBC was precisely right in its judgment. As the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente points out, one need not even be a Palin supporter to figure this out:
"It's fun to bash Sarah Palin. I should know. I've been doing it for weeks. But nobody has bashed her quite as viciously as a semi-obscure columnist named Heather Mallick.This may be hard for lunatics like Lindsay Stewart to come to grips with, but plenty of people -- not merely right-wingers or denizens of the Free Republic website -- find Mallick's column objectionable, and unworthy of publishing.
"Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look ... the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression," she wrote in a column that was posted Sept. 5 on the CBC's online news site. And she didn't stop there. She went on to refer to Republican men as "sexual inadequates," small-town Americans as "hicks" and "hillbillies," Bristol's boyfriend, Levi, as a "ratboy," and the Palins as terrible parents. "What normal father would want Levi 'I'm a fuckin' redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?" she wondered.
Vitriolic drivel is all the rage these days. The blogosphere is full of it. But this drivel was bought and paid for by the CBC. And soon the organic waste material hit the fan. The National Post went ballistic. So did Fox News, which loves nothing better than denouncing the left-wing loonies who live up here in Canada.
"Is this what actually passes for commentary at a publicly funded broadcasting company in Canada?" seethed a Fox News babe. Even Fox's Greta Van Susteren got into the act. She called Ms. Mallick a "pig." Ms. Mallick was deluged with hate mail, and the CBC with hundreds of complaints. Ms. Van Susteren said it was all in fun and invited Ms. Mallick on the air, but she declined.
Ms. Mallick has professed shock at the hate mail she's received (tell me about it), while revelling in her new-found notoriety. But Sunday, the CBC finally ate crow and yanked the column from its website. "We erred in our judgment," said news publisher John Cruickshank, who called the column a "viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan" piece of political invective that should never have been published. The ombudsman had looked into the matter, and found many of her "most savage assertions lack a basis in fact." I'll say. For one thing, she obviously knows nothing about the sex lives of Republicans.
The Mallick affair is bad news for the CBC, because it reinforces the widespread belief the place is a hotbed of left-wing bias. That's not good news when a Tory government controls the purse strings. Nor is it entirely fair. The CBC's online commentary arm is not exactly the flagship of the network. It is a backwater that has served as a sort of semi-retirement home for aging lefties (think Judy Rebick) who could no longer find an outlet in the mainstream media and, one suspects, supplied copy cheap. They had little oversight and less influence - until now.
The truth about the CBC is more complicated. Its problem isn't an overt left-wing bias. Its problem is an earnest, mushy-liberal mindset that can scarcely entertain a contrarian idea. Its editors, producers and directors strive to be fair-minded. It's just hardly any of them would ever vote Tory. Oh, they try. Once they even had right-wing commentator David Frum guest-host The Current. But people were so shocked they never did it again.
Ironically, no one is more bothered by this groupthink than the top CBC managers themselves. More than one have told me that it drives them crazy. And it's no accident that left-wing faces such as Avi Lewis have recently decamped for the greener fields of English-language Al Jazeera. Although I haven't talked to Mr. Cruickshank (a former colleague), my guess is that part of his mandate is to vigorously encourage a wider range of world views. Too bad Ms. Mallick popped up to prove the critics right.
Meantime, I'm not feeling too sorry for Ms. Mallick. She is a sour, narrow-minded writer - the kind of who makes Michael Moore look like a world-class wit. Her reflexive anti-Americanism is heavy-handed and stale, to say nothing of casually racist. There are many, many ways of dissing Sarah Palin. But Ms. Mallick's naughty, coarse puerility is not among them."
But, hey, don't ask them -- they're merely professionals. What do they know?
Red Toryism Is Not Isolationism
But oddly enough, David Orchard seems to think so
One may wonder if Liberal leader Stephane Dion is disappointed or relieved that David Orchard, his star candidate in Desthene-Missinni-Churchill River riding, has manged to produce so little press coverage.
When the press did bite at that particular worm, it was
In a recent candidates debate in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, Orchard talked about what a few of his priorities are.
“One of my priorities is the war,” Orchard announced.
Indeed. Orchard priorities the war so highly that he's decided to join the party that deployed Canadian forces to Afghanistan in the first place, under a leader who was a member of the cabinet that decided to do so.
Orchard's views on the war are far from secret. In February of this year, Orchard published an article on Globalresearch.ca in which he makes some remarkable comments.
Orchard essentially compares Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to slavery, and also attempts to cast doubts on previous humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia and Haiti.
Orchard would likely portray his comments as embodying the concerns with national sovereignty so deeply held within Red Toryism. But apparently Orchard never received the memo that Red Toryism does not condone genocides, such as those being perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic.
Nor does Red Toryism condone unarmed civilians caught in the midst of civil conflicts being left to their own devices.
Nor does Red Toryism condone harbouring terrorists while they plan attacks against foreign countries.
In short, Red Toryism is not isolationism, and never has been. In fact, it never could have been.
Most historians agree that the very notion of Canadian sovereignty was born out of the two World Wars. Most Canadians felt our sovereingty had been earned in those conflicts, and many of the things that came in the immediate aftermath seem to bear this to be true.
In fact, the Canadian citizenship act wasn't passed until 1946. Prior to that, there was actually no such thing as a Canadian citizenship. Rather, Canadians were generally viewed as citizens of the British empire.
In 1926, between the two wars, Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was instrumental in prompting the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which declared equality amongst Commonwealth countries.
It simply isn't logical for Red Toryism to be so offended by the notion of a foreign intervention, where necessary, considering that the very element with which it remains so preoccupied -- sovereignty -- was born out of such an intervention.
After all, Canada's involvement in the Second World War didn't end at the German border, nor did it end at the Italian coastline.
The great legacy of that war -- deposing one of history's brutal dictator and preventing the wholesale genocide of Jewish people in Europe -- remains an accomplishment of which all Canadians worthy of the name remain proud.
If Canada hadn't entered the Second World War not only would this legacy never have been achieved, but it's likely that key links between the United States and Britain would never have been forged. Without this support it's unlikely that Britain could have turned away the German attack, and that other preoccupation of so many Red Tories -- distress over ever-closer links between Canada and the United States -- would have come to to pass much, much sooner.
Ironically, Red Toryism never could have come to truly exist if Canada's leaders of the day had thought in the inherently isolationist vein that David Orchard does today.
Orchard also writes in a manner that suggests he believes Canadian forces bombed civilian targets indiscriminately in Afghanistan, Haiti and former Yugoslavia.
But even more concerning is Orchard's equation of Canada's efforts abroad with slavery.
"Military assaults against the poverty stricken farmers of Afghanistan and Haiti, and an Iraqi population struggling for its very survival, are part of a long, barbarous tradition going back to slave ships and colonial resource wars and will some day, I believe, be seen in that context," Orchard writes.
Unfortuantely for Mr Orchard, this is most unequivocally not the case. Should Canadian troops start herding Afghans on to slave galleons and forcing them to row their way across the ocean to pick cotton on plantations, then the war in Afghanistan will be seen in that context.
David Orchard can feel free to hold his breath until that happens if he so wishes. It wouldn't be a very good idea, but he's free to try it.
In the end, it seems, there's a reason why David Orchard is a marginal figure in Canadian political history, who only managed to attain a brief semblance of prominence when the Progressive Conservative party was already on its deathbed.
It's because he's a marginal thinker. Only a marginal thinker could look at the conflict in Afghanistan, look at the government that was deposed there, and see the Amistad.
Only a marginal thinker like David Orchard.
One may wonder if Liberal leader Stephane Dion is disappointed or relieved that David Orchard, his star candidate in Desthene-Missinni-Churchill River riding, has manged to produce so little press coverage.
When the press did bite at that particular worm, it was
In a recent candidates debate in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, Orchard talked about what a few of his priorities are.
“One of my priorities is the war,” Orchard announced.
Indeed. Orchard priorities the war so highly that he's decided to join the party that deployed Canadian forces to Afghanistan in the first place, under a leader who was a member of the cabinet that decided to do so.
Orchard's views on the war are far from secret. In February of this year, Orchard published an article on Globalresearch.ca in which he makes some remarkable comments.
Orchard essentially compares Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to slavery, and also attempts to cast doubts on previous humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia and Haiti.
Orchard would likely portray his comments as embodying the concerns with national sovereignty so deeply held within Red Toryism. But apparently Orchard never received the memo that Red Toryism does not condone genocides, such as those being perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic.
Nor does Red Toryism condone unarmed civilians caught in the midst of civil conflicts being left to their own devices.
Nor does Red Toryism condone harbouring terrorists while they plan attacks against foreign countries.
In short, Red Toryism is not isolationism, and never has been. In fact, it never could have been.
Most historians agree that the very notion of Canadian sovereignty was born out of the two World Wars. Most Canadians felt our sovereingty had been earned in those conflicts, and many of the things that came in the immediate aftermath seem to bear this to be true.
In fact, the Canadian citizenship act wasn't passed until 1946. Prior to that, there was actually no such thing as a Canadian citizenship. Rather, Canadians were generally viewed as citizens of the British empire.
In 1926, between the two wars, Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was instrumental in prompting the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which declared equality amongst Commonwealth countries.
It simply isn't logical for Red Toryism to be so offended by the notion of a foreign intervention, where necessary, considering that the very element with which it remains so preoccupied -- sovereignty -- was born out of such an intervention.
After all, Canada's involvement in the Second World War didn't end at the German border, nor did it end at the Italian coastline.
The great legacy of that war -- deposing one of history's brutal dictator and preventing the wholesale genocide of Jewish people in Europe -- remains an accomplishment of which all Canadians worthy of the name remain proud.
If Canada hadn't entered the Second World War not only would this legacy never have been achieved, but it's likely that key links between the United States and Britain would never have been forged. Without this support it's unlikely that Britain could have turned away the German attack, and that other preoccupation of so many Red Tories -- distress over ever-closer links between Canada and the United States -- would have come to to pass much, much sooner.
Ironically, Red Toryism never could have come to truly exist if Canada's leaders of the day had thought in the inherently isolationist vein that David Orchard does today.
Orchard also writes in a manner that suggests he believes Canadian forces bombed civilian targets indiscriminately in Afghanistan, Haiti and former Yugoslavia.
But even more concerning is Orchard's equation of Canada's efforts abroad with slavery.
"Military assaults against the poverty stricken farmers of Afghanistan and Haiti, and an Iraqi population struggling for its very survival, are part of a long, barbarous tradition going back to slave ships and colonial resource wars and will some day, I believe, be seen in that context," Orchard writes.
Unfortuantely for Mr Orchard, this is most unequivocally not the case. Should Canadian troops start herding Afghans on to slave galleons and forcing them to row their way across the ocean to pick cotton on plantations, then the war in Afghanistan will be seen in that context.
David Orchard can feel free to hold his breath until that happens if he so wishes. It wouldn't be a very good idea, but he's free to try it.
In the end, it seems, there's a reason why David Orchard is a marginal figure in Canadian political history, who only managed to attain a brief semblance of prominence when the Progressive Conservative party was already on its deathbed.
It's because he's a marginal thinker. Only a marginal thinker could look at the conflict in Afghanistan, look at the government that was deposed there, and see the Amistad.
Only a marginal thinker like David Orchard.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Now That's More Like It...
...But did Harper blink?
Over the past few days, Canada's opposition parties have been hailing the beginning of a "culture war".
It's ironic that a hallmark of extreme right-wing activism in the United States could be trotted out by Canadian left-wingers with so little protest from Canada's left, but one digresses.
With numerous polls suggesting that the focus on Harper's $50 million cut to arts funding may have been hurting his campaign -- particularly in Quebec -- Prime Minster Stephen Harper today promised to introduce $150 million in tax credits for parents of children enrolled in arts programs.
"The credit will apply on up to $500 of eligible fees for children under 16 who participate in eligible arts activities. This tax cut will encourage and make it easier for parents to give their children the benefits of activities such as music classes, drama or arts classes, and the parents will save money on their taxes," Harper said.
"For some children participating in arts, dance and drama classes these will be a fun and enjoyable activity. For others it could be the beginning of much more -- a life long interest or career."
In some cases -- notably, dance -- the tax credit would double with the already existing fitness tax credit.
Yet, at three times what the cut programs cost, one may wonder if this is merely an effort on Harper's behalf to regain some lost momentum in this election campaign. In other words, one wonders if Harper really cares about the arts, or if this program is merely another cynical attempt to garner votes.
For another thing, the program doesn't seem to go far enough. A good conservative arts program should include not merely tax credits for children to get involved in the arts, but also tax credits for those who would be interested in being patrons of the arts.
Many Canadians have long objected to tax dollars being used to support mediocre artists. If the Conservatives were bold enough to propose such a program, those Canadians could choose to support any artist they judged to be worthy of support and recieve a tax credit.
There certainly those who would suggest that artists should fund themselves and treat art as art, rather than as a vocation. After all, that's how Berthold Imhoff did it. Yet these individuals are certainly overlooking the fact that the modern-day Canadian artist doesn't have a personal or family fortune, as Imhoff did.
Art doesn't pay well enough to pay for the bills. While it certainly could be said that this should be incentive for some artists to seek a new line of work, there are many Canadian artists producing work of value that deserves to be supported.
Making it sensible for Canadians to support artists on a case-by-case and individual basis makes sense in this particular vein.
The new program is a step in the right direction, but not quite far enough. And many Canadians will wonder if Harper really is the "steady hand" he's portrayed himself as.
Over the past few days, Canada's opposition parties have been hailing the beginning of a "culture war".
It's ironic that a hallmark of extreme right-wing activism in the United States could be trotted out by Canadian left-wingers with so little protest from Canada's left, but one digresses.
With numerous polls suggesting that the focus on Harper's $50 million cut to arts funding may have been hurting his campaign -- particularly in Quebec -- Prime Minster Stephen Harper today promised to introduce $150 million in tax credits for parents of children enrolled in arts programs.
"The credit will apply on up to $500 of eligible fees for children under 16 who participate in eligible arts activities. This tax cut will encourage and make it easier for parents to give their children the benefits of activities such as music classes, drama or arts classes, and the parents will save money on their taxes," Harper said."For some children participating in arts, dance and drama classes these will be a fun and enjoyable activity. For others it could be the beginning of much more -- a life long interest or career."
In some cases -- notably, dance -- the tax credit would double with the already existing fitness tax credit.
Yet, at three times what the cut programs cost, one may wonder if this is merely an effort on Harper's behalf to regain some lost momentum in this election campaign. In other words, one wonders if Harper really cares about the arts, or if this program is merely another cynical attempt to garner votes.
For another thing, the program doesn't seem to go far enough. A good conservative arts program should include not merely tax credits for children to get involved in the arts, but also tax credits for those who would be interested in being patrons of the arts.
Many Canadians have long objected to tax dollars being used to support mediocre artists. If the Conservatives were bold enough to propose such a program, those Canadians could choose to support any artist they judged to be worthy of support and recieve a tax credit.
There certainly those who would suggest that artists should fund themselves and treat art as art, rather than as a vocation. After all, that's how Berthold Imhoff did it. Yet these individuals are certainly overlooking the fact that the modern-day Canadian artist doesn't have a personal or family fortune, as Imhoff did.
Art doesn't pay well enough to pay for the bills. While it certainly could be said that this should be incentive for some artists to seek a new line of work, there are many Canadian artists producing work of value that deserves to be supported.
Making it sensible for Canadians to support artists on a case-by-case and individual basis makes sense in this particular vein.
The new program is a step in the right direction, but not quite far enough. And many Canadians will wonder if Harper really is the "steady hand" he's portrayed himself as.
Birds of a Feather Hate Together
My, how shocking...
Of all the people to defend Heather Mallick, it's certainly unsurprising that Canadian Cynic's partner in hatecrime, Lindsay Stewart, one be among them.
Mallick's seething epithets are nothing more than fact, Stewart insists, and suggests that Carlin would have realized this had he simply practiced "due diligence".
As evidence of this, Stewart offers up alleged "close ties" between Sarah Palin and Thomas Muthee.
And yet, as one closely examines the coverage of the so-called "Mutheegate" controversy, one uncovers the sheer triviality of Palin's so-called "association" with Muthee.
She was blassed once by Muthee, on a single occasion.
Wow. Clearly Palin and Murthee are bestest buds.
Apparently, meeting someone once is sufficient to have a "very close relationship", as Scott Swenson describes them.
And while Palin could -- and perhaps even should have, hindsight being 20/20 and all -- have stopped Muthee in his tracks the minute he started wailing about "witchcraft", she would have had to interrupt his blessing in order to do so. Which would have certainly been impolite. But what's impolite when dealing with an individual who incited his largely-uneducated followers to mass murder?
Certainly, Palin could -- and perhaps even should -- have refused to meet Muthee at all.
Then there's the reason why hindsight is 20/20 -- because it's often so clear due to knowing that one didn't know at the time. And there is no indication that Palin had ever met Muthee before he delivered a guest sermon at a church she formally left in 2002, nor has she met him since.
There is no indication that Palin knew about Muthee's horiffic activities before meeting him, and no indication that she knew about these things until the news of them broke.
But then again, what's the truth when one is trying to run up political points by distorting reality?
Keep in mind that this is follows Stewart trying to prove "factually" that Republican men are "sexually inadequate" by citing a long list of sex scandals, including some featuring prostitutes underage children.
Interestingly, Stewart declines to mention numerous Democrat sex scandals, some of which also include prostitutes and underage children.
Curious, that.
In the end, much of Stewart's thesis lies on the revelation that there are, indeed, wingnuts amongst Palin's supporters.
Yet Lindsay Stewart takes the wingnutty comments of these wingnuttish characters, and declares that they represent all of Palin's supporters. A few of Palin's supporters could be described as "white trash" if one attaches a contemptuous value statement to their comments. A few of Palin's supporters could be described as "white trash". Ergo, all of Palin's supporters are white trash.
Stewart unsurprisingly tries to turn Palin's son Trig -- whom CBC reporter Neil MacDonald suggested may actually be Bristol Palin's child -- against her, echoing the full range of political snakes and vultures who are so eager to pick apart Palin's personal life.
Stewart also shamefully tries to envoke the Bristol Palin issue again, trying to stick his nose into a very private matter and exploit it for partisan gain. (Which is quite ironic, considering the things that could be said about one of his blogmates -- but won't be. Someone, after all, has to choose to be bigger than Lindsay Stewart and his pack of online hatemongers.)
The distinct pro-abortion anti-feminism inherent in the exploitation of this issue has already been addressed elsewhere.
Comically (and with dishonesty typical of himself), Stewart insists that "the Palin/McCain campaign are the ones responsible for making a spectacle out of the girl."
Apparently, Stewart himself never wrote anything like this.
Who's making the spectacle, indeed? Let's not forget that "journalists" like Neil MacDonald were out to drag Bristol Palin into some kind of controversy similar to this before the pregnancy story even broke. But, nope, it isn't the various left-wing activists out to destroy Sarah Palin who are making the spectacle, apparently it's Palin herself.
What a joke.
Which, in the end, is precisely what Stewart insists the Mallick article was:
Satire, first off, is best done when its humourous, but it's generally meant to make a hyperbolic parody of something. So what, precisely, does Stewart suggest Mallick is making a parody of here? Herself? Are we really supposed to believe that what Mallick wrote doesn't dislike Sarah Palin? The same Heather Mallick who has been relentless in her criticism of Palin?
Not that there's anything wrong with criticizing Sarah Palin. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made -- starting with, but not limited to, her advocacy of abstinence-only sex education.
But describing her as a porn actress isn't one of them. Nor is using her down syndrome-stricken child to question her political judgement.
It doesn't take a rocket science to recognize Mallick's column as precisely what it factually was. Not satire, as Stewart insists it was, but invective as John Cruickshank recognized it.
But even the obvious simplicity of the issue doesn't abate Stewart's outrage:
Apparently, "freedom" and "liberty" depend upon the CBC to allow Heather Mallick to publish whatever hateful diatribe she wishes on their website.
And, apparently, CBC executives should not have freedom of expression enough to decide that they don't want to be involved in the publishing of garbage like Mallick's column. Apparently, anyone writing for the CBC should consider their "freedom of expression" more important than the protection of the institution's reputation.
What an absolute joke.
At the end of the day, however, the question is thus: who is the bigger man? The man who decides that allowing a freelance journalist to use the CBC as a soapbox to attack a politician through their family is a mistake, or the one who denounces him for it?
At the end of the day, who is the coward? The individual who recognizes that attacking a politician through their family is wrong, or the invididual who indulges himself in doing so while accusing the politician themselves of making the spectacle?
Of course, this is all par for the course from Lindsay Stewart. What else does one really expect from an individual who insisted that a 69-year-old man pushed off the roof of a car simply slipped and "sucked pavement"?
The answer: you don't expect much. Which is precisely what Stewart delivered today.
What a joke.
Of all the people to defend Heather Mallick, it's certainly unsurprising that Canadian Cynic's partner in hatecrime, Lindsay Stewart, one be among them.
Mallick's seething epithets are nothing more than fact, Stewart insists, and suggests that Carlin would have realized this had he simply practiced "due diligence".
As evidence of this, Stewart offers up alleged "close ties" between Sarah Palin and Thomas Muthee.
And yet, as one closely examines the coverage of the so-called "Mutheegate" controversy, one uncovers the sheer triviality of Palin's so-called "association" with Muthee.
She was blassed once by Muthee, on a single occasion.
Wow. Clearly Palin and Murthee are bestest buds.
Apparently, meeting someone once is sufficient to have a "very close relationship", as Scott Swenson describes them.
And while Palin could -- and perhaps even should have, hindsight being 20/20 and all -- have stopped Muthee in his tracks the minute he started wailing about "witchcraft", she would have had to interrupt his blessing in order to do so. Which would have certainly been impolite. But what's impolite when dealing with an individual who incited his largely-uneducated followers to mass murder?
Certainly, Palin could -- and perhaps even should -- have refused to meet Muthee at all.
Then there's the reason why hindsight is 20/20 -- because it's often so clear due to knowing that one didn't know at the time. And there is no indication that Palin had ever met Muthee before he delivered a guest sermon at a church she formally left in 2002, nor has she met him since.
There is no indication that Palin knew about Muthee's horiffic activities before meeting him, and no indication that she knew about these things until the news of them broke.
But then again, what's the truth when one is trying to run up political points by distorting reality?
Keep in mind that this is follows Stewart trying to prove "factually" that Republican men are "sexually inadequate" by citing a long list of sex scandals, including some featuring prostitutes underage children.
Interestingly, Stewart declines to mention numerous Democrat sex scandals, some of which also include prostitutes and underage children.
Curious, that.
In the end, much of Stewart's thesis lies on the revelation that there are, indeed, wingnuts amongst Palin's supporters.
Yet Lindsay Stewart takes the wingnutty comments of these wingnuttish characters, and declares that they represent all of Palin's supporters. A few of Palin's supporters could be described as "white trash" if one attaches a contemptuous value statement to their comments. A few of Palin's supporters could be described as "white trash". Ergo, all of Palin's supporters are white trash.
Stewart unsurprisingly tries to turn Palin's son Trig -- whom CBC reporter Neil MacDonald suggested may actually be Bristol Palin's child -- against her, echoing the full range of political snakes and vultures who are so eager to pick apart Palin's personal life.
Stewart also shamefully tries to envoke the Bristol Palin issue again, trying to stick his nose into a very private matter and exploit it for partisan gain. (Which is quite ironic, considering the things that could be said about one of his blogmates -- but won't be. Someone, after all, has to choose to be bigger than Lindsay Stewart and his pack of online hatemongers.)
The distinct pro-abortion anti-feminism inherent in the exploitation of this issue has already been addressed elsewhere.
Comically (and with dishonesty typical of himself), Stewart insists that "the Palin/McCain campaign are the ones responsible for making a spectacle out of the girl."
Apparently, Stewart himself never wrote anything like this.
Who's making the spectacle, indeed? Let's not forget that "journalists" like Neil MacDonald were out to drag Bristol Palin into some kind of controversy similar to this before the pregnancy story even broke. But, nope, it isn't the various left-wing activists out to destroy Sarah Palin who are making the spectacle, apparently it's Palin herself.
What a joke.
Which, in the end, is precisely what Stewart insists the Mallick article was:
"Oh how silly of me, you do think we're stupid. Reading Mallick's piece we are obviously not bright enough to recognize satire without a flashing light reminding us that this is not a dissertation, litany or insurance manual."It wouldn't be hard to mistake Lindsay Stewart for stupid -- just like his blogmate mistakes Canadians for stupid. After all, apparently, Stewart doesn't know what satire really is.
Satire, first off, is best done when its humourous, but it's generally meant to make a hyperbolic parody of something. So what, precisely, does Stewart suggest Mallick is making a parody of here? Herself? Are we really supposed to believe that what Mallick wrote doesn't dislike Sarah Palin? The same Heather Mallick who has been relentless in her criticism of Palin?
Not that there's anything wrong with criticizing Sarah Palin. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made -- starting with, but not limited to, her advocacy of abstinence-only sex education.
But describing her as a porn actress isn't one of them. Nor is using her down syndrome-stricken child to question her political judgement.
It doesn't take a rocket science to recognize Mallick's column as precisely what it factually was. Not satire, as Stewart insists it was, but invective as John Cruickshank recognized it.
But even the obvious simplicity of the issue doesn't abate Stewart's outrage:
"You Mr Carlin and your complicit and cowardly superiors have buckled to pressure from a handful of pearl clutching ninnies and let us not forget what put the real fear in your quisling heart. You betrayed one of your own freelancers because you were scared of the noisy reaction. You have become enemies of freedom and liberty, engaging in censorship at the behest of the liars who pretend to support freedom of speech."Vince Carlin: enemy of freedom and liberty?
Apparently, "freedom" and "liberty" depend upon the CBC to allow Heather Mallick to publish whatever hateful diatribe she wishes on their website.
And, apparently, CBC executives should not have freedom of expression enough to decide that they don't want to be involved in the publishing of garbage like Mallick's column. Apparently, anyone writing for the CBC should consider their "freedom of expression" more important than the protection of the institution's reputation.
What an absolute joke.
"CBC is being run by cowards, it seems. Change your britches little man, the scary people will go away now that you've bent a knee and given in to their ignorant demands."But at the end of the day, people with a moral compass far more effective and resolute than Lindsay Stewart's will decide whether or not Carlin and Cruickshank's course of action is the wise one to take.
At the end of the day, however, the question is thus: who is the bigger man? The man who decides that allowing a freelance journalist to use the CBC as a soapbox to attack a politician through their family is a mistake, or the one who denounces him for it?
At the end of the day, who is the coward? The individual who recognizes that attacking a politician through their family is wrong, or the invididual who indulges himself in doing so while accusing the politician themselves of making the spectacle?
Of course, this is all par for the course from Lindsay Stewart. What else does one really expect from an individual who insisted that a 69-year-old man pushed off the roof of a car simply slipped and "sucked pavement"?
The answer: you don't expect much. Which is precisely what Stewart delivered today.
What a joke.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Proof Is In The Pudding, John
Cruickshank promises better -- now he'd better deliver
One Heather Mallick turd, 300 complaints and a media circus later, John Cruickshank has finally taken it upon himself to fix what many Canadians have been saying for years:
The CBC is unacceptably biased.
In a column regarding CBC ombudsman Vice Carlin's recent judgement on Mallick breaking an intellectual Mighty Wind, Cruickshank commented on the controversy.
Among other things, he wrote:
More troubling than Mallick's column, however, has been the escalating bias and exclusion of conservative views by a news outlet that, by virtue of funding itself through taxpayer dollars, is obligated to try to represent the views of all Canadians -- or at least as many Canadians as possible.
This, Cruickshank insists, is about to change:
However, for many Canadians, the proof will inevitably be in the pudding.
In other words, those Canadians who are concerned about the current state of the CBC will take you at your word when you prove to us that it's good, Mr Curickshank -- and not a second sooner.
One Heather Mallick turd, 300 complaints and a media circus later, John Cruickshank has finally taken it upon himself to fix what many Canadians have been saying for years:
The CBC is unacceptably biased.
In a column regarding CBC ombudsman Vice Carlin's recent judgement on Mallick breaking an intellectual Mighty Wind, Cruickshank commented on the controversy.
Among other things, he wrote:
"Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan.Which is precisely what, despite the protracted rantings of Mallick's defenders to the contrary, many Canadians have been saying ever since it blighted the CBC website.
And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site."
More troubling than Mallick's column, however, has been the escalating bias and exclusion of conservative views by a news outlet that, by virtue of funding itself through taxpayer dollars, is obligated to try to represent the views of all Canadians -- or at least as many Canadians as possible.
This, Cruickshank insists, is about to change:
"As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism. But we must do so carefully. And you should be able to trust us to provide you with work that's based on solid reporting and free from the passionate excesses of partisanship.It's encouraging to hear this.
We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear. We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack. It's a fine line.
Ombudsman Carlin makes another significant observation in his response to complainants: when it does choose to print opinion, CBCNews.ca displays a very narrow range on its pages.
In this, Carlin is also correct.
This, too, is being immediately addressed. CBCNews.ca will soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions and be home to a diverse group of writers with many perspectives. In this, we will better reflect the depth and texture of this country."
However, for many Canadians, the proof will inevitably be in the pudding.
In other words, those Canadians who are concerned about the current state of the CBC will take you at your word when you prove to us that it's good, Mr Curickshank -- and not a second sooner.
NDP Steps Up Its Attacks on Harper
As the 2008 federal election campaign passes halftime, the NDP has stepped up its attacks on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his governing Conservative party.
Over the last few days, the NDP has continued to release negative ads addressing health care and the environment, trying to counter-brand Harper as negligent on each.
In the first spot, the NDP accuses Harper of complacency on health care, repeating their prior claim that five million Canadians don't have a family doctor.
The ad features a cut-out image of Harper pointing, while a legion of silhouetted Canadians waits in a long and winding line to see a single doctor.
It also suggests that Harper's policies have deprived "millions" of Canadians of access to medication and early detection techniques.
The ad finishes its point with another cut-out image of Harper with syringes, medical thermometers and stethoscopes raining down the screen -- seeming to symbolize health care going "down the drain" under Harper's leadership.
Naturally, the ad doesn't address the fact that health care remains largely an area of provincial jurisdiction, and that none of the provinces recently governed by his country have medication plans in place -- in an area of their jurisdiction.
As with the previous NDP ads, the spot makes an abrupt shift toward the end, as the NDP strategists try to shift it into a positive ad. Jack Layton again appears against an orange background, promising a plan to train more doctors and nurses, as well as a program to make medication more affordable.
The second ad begins with a cut out of a bemused-looking Stephen Harper cast against a time-lapsed photo of the Canadian rockies. As the ad accuses the Conservatives of "giving oil companies an unlimited license to pollute", the rockies turn black and spouting oil derricks appear on the landscape.
Oil barrels are shown tipped on their side, leaking oil into lakes as pipelines stretch out from CO2-spewing factories stretched out across the horizon (Which is an odd image coming from a party that claims it's intent on protecting Ontarian manufacturing jobs).
The ad also claims Canada has a "worse environmental record than George Bush" (something that is actually unequivocally untrue).
The ad also claims that Harper has "no plan to do anything about it" despite having put forth a Climate Change policy that is actually more in line with the demands being made by most of the environmental lobby than his competitors (including the NDP).
Not to mention that oil companies don't even write themselves an "unlimited license to pollute" -- although the ads are clearly meant to play for Eastern and Central Canadians who have never so much as seen a Western Canadian oil well, and never seen the myriad of measures typically in place to minimize environmental impact.
In short, these particular ads are designed to play to the ignorance of the Eastern and Central Canadian voter.
An intriguing theme has emerged in NDP ads in the portrayal of the two leaders. Whenever Stephen Harper appears, it's as a cut out image, superimposed against nightmarish images slapped on a Tory blue background. When Jack Layton appears, its Layton himself, "in the flesh", as it were.
It's an intriguing way of portraying a time-old theme in political advertising: parties portraying themselves as lively and energetic, and their opponents as lifeless and static.
Again, the ads rely heavily on music composed of unsettling drum beats and remain reminiscent of 2006's batch of Liberal attack ads.
In focusing their ads almost entirely on Harper, the NDP seems to understand how they'll achieve success in this election -- not by fighting Stephen Harper and the Conservatives for the anti-Liberal vote, but rather by fighting Stephane Dion and the Liberals for the anti-Conservative vote.
Interestingly, by focusing their attack on Harper and the Conservatives, the NDP may well grow their vote total -- again -- at the expense of the Liberal party.
At least, that seems to be what they're trying to do. One could think of it as using Stephen Harper as a voodoo doll to hurt Stephane Dion. And, as recent polls suggest, it just might be working.
Over the last few days, the NDP has continued to release negative ads addressing health care and the environment, trying to counter-brand Harper as negligent on each.
In the first spot, the NDP accuses Harper of complacency on health care, repeating their prior claim that five million Canadians don't have a family doctor.
The ad features a cut-out image of Harper pointing, while a legion of silhouetted Canadians waits in a long and winding line to see a single doctor.
It also suggests that Harper's policies have deprived "millions" of Canadians of access to medication and early detection techniques.
The ad finishes its point with another cut-out image of Harper with syringes, medical thermometers and stethoscopes raining down the screen -- seeming to symbolize health care going "down the drain" under Harper's leadership.
Naturally, the ad doesn't address the fact that health care remains largely an area of provincial jurisdiction, and that none of the provinces recently governed by his country have medication plans in place -- in an area of their jurisdiction.
As with the previous NDP ads, the spot makes an abrupt shift toward the end, as the NDP strategists try to shift it into a positive ad. Jack Layton again appears against an orange background, promising a plan to train more doctors and nurses, as well as a program to make medication more affordable.
The second ad begins with a cut out of a bemused-looking Stephen Harper cast against a time-lapsed photo of the Canadian rockies. As the ad accuses the Conservatives of "giving oil companies an unlimited license to pollute", the rockies turn black and spouting oil derricks appear on the landscape.
Oil barrels are shown tipped on their side, leaking oil into lakes as pipelines stretch out from CO2-spewing factories stretched out across the horizon (Which is an odd image coming from a party that claims it's intent on protecting Ontarian manufacturing jobs).
The ad also claims Canada has a "worse environmental record than George Bush" (something that is actually unequivocally untrue).
The ad also claims that Harper has "no plan to do anything about it" despite having put forth a Climate Change policy that is actually more in line with the demands being made by most of the environmental lobby than his competitors (including the NDP).
Not to mention that oil companies don't even write themselves an "unlimited license to pollute" -- although the ads are clearly meant to play for Eastern and Central Canadians who have never so much as seen a Western Canadian oil well, and never seen the myriad of measures typically in place to minimize environmental impact.
In short, these particular ads are designed to play to the ignorance of the Eastern and Central Canadian voter.
An intriguing theme has emerged in NDP ads in the portrayal of the two leaders. Whenever Stephen Harper appears, it's as a cut out image, superimposed against nightmarish images slapped on a Tory blue background. When Jack Layton appears, its Layton himself, "in the flesh", as it were.
It's an intriguing way of portraying a time-old theme in political advertising: parties portraying themselves as lively and energetic, and their opponents as lifeless and static.
Again, the ads rely heavily on music composed of unsettling drum beats and remain reminiscent of 2006's batch of Liberal attack ads.
In focusing their ads almost entirely on Harper, the NDP seems to understand how they'll achieve success in this election -- not by fighting Stephen Harper and the Conservatives for the anti-Liberal vote, but rather by fighting Stephane Dion and the Liberals for the anti-Conservative vote.
Interestingly, by focusing their attack on Harper and the Conservatives, the NDP may well grow their vote total -- again -- at the expense of the Liberal party.
At least, that seems to be what they're trying to do. One could think of it as using Stephen Harper as a voodoo doll to hurt Stephane Dion. And, as recent polls suggest, it just might be working.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Will Strahl Cross the Lubicon?
Lubicon Cree remains contentious issue for Canada -- the time to solve the problem is now
In a bid to shore up support for his party, Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl made a recent trip through Canada's north.
While campaigning in the north, Strahl naturally addressed numerous typical campaign issues.
However, one item related to Strahl's ministerial portfolio did not appear on the agenda: that of the Lubicon Cree.
This is of little surprise. The sad tale surrounding the Lubicon Cree has been a traditionally overlooked issue in Canadian politics for more than one hundred years.
The story of the Lubicon Cree is one that will almost certainly be unfamiliar to most Canadians -- that of a band of Alberta aboriginals left out of the Treaty 8 negotiations, and who ever since have been fighting for recognition of their right to their land.
The Alberta provincial government has allowed billions of dollars in lumber, mineral and oil and gas developments to go forth in the Lubicon Lake area, with no compensation to the Lubicon.
Developments in the area have not only encroached upon traditional hunting and trapping grounds (although this is something that one should have expected would inevitably happened even under economic development directed by the Lubicon themselves). Oil and gas developments have also contaminated their water supply.
The government has been attempting to negotiate with the Lubicon Cree since 1939.
In 1999, prospects for a mutually satisfying agreement seemed strong. Yet November 2000 talks had broken down and the Lubicon cree were set to wait another two weeks for talks to resume.
By 2005, the United Nations has been pressuring Canada to resume negotiations and groups friendly to the Lubicon were forced to resort to protesting companies investing in the area and boycotting companies yet to invest there.
The national paradox that is the historical debacle surrounding the Lubicon Cree simply must be rectified. The rights of the Lubicon Cree must be recognized and respected, and the damage to their way of life reversed as best possible.
Certainly, there's little incentive for Chuck Strahl to solve this problem -- or even start talking about it. The media coverage of the controversy has been sporadic, and all too often sustained by protest action by groups such as Friends of the Lubicon.
But that may be the best reason for Strahl to finally be the man to tackle this issue head-on. Strahl isn't likely to score many political points by addressing the plight of the Lubicon. In fact, that in time may draw protest from those most slavishly devoted to the oil and gas industry.
The expectations of the Lubicon -- undiplomatically phrased as demands -- aren't altogether unreasonable. They are the standard expectations of Canadian aboriginals: self-government, restitution, and land claim settlements.
They also expect government help establishing a secure potable water supply in their community, although their demand that the focus on establishing the service of potable water to the homes of elders first should be rejected. (Instead, water service should be prioritized to homes with children of any age, especially very young children.)
But at the end of the day, settling the issues surrounding the Lubicon Cree is the right thing to do. That is why Chuck Strahl, for the good of all Canadians, must find it in himself to finally cross this (ironically) metaphorical Rubicon of Aboriginal affairs in Canada.
In a bid to shore up support for his party, Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl made a recent trip through Canada's north.
While campaigning in the north, Strahl naturally addressed numerous typical campaign issues.
However, one item related to Strahl's ministerial portfolio did not appear on the agenda: that of the Lubicon Cree.
This is of little surprise. The sad tale surrounding the Lubicon Cree has been a traditionally overlooked issue in Canadian politics for more than one hundred years.
The story of the Lubicon Cree is one that will almost certainly be unfamiliar to most Canadians -- that of a band of Alberta aboriginals left out of the Treaty 8 negotiations, and who ever since have been fighting for recognition of their right to their land.
The Alberta provincial government has allowed billions of dollars in lumber, mineral and oil and gas developments to go forth in the Lubicon Lake area, with no compensation to the Lubicon.
Developments in the area have not only encroached upon traditional hunting and trapping grounds (although this is something that one should have expected would inevitably happened even under economic development directed by the Lubicon themselves). Oil and gas developments have also contaminated their water supply.
The government has been attempting to negotiate with the Lubicon Cree since 1939.
In 1999, prospects for a mutually satisfying agreement seemed strong. Yet November 2000 talks had broken down and the Lubicon cree were set to wait another two weeks for talks to resume.
By 2005, the United Nations has been pressuring Canada to resume negotiations and groups friendly to the Lubicon were forced to resort to protesting companies investing in the area and boycotting companies yet to invest there.
The national paradox that is the historical debacle surrounding the Lubicon Cree simply must be rectified. The rights of the Lubicon Cree must be recognized and respected, and the damage to their way of life reversed as best possible.
Certainly, there's little incentive for Chuck Strahl to solve this problem -- or even start talking about it. The media coverage of the controversy has been sporadic, and all too often sustained by protest action by groups such as Friends of the Lubicon.
But that may be the best reason for Strahl to finally be the man to tackle this issue head-on. Strahl isn't likely to score many political points by addressing the plight of the Lubicon. In fact, that in time may draw protest from those most slavishly devoted to the oil and gas industry.
The expectations of the Lubicon -- undiplomatically phrased as demands -- aren't altogether unreasonable. They are the standard expectations of Canadian aboriginals: self-government, restitution, and land claim settlements.
They also expect government help establishing a secure potable water supply in their community, although their demand that the focus on establishing the service of potable water to the homes of elders first should be rejected. (Instead, water service should be prioritized to homes with children of any age, especially very young children.)
But at the end of the day, settling the issues surrounding the Lubicon Cree is the right thing to do. That is why Chuck Strahl, for the good of all Canadians, must find it in himself to finally cross this (ironically) metaphorical Rubicon of Aboriginal affairs in Canada.
You're Fucking Right It Is
Dion laments Conservative "dream of ending supply management"
It's hard to say whether Stephane Dion is much dumber than he looks, or too smart for his own good.
Today, the Liberal leader attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his "attacks" on the Canadian Wheat Board.
Ironically, he did so in Ontario, where they farmers have long ago chosen to abolish the single-desk marketing system.
"Their dream is to get rid of supply management," Dion warned. "If he's attacking the Canadian Wheat Board, what will happen to supply management?"
That's a simple question. As it turns out, it will finally be what prairie grain farmers have democratically expressed as their will -- namely, the abolition of the single-desk marketing system as it regards barley. It will remain in place for other grains.
In the end, "supply management" will be left not up to CWB bureaucrats, but to producers and consumers of grain -- as it should be, and according to the will of the farmers, not entrenched CWB bureaucrats.
Dion has been campaigning hard to find a breakthrough in rural Canada. He's already lightened his Green Shift policy for farmers who would be disproportionately penalized by the inevitable increased costs of diesel fuel. But any gains he may have made -- however unlikely -- Dion can kiss good-bye with this little blunder.
After all, farmers may be characterized as simple folk, but they know when someone's screwing them. When Dion turned his back on the democratically-expressed will of prairie grain farmers, he screwed them.
On the prairies, there is a simple -- paraphrased -- adage: "[screw] me once, shame on you. [Screw] me twice, shame on me."
Dion needs to get his head on straight as it regards the CWB. Prairie grain farmers will not stand for being screwed by another Liberal government.
It's hard to say whether Stephane Dion is much dumber than he looks, or too smart for his own good.
Today, the Liberal leader attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his "attacks" on the Canadian Wheat Board.
Ironically, he did so in Ontario, where they farmers have long ago chosen to abolish the single-desk marketing system.
"Their dream is to get rid of supply management," Dion warned. "If he's attacking the Canadian Wheat Board, what will happen to supply management?"
That's a simple question. As it turns out, it will finally be what prairie grain farmers have democratically expressed as their will -- namely, the abolition of the single-desk marketing system as it regards barley. It will remain in place for other grains.
In the end, "supply management" will be left not up to CWB bureaucrats, but to producers and consumers of grain -- as it should be, and according to the will of the farmers, not entrenched CWB bureaucrats.
Dion has been campaigning hard to find a breakthrough in rural Canada. He's already lightened his Green Shift policy for farmers who would be disproportionately penalized by the inevitable increased costs of diesel fuel. But any gains he may have made -- however unlikely -- Dion can kiss good-bye with this little blunder.
After all, farmers may be characterized as simple folk, but they know when someone's screwing them. When Dion turned his back on the democratically-expressed will of prairie grain farmers, he screwed them.
On the prairies, there is a simple -- paraphrased -- adage: "[screw] me once, shame on you. [Screw] me twice, shame on me."
Dion needs to get his head on straight as it regards the CWB. Prairie grain farmers will not stand for being screwed by another Liberal government.
Vince Carlin On Heather Mallick
Big words, Vince, but can Canadians expect change?
Vince Carlin seems to be leading something of a charmed life.
In his time as the CBC ombudsman, Carlin has had to preside over a number of controversies at the CBC. There were the collusion allegations between Krista and Pablo Rodriguez. Then, there was the matter of a piece appearing on The National suggesting that Bristol Palin was actually the mother of young Trig Palin.
Now, there's the Mighty Wind of wingnuttery emmenanting from Heather Mallick.
While Carlin still has yet to address the humiliating dressing-down of Neil MacDonald, he has chosen to address the controversy surrounding Mallick's extreme and bizarre comments.
In a review released two days ago, Carlin address the controversy, and makes some intriguing conclusions.
First off, many of the self-indulgent statements made by Mallick in the column were contrary to the CBC's code of journalistic practices in that they were insufficiently based on fact (descriptions of Republican men as "sexually inadequate" and Sarah Palin's supporters as "white trash").
Secondly, the CBC's code of journalistic practices is applicable to, but improperly tailored to, the CBC's new role as a web-based news outlet.
Thirdly, that the CBC does not live up to its mandate in terms of providing a broad range of views.
Which is frankly, little surprise to anyone. Least of all to Canadian conservative thinker Michael Coren, who once had a secheduled appearance on the CBC cancelled due to objection to his views.
Carlin's candid analysis of the Mighty Wind affair and its implications for the CBC should be welcomed, even and especially by those who object to Mallick's comments. But a bigger question remains unanswered -- just as questions remain unanswered in the wake of the Erickson/Rodriguez affair:
What, precisely, is going to change at the CBC?
Canadians have the right to now how, having suffered yet another definitive journalistic black eye, how Carlin and CBC editor John Cruickshank will restore journalistic credibility and balance to the CBC.
Clearly, fundamental changes need to be made at the CBC. Someone, after all, is making the decision to publish absolute garbage such as Mallick's loonish commentary on Sarah Palin, and making the decision not to give voice to other views.
Concerned Canadians will be able to feel a good deal more comfortable that there will be some real reform in the CBC when someone -- and not simply Mallick herself -- is called upon to answer for the CBC's flagrant sharfing on its own journalistic integrity.
Vince Carlin seems to be leading something of a charmed life.
In his time as the CBC ombudsman, Carlin has had to preside over a number of controversies at the CBC. There were the collusion allegations between Krista and Pablo Rodriguez. Then, there was the matter of a piece appearing on The National suggesting that Bristol Palin was actually the mother of young Trig Palin.
Now, there's the Mighty Wind of wingnuttery emmenanting from Heather Mallick.
While Carlin still has yet to address the humiliating dressing-down of Neil MacDonald, he has chosen to address the controversy surrounding Mallick's extreme and bizarre comments.
In a review released two days ago, Carlin address the controversy, and makes some intriguing conclusions.
First off, many of the self-indulgent statements made by Mallick in the column were contrary to the CBC's code of journalistic practices in that they were insufficiently based on fact (descriptions of Republican men as "sexually inadequate" and Sarah Palin's supporters as "white trash").
Secondly, the CBC's code of journalistic practices is applicable to, but improperly tailored to, the CBC's new role as a web-based news outlet.
Thirdly, that the CBC does not live up to its mandate in terms of providing a broad range of views.
Which is frankly, little surprise to anyone. Least of all to Canadian conservative thinker Michael Coren, who once had a secheduled appearance on the CBC cancelled due to objection to his views.
Carlin's candid analysis of the Mighty Wind affair and its implications for the CBC should be welcomed, even and especially by those who object to Mallick's comments. But a bigger question remains unanswered -- just as questions remain unanswered in the wake of the Erickson/Rodriguez affair:
What, precisely, is going to change at the CBC?
Canadians have the right to now how, having suffered yet another definitive journalistic black eye, how Carlin and CBC editor John Cruickshank will restore journalistic credibility and balance to the CBC.
Clearly, fundamental changes need to be made at the CBC. Someone, after all, is making the decision to publish absolute garbage such as Mallick's loonish commentary on Sarah Palin, and making the decision not to give voice to other views.
Concerned Canadians will be able to feel a good deal more comfortable that there will be some real reform in the CBC when someone -- and not simply Mallick herself -- is called upon to answer for the CBC's flagrant sharfing on its own journalistic integrity.
Friday, September 26, 2008
A Debate To Be Remembered
Even if the leaders aren't up to snuff, the stakes in the 2008 federal election are historic in nature
Stephen Harper is no John Diefenbaker. Nor is he even Joe Clark.
Stephane Dion is no Lester Pearson, and he certainly isn't Pierre Trudeau.
Diefenbaker possessed the ability to rail vocally against outrage and injustice in a manner so intensely that he could make believers out of even cold-hearted listeners.
Lester Pearson, for his notorious lack of oratorical skills, always tended to know a good idea when he saw it. If one were to ask Diefenbaker himself, peacekeeping was one of those very ideas, deftly snatched by the Chief by Pearson.
Joe Clark had a broad-sweeping vision for Canada: his decentralized "communitiy of communities" that was so idyllic that it was almost utopian.
Pierre Trudeau was a mericless debater and oratorical master without compare. For his own part, he didn't merely adopt the great ideas of others. He also came up with a few of his own, evenif he could never be bothered to actually implement them.
Diefenbaker vs. Pearson and Clark vs. Trudeau stand among Canada's most historical and defining electoral contests. In each case, each man exchanged electoral victories over the issues that defined their times.
For Pearson and Diefenbaker it was Canada's role in the Cold War vis a vis nuclear weapons. For Trudeau and Clark, it was Canada's economic course in a post-OPEC petro-economy.
Harper is no Diefenbaker. His speeches may be elctrifying to the most partisan of his supporters, but they still fail to impress his political opponents. Nor is he a Joe Clark. Whether Conservative voters are comfortable enough to admit it or not, he has no grand vision for Canada. He barely has a vision at all, aside from "tightening the screws" of government via budget and tax cuts.
Dion is no Pearson. His Green Shift economic policy, as championed by Scott Brison and Green party leader Elizabeth May, is so ill-concieved that it can't seem to drive voters away from his party quickly enough. Nor is he a Trudeau. The man seems like he couldn't muster a believable ounce of passion is his life depended on it, nor is he resolute enough to stand by his policies no matter how unpopular they may seem. Pierre Trudeau would never have been caught dead tailoring a policy like the Green Shift to the likes of farmers. Not only were they too far out of the urban elite circle he prided himself on travelling in, but they were unlikely to vote for him regardless.
Yet Harper and Dion, like Trudeau and Clark and Diefenbaker and Pearson before them, do have a historical matter that will be decided in the course of this federal election: namely, the issue of climate change.
Canadians have a historical choice before them: a choice between the frugal, cautious economic environmentalism of Stephen Harper, sprinkled with a healthy dose of skepticism, or the risky approach of Stephane Dion, tearing up Canada's taxation regime in the name of leftist apocalypticism.
Harper's approach, stretching reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over a period longer than 40 years, or Stephane Dion's imaginings that, given what he feels is the proper economic incentive, Canada's biggest polluters will pull off the feat in time to comply with the Kyoto protocol.
As was the case with Trudeau/Clark and Diefenbaker/Pearson, the outcome of this election likely won't be up to the contestants alone. While the Presidential election in the United States may keep individuals such as Al Gore and Barack Obama too busy to attempt an intervention in the Canadian campaign, the individual gaffes offered up by each campaign -- there have already been many, and there will likely be many more still -- may yet prove to be decisive by the time this election concludes.
Then, of course, there's always the NDP. The "conscience of the nation", as it were, may yet prove to tip the scales in this election. Jack Layton holds a very powerful position in the country right now, as did Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent before him.
And as with Trudeau/Clark and Diefenbaker/Pearson, the next 20 years of Canadian history may be charted by the outcome of this election.
One way or another, this federal election will be one for Canadians to remember. Canadians may remember the outcome -- and, no matter how one slices it, the potential consequences -- for longer still.
Stephen Harper is no John Diefenbaker. Nor is he even Joe Clark.
Stephane Dion is no Lester Pearson, and he certainly isn't Pierre Trudeau.
Diefenbaker possessed the ability to rail vocally against outrage and injustice in a manner so intensely that he could make believers out of even cold-hearted listeners.
Lester Pearson, for his notorious lack of oratorical skills, always tended to know a good idea when he saw it. If one were to ask Diefenbaker himself, peacekeeping was one of those very ideas, deftly snatched by the Chief by Pearson.
Joe Clark had a broad-sweeping vision for Canada: his decentralized "communitiy of communities" that was so idyllic that it was almost utopian.
Pierre Trudeau was a mericless debater and oratorical master without compare. For his own part, he didn't merely adopt the great ideas of others. He also came up with a few of his own, evenif he could never be bothered to actually implement them.
Diefenbaker vs. Pearson and Clark vs. Trudeau stand among Canada's most historical and defining electoral contests. In each case, each man exchanged electoral victories over the issues that defined their times.
For Pearson and Diefenbaker it was Canada's role in the Cold War vis a vis nuclear weapons. For Trudeau and Clark, it was Canada's economic course in a post-OPEC petro-economy.
Harper is no Diefenbaker. His speeches may be elctrifying to the most partisan of his supporters, but they still fail to impress his political opponents. Nor is he a Joe Clark. Whether Conservative voters are comfortable enough to admit it or not, he has no grand vision for Canada. He barely has a vision at all, aside from "tightening the screws" of government via budget and tax cuts.
Dion is no Pearson. His Green Shift economic policy, as championed by Scott Brison and Green party leader Elizabeth May, is so ill-concieved that it can't seem to drive voters away from his party quickly enough. Nor is he a Trudeau. The man seems like he couldn't muster a believable ounce of passion is his life depended on it, nor is he resolute enough to stand by his policies no matter how unpopular they may seem. Pierre Trudeau would never have been caught dead tailoring a policy like the Green Shift to the likes of farmers. Not only were they too far out of the urban elite circle he prided himself on travelling in, but they were unlikely to vote for him regardless.
Yet Harper and Dion, like Trudeau and Clark and Diefenbaker and Pearson before them, do have a historical matter that will be decided in the course of this federal election: namely, the issue of climate change.
Canadians have a historical choice before them: a choice between the frugal, cautious economic environmentalism of Stephen Harper, sprinkled with a healthy dose of skepticism, or the risky approach of Stephane Dion, tearing up Canada's taxation regime in the name of leftist apocalypticism.
Harper's approach, stretching reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over a period longer than 40 years, or Stephane Dion's imaginings that, given what he feels is the proper economic incentive, Canada's biggest polluters will pull off the feat in time to comply with the Kyoto protocol.
As was the case with Trudeau/Clark and Diefenbaker/Pearson, the outcome of this election likely won't be up to the contestants alone. While the Presidential election in the United States may keep individuals such as Al Gore and Barack Obama too busy to attempt an intervention in the Canadian campaign, the individual gaffes offered up by each campaign -- there have already been many, and there will likely be many more still -- may yet prove to be decisive by the time this election concludes.
Then, of course, there's always the NDP. The "conscience of the nation", as it were, may yet prove to tip the scales in this election. Jack Layton holds a very powerful position in the country right now, as did Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent before him.
And as with Trudeau/Clark and Diefenbaker/Pearson, the next 20 years of Canadian history may be charted by the outcome of this election.
One way or another, this federal election will be one for Canadians to remember. Canadians may remember the outcome -- and, no matter how one slices it, the potential consequences -- for longer still.
Michael Byers Shows His Concern for the Working Class
Shut down the oilsands, says NDP candidate
Thank god for the NDP -- Canada's "working-class" political party. Always so full of concern for the working class.
...Or maybe not.
In a debate yesterday at the University of BC's School of Journalism, Byers made what have been described as controversial remarks. More than simply controversial, they make one wonder if the entire NDP isn't suffering from some kind of deeply-rooted identity crisis.
Lamenting that climate change may mean that his sons will never see a polar bear in its natural habitat, Myers remarked on the alleged urgency of the alleged crisis.
"We have to do something to address the climate change crisis, we need to do so now," Byers announced. "We need to go after the big polluters, we need to shut the tarsands down."
And all the working-class men and women whose livelihoods -- their ability to support themselves and their families -- depend on the Fort MacMurray oilsands?
"Yeah, fuck those guys," Byers remarked.
Well, not really. But he may as well have.
For her own part, Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry was truly shocked. "That's a headline," she said afterward. "It's quite a statement."
And it is. It's a statement on the true nature of the NDP.
For decades, the NDP has portrayed itself as the "conscience of the nation", as the party of the working class.
Yet the party remains notoriously weak in rural and suburban ridings where most working-class people actually live. Instead, the party finds the bulk of its strength from urban ridings in Vancouver and throughout Ontario.
Those of its ridings that do represent the abstract working class all come from within Ontario's "golden horseshoe". Meanwhile, the ridings that represent the working class throughout the rest of the country tend to find themselves in the hands of Conservative candidates.
If anything, the NDP is increasingly becoming the party of the urban elite. After all, Michael Byers' appeal to working-class individuals has likely just taken a rather significant dip in the wake of his comments, which demonstrate certainly a lack of concern, if not outright contempt for, working class individuals who happen to work in the "wrong" industry.
When one considers that all of those working class men and women whom Byers would so readily put out of work produce a product that is complementary to, and necessary for, that produced by so many of the NDP's constituents in Ontario, one has to wonder precisely where Byers' head and heart are at in this federal election.
Certainly not in Alberta, where he's just fucked his party royally. Edmonton-Strathcona candidate Linda Duncan, running neck-and-neck with Conservative incumbent Rahim Jaffer, may have just found her campaign complicated significantly by her colleague's unfortunate remarks.
Even what should otherwise be a bastion of strength for her campaign -- the University of Alberta, with its campus located within the riding she seeks -- may turn out to be significantly less so, as Engineering and Business students, counting on continuing prosperity from the tarsands projects Byers so desperately wants to kibosh, turn away from her campaign.
All of this for a policy point that runs contrary to that of his party -- NDP Jack Layton has called for a moritorium on tarsands development, not for a complete shutdown.
In the end, the damage Byers has done to his party may actually turn out to be minimal. The party is in contention for a single seat in Alberta. Not exactly difference-making stuff.
But the damage Byers has done to that working class vineer the party has traditionally spread over its very real inner shell of urban elitism may turn out to be more devastating in time.
At least for once the NDP will be able to be honest -- both with Canadians and with itself -- about from whom the party actually draws its support.
So, in that sense, thank god for the NDP and all the positive things that they've accomplished for this country. (Public health care is a wonderful thing, mr Douglas and we love you for it.)
But thank god for Michael Byers, as well. For shining a little light on the otherwise obscure shadows of the inner party.
Thank god for the NDP -- Canada's "working-class" political party. Always so full of concern for the working class.
...Or maybe not.
In a debate yesterday at the University of BC's School of Journalism, Byers made what have been described as controversial remarks. More than simply controversial, they make one wonder if the entire NDP isn't suffering from some kind of deeply-rooted identity crisis.
Lamenting that climate change may mean that his sons will never see a polar bear in its natural habitat, Myers remarked on the alleged urgency of the alleged crisis.
"We have to do something to address the climate change crisis, we need to do so now," Byers announced. "We need to go after the big polluters, we need to shut the tarsands down."And all the working-class men and women whose livelihoods -- their ability to support themselves and their families -- depend on the Fort MacMurray oilsands?
"Yeah, fuck those guys," Byers remarked.
Well, not really. But he may as well have.
For her own part, Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry was truly shocked. "That's a headline," she said afterward. "It's quite a statement."
And it is. It's a statement on the true nature of the NDP.
For decades, the NDP has portrayed itself as the "conscience of the nation", as the party of the working class.
Yet the party remains notoriously weak in rural and suburban ridings where most working-class people actually live. Instead, the party finds the bulk of its strength from urban ridings in Vancouver and throughout Ontario.
Those of its ridings that do represent the abstract working class all come from within Ontario's "golden horseshoe". Meanwhile, the ridings that represent the working class throughout the rest of the country tend to find themselves in the hands of Conservative candidates.
If anything, the NDP is increasingly becoming the party of the urban elite. After all, Michael Byers' appeal to working-class individuals has likely just taken a rather significant dip in the wake of his comments, which demonstrate certainly a lack of concern, if not outright contempt for, working class individuals who happen to work in the "wrong" industry.
When one considers that all of those working class men and women whom Byers would so readily put out of work produce a product that is complementary to, and necessary for, that produced by so many of the NDP's constituents in Ontario, one has to wonder precisely where Byers' head and heart are at in this federal election.
Certainly not in Alberta, where he's just fucked his party royally. Edmonton-Strathcona candidate Linda Duncan, running neck-and-neck with Conservative incumbent Rahim Jaffer, may have just found her campaign complicated significantly by her colleague's unfortunate remarks.Even what should otherwise be a bastion of strength for her campaign -- the University of Alberta, with its campus located within the riding she seeks -- may turn out to be significantly less so, as Engineering and Business students, counting on continuing prosperity from the tarsands projects Byers so desperately wants to kibosh, turn away from her campaign.
All of this for a policy point that runs contrary to that of his party -- NDP Jack Layton has called for a moritorium on tarsands development, not for a complete shutdown.
In the end, the damage Byers has done to his party may actually turn out to be minimal. The party is in contention for a single seat in Alberta. Not exactly difference-making stuff.
But the damage Byers has done to that working class vineer the party has traditionally spread over its very real inner shell of urban elitism may turn out to be more devastating in time.
At least for once the NDP will be able to be honest -- both with Canadians and with itself -- about from whom the party actually draws its support.
So, in that sense, thank god for the NDP and all the positive things that they've accomplished for this country. (Public health care is a wonderful thing, mr Douglas and we love you for it.)
But thank god for Michael Byers, as well. For shining a little light on the otherwise obscure shadows of the inner party.
Define "Fiscal Disaster", You Fucking Idiots
Rick Dykstra does the right thing, Liberals show their oportunism
In federal politics, St Catharines Conservative MP Rick Dykstra is a one-man revolution.
“Let me do something revolutionary, something politicians don’t do,” Dykstra announced during the course of his debate with Liberal candidate Walt Lastewka. (NDP candidate Julian West resigned over a skinny dipping incident, but oddly enough could still win the riding.) He then apologized for his party's about-face on taxing income trusts. “We made a commitment. We didn’t keep that commitment, and for that I apologize to the people of St. Catharines.”
Lastewka's previously demonstrated not-so-classy side reemerged again when he mustered the temerity to demand an apology for Ralph Goodale.
“I would hope when [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper comes into town, he will apologize not only to Mr. Goodale but the people of St. Catharines and the people of Canada and put forward an action plan,” Lastewka announced.
The Liberal party national office also insisted that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should apologize for the "fiscal disaster" that emerged from the decision to phase in taxes on income trusts.
This leads one to wonder precisely how the Liberal party defines a "fiscal disaster".
Certainly, Stephen Harper did decide not to tax income trusts. But following that promise, as Dykstra noted, many of Canada's largest corporations began to discuss converting themselves into income trusts in order to skirt their taxpaying responsibilities.
Should that have happened, individual taxpayers either would have had to carry a larger portion of the federal tax burden, or kiss public health care and social services good-bye.
Taxing income trusts in order to take away the incentive for Canada's largest taxpaying corporations to convert was, sadly, the only responsible thing to do. Which leads one to ask an important question.
The expressed Liberal position on income trusts, in many ways, carries the same subtext as the Liberals' 1993 promises to abolish the GST. After all, the Kim Campbell Progressive Conservatives had already paid the political price for the GST, so what would the sense really have been in abolishing a perfectly good source of revenue?
If the Liberals manage to defeat the Conservatives in this federal election (a prospect still well within the range of possibility), it will at least partially be because the Conservatives have paid the political price for taxing income trusts.
Liberal governments being as thirsty for revenue as they've historically tended to be, why would they keep their promise and forgo all of that precious, precious revenue? Especially considering that Stephane Dion has spent the last 18 months decrying the lost revenue from the Harper government's tax cuts, and is proposing a Green Shift plan that would inevitably mean a further still loss of revenue?
And even if Canadians could expect the Liberals to keep their promises, that other, more important question emerges:
What would they do to prevent larger corporations from converting to income trusts? How would they protect the revenue stream so necessary to maintain Canada's most vital social programs? Could they really be so irresponsible as to simply let it slip away?
No matter how one slices it, the lost revenue from corporate taxation -- and the inevitably accompanying loss of public health care and social services -- would be a much greater fiscal disaster than taxing income trusts.
In federal politics, St Catharines Conservative MP Rick Dykstra is a one-man revolution.
“Let me do something revolutionary, something politicians don’t do,” Dykstra announced during the course of his debate with Liberal candidate Walt Lastewka. (NDP candidate Julian West resigned over a skinny dipping incident, but oddly enough could still win the riding.) He then apologized for his party's about-face on taxing income trusts. “We made a commitment. We didn’t keep that commitment, and for that I apologize to the people of St. Catharines.”
Lastewka's previously demonstrated not-so-classy side reemerged again when he mustered the temerity to demand an apology for Ralph Goodale.
“I would hope when [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper comes into town, he will apologize not only to Mr. Goodale but the people of St. Catharines and the people of Canada and put forward an action plan,” Lastewka announced.
The Liberal party national office also insisted that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should apologize for the "fiscal disaster" that emerged from the decision to phase in taxes on income trusts.
This leads one to wonder precisely how the Liberal party defines a "fiscal disaster".
Certainly, Stephen Harper did decide not to tax income trusts. But following that promise, as Dykstra noted, many of Canada's largest corporations began to discuss converting themselves into income trusts in order to skirt their taxpaying responsibilities.
Should that have happened, individual taxpayers either would have had to carry a larger portion of the federal tax burden, or kiss public health care and social services good-bye.
Taxing income trusts in order to take away the incentive for Canada's largest taxpaying corporations to convert was, sadly, the only responsible thing to do. Which leads one to ask an important question.
The expressed Liberal position on income trusts, in many ways, carries the same subtext as the Liberals' 1993 promises to abolish the GST. After all, the Kim Campbell Progressive Conservatives had already paid the political price for the GST, so what would the sense really have been in abolishing a perfectly good source of revenue?
If the Liberals manage to defeat the Conservatives in this federal election (a prospect still well within the range of possibility), it will at least partially be because the Conservatives have paid the political price for taxing income trusts.
Liberal governments being as thirsty for revenue as they've historically tended to be, why would they keep their promise and forgo all of that precious, precious revenue? Especially considering that Stephane Dion has spent the last 18 months decrying the lost revenue from the Harper government's tax cuts, and is proposing a Green Shift plan that would inevitably mean a further still loss of revenue?
And even if Canadians could expect the Liberals to keep their promises, that other, more important question emerges:
What would they do to prevent larger corporations from converting to income trusts? How would they protect the revenue stream so necessary to maintain Canada's most vital social programs? Could they really be so irresponsible as to simply let it slip away?
No matter how one slices it, the lost revenue from corporate taxation -- and the inevitably accompanying loss of public health care and social services -- would be a much greater fiscal disaster than taxing income trusts.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
"Harpernomics" New Buzzword of Liberal Campaign
Two days ago, the Liberal party released two new anti-Harper advertisements.
Both ads seek to counter-brand Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper as bad for the economy, accusing Harper of misleading Canadians while cutting economic development programs.
Both spots are short -- 15 seconds apiece -- dark, and clearly intending to invoke fear of a continuing Harper government.
The first ad, "Harpernomics and You" outlines what the Liberal party wants Canadians to believe the impact of Harper's economic policy has been.
They claim that Stephen Harper cut economic development programs -- yet the news story they cite doesn't turn up on a Google search.
The second ad, "This is Harpernomics" accuses the Conservatives of "giving big polluters a blank cheque while they make record profits", cutting "economic development programs" (most of the cuts were actually either funds previously budgeted but not used or "efficiencies"), and attacking Ontario by criticizing their tax policies.
The ads are short, cast mostly in dark colours and black-and-white images.
Most important, however, is their brevity. At 15 seconds apiece, these ads make their point quickly -- if incompletely.
They also play to the weakness of the Liberal fundraising machine. It's unlikely that the Liberals could compete with the Conservatives and their campaign treasury by running 30 second ads. At 15 seconds, however, they stand a chance, at least in terms of bulk advertising.
And by presenting only the raw figures, devoid of any of the broader details -- such as the fact that most of the 55,000 jobs lost in July were actually part-time manufacturing jobs -- the Liberals may benefit by turning the Conservatives focus on the economy against them.
Both ads seek to counter-brand Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper as bad for the economy, accusing Harper of misleading Canadians while cutting economic development programs.
Both spots are short -- 15 seconds apiece -- dark, and clearly intending to invoke fear of a continuing Harper government.
The first ad, "Harpernomics and You" outlines what the Liberal party wants Canadians to believe the impact of Harper's economic policy has been.
They claim that Stephen Harper cut economic development programs -- yet the news story they cite doesn't turn up on a Google search.
The second ad, "This is Harpernomics" accuses the Conservatives of "giving big polluters a blank cheque while they make record profits", cutting "economic development programs" (most of the cuts were actually either funds previously budgeted but not used or "efficiencies"), and attacking Ontario by criticizing their tax policies.
The ads are short, cast mostly in dark colours and black-and-white images.
Most important, however, is their brevity. At 15 seconds apiece, these ads make their point quickly -- if incompletely.
They also play to the weakness of the Liberal fundraising machine. It's unlikely that the Liberals could compete with the Conservatives and their campaign treasury by running 30 second ads. At 15 seconds, however, they stand a chance, at least in terms of bulk advertising.
And by presenting only the raw figures, devoid of any of the broader details -- such as the fact that most of the 55,000 jobs lost in July were actually part-time manufacturing jobs -- the Liberals may benefit by turning the Conservatives focus on the economy against them.
Will Tyler Kinch Call For Natalie Odd's Resignation Too?
Calgary NDP candidate demands Conservative incumbnet drop out of campaign
Calgary Centre MP Lee Richardson has found some controversy injected into his reelection bid as NDP candidate Tyler Kinch has called for his resignation over some comments he made to Fast Forward magazine.
Earlier this month, Richardson gave an interview to Fast Forward concerning a rash of recent shootings in Calgary.
“Particularly in big cities, we’ve got people that have grown up in a different culture,” Richardson said. “And they don’t have the same background in terms of the stable communities we had 20, 30 years ago in our cities… and don’t have the same respect for authority or people’s person or property.”
“Canada accepts so many refugees, for example,” he noted. “These are people that have had a very difficult life from whence they came. If you’ve been in a refugee camp, then you live day-to-day. And those are troubled people. They come here and, well, it’s easy to take advantage of people that are trying to help.”
"Talk to the police. Look at who’s committing these crimes. They’re not the kid that grew up next door,” he concluded.
When hearing of Richardson's remarks, Kinch was certainly outraged enough for an NDP candidate, saying he "should resign out of this election for those comments.”
"Crime comes from everywhere, and there are many immigrants in our country that contribute to our society in great ways,” said Kinch. “I don’t think those comments are productive, and I don’t think those comments should come out of an MP’s mouth.”
Certainly, Kinch is right. Immigration very much is the backbone of modern Canadian society, and will only continue to be.
But it seems that Kinch is being fairly selective in his outrage. After all, one need not look much further than Green candidate Natalie Odd's comments regarding the matter.
“There definitely are people from other cultures involved in crime in our cities,” Odd said. “However, we cannot ignore that poverty and exposure to domestic violence… are huge determining factors in people becoming involved in crime. That crosses all cultures.”
And therein lies the rub. Odd notes essentially that Canadian law enforcement needs to also address the contributing factors to crime. And in a country that admits 30,000 refugees annually, it isn't at all unfair to ask if the conditions in most refugee camps -- notorious for their impoverished and overcrowded conditions -- could be a contributing factor to a life of crime, particularly for those who may have grown up in said camps? Perhaps even disproportionately?
Of course it's fair to ask.
But Natalie Odd's resignation from the race in Calgary-Centre isn't likely to make Kinch's bid to win election significantly easier. Better to oppose his opponent of being politically incorrect at best, racist at worst, and see if Kinch can't significant;y improve his odds of winning.
For his own part, Richardson seems to understand how unsavoury his comments truly are.
"That is not my intention. If I misspoke, I apologize to you for that,” Richardson lamented, noting that he only meant to refer to a "small minority" of immigrants.
Richardson also noted that he had based his comments partially on anecdotal evidence collected from his constituents. “What their comments are based on is probably anecdotal — what they read in the newspapers,” he said. "We see anecdotally — and through our experiences here — the differences from the Alberta that I grew up in. And that’s the same in a lot of big cities across the country. That’s really all I was trying to say…. I regret having said that yesterday.”
Some sources, such as Cam Stewart, a former cop and now cross-cultural consultant, note that most criminals in Calgary are "mainstream caucasian Canadians". But in a city where one in four residents is an immigrant, it raises significant questions about what "mainstream" really is.
Not to mention broader questions about what kinds of crime one is talking about. There is, after all, a huge difference between a gang- or drug-related shooting and a kid shoplifting a candybar from the corner store.
(Stewart also talks about the "rise of hate groups" in Calgary, yet seems to overlook the fact that Calgary's Aryan Guard recently had to offer financial enticements to get white supremacists from across the country to move to Calgary. Cleary, hate groups are not on the rise in Alberta.)
In terms of basic political correctness Richardson's comments certainly do seem ill-advised. But at the end of the day, the questions raised do remain legitimate.
If we're going to point to poverty in Canada as a root cause of crime, we have to consider that the poverty and desperation experienced in a refugee camp may be a root cause of crime -- particularly violent crime -- as well.
Kinch's outrage may potentially work wonders for his campaign, but it may only serve to cloud the real issue at hand.
Calgary Centre MP Lee Richardson has found some controversy injected into his reelection bid as NDP candidate Tyler Kinch has called for his resignation over some comments he made to Fast Forward magazine.
Earlier this month, Richardson gave an interview to Fast Forward concerning a rash of recent shootings in Calgary.
“Particularly in big cities, we’ve got people that have grown up in a different culture,” Richardson said. “And they don’t have the same background in terms of the stable communities we had 20, 30 years ago in our cities… and don’t have the same respect for authority or people’s person or property.”
“Canada accepts so many refugees, for example,” he noted. “These are people that have had a very difficult life from whence they came. If you’ve been in a refugee camp, then you live day-to-day. And those are troubled people. They come here and, well, it’s easy to take advantage of people that are trying to help.”
"Talk to the police. Look at who’s committing these crimes. They’re not the kid that grew up next door,” he concluded.
When hearing of Richardson's remarks, Kinch was certainly outraged enough for an NDP candidate, saying he "should resign out of this election for those comments.”
"Crime comes from everywhere, and there are many immigrants in our country that contribute to our society in great ways,” said Kinch. “I don’t think those comments are productive, and I don’t think those comments should come out of an MP’s mouth.”
Certainly, Kinch is right. Immigration very much is the backbone of modern Canadian society, and will only continue to be.
But it seems that Kinch is being fairly selective in his outrage. After all, one need not look much further than Green candidate Natalie Odd's comments regarding the matter.
“There definitely are people from other cultures involved in crime in our cities,” Odd said. “However, we cannot ignore that poverty and exposure to domestic violence… are huge determining factors in people becoming involved in crime. That crosses all cultures.”
And therein lies the rub. Odd notes essentially that Canadian law enforcement needs to also address the contributing factors to crime. And in a country that admits 30,000 refugees annually, it isn't at all unfair to ask if the conditions in most refugee camps -- notorious for their impoverished and overcrowded conditions -- could be a contributing factor to a life of crime, particularly for those who may have grown up in said camps? Perhaps even disproportionately?
Of course it's fair to ask.
But Natalie Odd's resignation from the race in Calgary-Centre isn't likely to make Kinch's bid to win election significantly easier. Better to oppose his opponent of being politically incorrect at best, racist at worst, and see if Kinch can't significant;y improve his odds of winning.
For his own part, Richardson seems to understand how unsavoury his comments truly are.
"That is not my intention. If I misspoke, I apologize to you for that,” Richardson lamented, noting that he only meant to refer to a "small minority" of immigrants.
Richardson also noted that he had based his comments partially on anecdotal evidence collected from his constituents. “What their comments are based on is probably anecdotal — what they read in the newspapers,” he said. "We see anecdotally — and through our experiences here — the differences from the Alberta that I grew up in. And that’s the same in a lot of big cities across the country. That’s really all I was trying to say…. I regret having said that yesterday.”
Some sources, such as Cam Stewart, a former cop and now cross-cultural consultant, note that most criminals in Calgary are "mainstream caucasian Canadians". But in a city where one in four residents is an immigrant, it raises significant questions about what "mainstream" really is.
Not to mention broader questions about what kinds of crime one is talking about. There is, after all, a huge difference between a gang- or drug-related shooting and a kid shoplifting a candybar from the corner store.
(Stewart also talks about the "rise of hate groups" in Calgary, yet seems to overlook the fact that Calgary's Aryan Guard recently had to offer financial enticements to get white supremacists from across the country to move to Calgary. Cleary, hate groups are not on the rise in Alberta.)
In terms of basic political correctness Richardson's comments certainly do seem ill-advised. But at the end of the day, the questions raised do remain legitimate.
If we're going to point to poverty in Canada as a root cause of crime, we have to consider that the poverty and desperation experienced in a refugee camp may be a root cause of crime -- particularly violent crime -- as well.
Kinch's outrage may potentially work wonders for his campaign, but it may only serve to cloud the real issue at hand.
One Good Reason to Vote for Justin Trudeau
These douchebags don't like him
There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Justin Trudeau.
His party leader's policies are clearly one. The real (read: not mythical) legacy of his father is another. The risk of passing the Trudeau political mythology along to another generation is another still.
But in the course of a move clearly meant to embarrass Trudeau, running for the first time in the riding of Papineau, Les Jeunes Patriotes du Quebec gave voters a good reason to vote for him -- he really pisses off separatists.
"[Justin Trudeau] long refused to recognize Quebec as a nation," Francois Gendron, a spokesman for the group, announced. "We are a people and we are a nation."
"If he's going to play rock star he has to deal with the consequences. We're giving his campaign a little colour."
There's little question that, as the 2008 federal election progresses, Justin Trudeau very much has been cast into the role of the rock star. The news that he and his wife are expecting a second child garnered considerable attention on Canada's celebrity talk show circuit.
As the natural heir to the aforementioned Pierre Trudeau political mythology -- one that casts him into the role of national saviour, yet somehow overlooks that Trudeau made the at best boneheaded decision to negotiate the patriation of the constitution while a separatist government was in power in Quebec (just think about that) -- Trudeau has already inherited the mantle of unofficial leadership in the Liberal party. If Stephane Dion is the brains of the party and Bob Rae (who attented Trudeau's campaign launch) is the heart, then Trudeau is certainly the spirit of the party.
His father's role in the decisive defeat of separatist forces in the 1980 referendum made Trudeau a natural target for the separatists.
Normally, it should be considered fickle to support a political candidate simply because one particular group of people doesn't like him. But in Trudeau's case, the contempt separatists hold for him is actually quite the boon for federalist forces in Quebec.
When individuals like Gendron denounce Trudeau for his support of bilingualism -- apparently insisting that Quebec should be unilingually French and the Anglo-Quebeckers who've lived in the province for generations should go to hell -- it really underscores separatists for the bigots so many of them really are.
This is separatism at its worst, and a reminder to Quebeckers who may flirt with their organizations for other reasons to think twice about doing so.
There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Justin Trudeau.
His party leader's policies are clearly one. The real (read: not mythical) legacy of his father is another. The risk of passing the Trudeau political mythology along to another generation is another still.
But in the course of a move clearly meant to embarrass Trudeau, running for the first time in the riding of Papineau, Les Jeunes Patriotes du Quebec gave voters a good reason to vote for him -- he really pisses off separatists."[Justin Trudeau] long refused to recognize Quebec as a nation," Francois Gendron, a spokesman for the group, announced. "We are a people and we are a nation."
"If he's going to play rock star he has to deal with the consequences. We're giving his campaign a little colour."
There's little question that, as the 2008 federal election progresses, Justin Trudeau very much has been cast into the role of the rock star. The news that he and his wife are expecting a second child garnered considerable attention on Canada's celebrity talk show circuit.
As the natural heir to the aforementioned Pierre Trudeau political mythology -- one that casts him into the role of national saviour, yet somehow overlooks that Trudeau made the at best boneheaded decision to negotiate the patriation of the constitution while a separatist government was in power in Quebec (just think about that) -- Trudeau has already inherited the mantle of unofficial leadership in the Liberal party. If Stephane Dion is the brains of the party and Bob Rae (who attented Trudeau's campaign launch) is the heart, then Trudeau is certainly the spirit of the party.
His father's role in the decisive defeat of separatist forces in the 1980 referendum made Trudeau a natural target for the separatists.
Normally, it should be considered fickle to support a political candidate simply because one particular group of people doesn't like him. But in Trudeau's case, the contempt separatists hold for him is actually quite the boon for federalist forces in Quebec.
When individuals like Gendron denounce Trudeau for his support of bilingualism -- apparently insisting that Quebec should be unilingually French and the Anglo-Quebeckers who've lived in the province for generations should go to hell -- it really underscores separatists for the bigots so many of them really are.
This is separatism at its worst, and a reminder to Quebeckers who may flirt with their organizations for other reasons to think twice about doing so.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Toronto Star Caught Red-Tongued
Liar, liar...
With the Toronto Star clearly behind Stephane Dion's Liberal party to the extent of distorting reality, it was only a matter of time until they tried to help Dion's erstwhile party leader, Elizabeth May (since she's writing his policies and all) win her uphill battle against Conservative deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay.
Which they did yesterday when they dug up a story about a $16,400 bill for feeding some Passport Canada staff in March 2007. The author of the story, Dean Beeby, claimed that MacKay had "bent the rules" in order to approve the expenditure. But, as it turned out, some Toronto Star readers were kind enough to write in and reveal that the only one doing any bending was Beeby -- and he was bending the truth.
First off, we have Stephen J Leich of Mississauga, Ontario:
One would think that Beeby must have had a hard time explaining that one to his editor. (This is the Toronto Star we're talking about here, so probably not. -ed.)
But it's entirely possible, as some Liberal partisans will likely rush to insist, that Stephen J Leich is merely a Tory hack reacting on behalf of the party.
Fortunately, Toronto's Geoff Rytell pitched in:
That one must have been a little bit harder to take.
But in the end, this entire episode is considerably less than unsurprising. After all, this is the Toronto Star -- where publishing stories inflating mundane government business into manufactured scandals in the name of hurting the Conservative party is just another day on the job.
One would almost expect some kind of retraction of the obvious mistruths. But, then again (once again), this is the Toronto Star, where journalistic integrity isn't only something they talk about -- it's also something they discard.
At the very least, it's very kind of the Star to come out and actually say what they think of civil servants: they shouldn't be rewarded when they do more than what Canadians expect of them. Apparently, even a working lunch is too much to ask for the suddenly-converted fiscal tightwads at the Star.
With the Toronto Star clearly behind Stephane Dion's Liberal party to the extent of distorting reality, it was only a matter of time until they tried to help Dion's erstwhile party leader, Elizabeth May (since she's writing his policies and all) win her uphill battle against Conservative deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay.
Which they did yesterday when they dug up a story about a $16,400 bill for feeding some Passport Canada staff in March 2007. The author of the story, Dean Beeby, claimed that MacKay had "bent the rules" in order to approve the expenditure. But, as it turned out, some Toronto Star readers were kind enough to write in and reveal that the only one doing any bending was Beeby -- and he was bending the truth.
First off, we have Stephen J Leich of Mississauga, Ontario:
"I have been in private sector management for a number of years and I find the tone of this article to be unnecessarily antagonistic.Ouch!
The total cost quoted in the headline looks like a big number and another example of government waste. Once you read the article, however, you can see that the amount spent comes to $42 per employee, over three weekends.
Most companies think nothing of providing lunches to employees working extra time for necessary projects; in fact, it is usually considered good employee relations. These Passport Canada staffers were dealing with a huge workload, caused by factors outside their control. If providing this minor amount per employee made it more palatable to them to put in this extra effort, I fail to see where it can be considered any sort of problem. Yes, it's unfortunate that the total was so high, and perhaps the deputy minister should have realized that this would be the case before the $5,000 limit was exceeded, but it appears he took steps to rectify the situation.
I know a number of people who were caught up in that backlog of passport applications, and I can't help but feel that this is not an unreasonable cost to minimize the impact on so many Canadians."
One would think that Beeby must have had a hard time explaining that one to his editor. (This is the Toronto Star we're talking about here, so probably not. -ed.)
But it's entirely possible, as some Liberal partisans will likely rush to insist, that Stephen J Leich is merely a Tory hack reacting on behalf of the party.
Fortunately, Toronto's Geoff Rytell pitched in:
"Breaking news: Peter MacKay bent government rules in giving the nod to $16,800 for passport officials' lunches. The facts, unfortunately, don't support the claim. The regulations say that civil servants can be fed at taxpayer expense if they're working overtime. If the cost is more than $5,000, the appropriate minister must approve. MacKay was solicited. He approved. The rules were followed. Assuming that the bureaucrats in question did not imbibe several bottles of Bollinger, where's the story? I, too, am anxious to show Stephen Harper the door but not at the cost of the truth."Ouch.
That one must have been a little bit harder to take.
But in the end, this entire episode is considerably less than unsurprising. After all, this is the Toronto Star -- where publishing stories inflating mundane government business into manufactured scandals in the name of hurting the Conservative party is just another day on the job.
One would almost expect some kind of retraction of the obvious mistruths. But, then again (once again), this is the Toronto Star, where journalistic integrity isn't only something they talk about -- it's also something they discard.
At the very least, it's very kind of the Star to come out and actually say what they think of civil servants: they shouldn't be rewarded when they do more than what Canadians expect of them. Apparently, even a working lunch is too much to ask for the suddenly-converted fiscal tightwads at the Star.
Fists Starting to Fly
As the 2008 federal election reaches the middle of its third week, the war for the airwaves has definitely picked up.
Two days ago, the NDP released this ad. Once again, the ad features the general motifs of the infamous ads that sunk the Liberal party campaign during the 2006 campaign.
The ad takes aim at Stephen Harper's treatment of the economy, accusing Harper of being "strong enough to dangle tiny tax cuts in front of [voters] while handing over $50 billion to coprorations".
The ad features an image of Harper with a string tied around his extended finger. Hanging at the bottom of that string is a tag reading "tiny tax cuts", which seems to be distracting a collection of silhouetted Canadians while heavy haul dump trucks (very similar to the dump trucks used at the Fort MacMurray tarsands) haul cash to an awaiting board room.
As in the previous ad, the blue toned background of the ad then gives way to an orange background, against which NDP leader Jack Layton stands. He then asserts that "the new strong doesn't trick people with token tax cuts," asserting that Stephen Harper and the Conservative party have tricked Canadians with their tax-cutting ways.
He then insists that the NDP would reward companies that keep jobs in Canada.
The ad counter-brands the Tories as misdirecting Canadians with baubles while essentially giving the shop away to major corporations, while branding the NDP as the party that is friendly to the interests of the abstract working-class family.
This is an ad that should play well to the NDP's core constituency. The barely-concealed hostility toward "big corporations" that permeates the typical NDP supporter should be satisfied by this kind of rhetoric.
But the ad does feature a critical weak point. Layton promises to reward companies that keep jobs in Canada.
Yet, to pay taxes in Canada -- and thus be elligible for tax cuts in the first place -- major corporations would have to be operating in Canada. If anything, the Conseratives' "$50 billion giveaway" could be looked at as doing exactly what Layton is insisting he'll do: rewarding companies that keep their operations -- and the jobs that come with it -- in Canada.
It makes one wonder: how, precisely, would Jack Layton reward these companies? By staying true to his election rhetoric and raising taxes on them again by $50 billion?
This ad may prove to have been unwise in raising the spectre of such questions. Then again, it may be unreasonable to expect the anti-corporate constituency this ad is aimed at to even bother asking such questions in the first place.
Hijacked Film Screening Hijacked
Green candidate tries to upstage film screening
Sometimes, the most amusing stories about an election campaign are those that never hit the news media.
The story of Brian Tobin being turned away by a normally-reliable Liberal voter because his party had called an election in the midst of Manitboa's Red River floods is a story that comes to mind.
Under the "lost cause" category of politics, the following is one of hundreds of such stories that almost certainly will emerge in the course of the 2008 federal election:
The Green party candidate in question is most likely Adam Saab, who's running in Victoria, the riding in which the event was held. His behaviour should have Green Party leader Elizabeth May asking herself a question:
Is hijacking community film screenings really the kind of behaviour she condones? Like the Liberal party and their troubles with Green Shift Inc, does May really want her party to be in the business of cutting the throats of those whose support she would otherwise be soliciting?
Just like it's hard to build a Green industry when you're constantly making adversaries out of environmental firms, it's hard to build a relationship with the grassroots -- especially the radical grassroots -- when you're constantly disrupting their events.
One would think that a fringe party like the Green party would understand the fringe political movements they want to appeal to. Instead, it seems that they just don't get it.
Sometimes, the most amusing stories about an election campaign are those that never hit the news media.
The story of Brian Tobin being turned away by a normally-reliable Liberal voter because his party had called an election in the midst of Manitboa's Red River floods is a story that comes to mind.
Under the "lost cause" category of politics, the following is one of hundreds of such stories that almost certainly will emerge in the course of the 2008 federal election:
"Never Mind the Ballots - Politician hijacks film screening I have been organizing and attending all kinds of rallies, discussions, and gatherings arround many issues for many years now, and one thing has over and over made me angry.The organizer in question is Victoria-area social activist Conrad Fletcher. Among other things, he's involved in groups such as Noise Not Bombs.
Tonight there was a film screening at a local volunteer run community space that I work at. I was there as the host, it was a great video, with a great turnout, about 50 people showed up to see "Hijacked Future" a documentary about the pattening of seeds, and how GMO crops, and corporations are destroying local agriculture.
it was a diverse crowd, many farmers, many seniors, many anarchist punks, and youth, and one guy in a suit.
After the film there was a discussion, the first person to put up their hand was the skinny guy in the suit. He introduced himself as someone who works on a farm, and is running for office in the election as a Green party candidate. Throughout the night he kept putting his hand up to keep adding something about how you could join groups that were working to stop this, like the green party, or how you could support good politicians, or similar crap that really boiled down to "vote for me."
Three things bothered me about this;
First off, the fact that over and over the conversation kept being centered around his campaign, he spoke a lot each time he spoke, he kept speaking, which took up a lot of the time, and many people never got to speak at all...
Secondly how the resistance to this corporatization was narrowed into 2 options, vote green party, or buy organic and local. These are both very problematic. I, for example, could not afford to buy organic. Many people cannot which means that we could not be part of the activism if that's all we can do. This option makes activism only possible if you are middle or upper class.
As well with the voting (as if that ever changed anything) if the candidate does not win, then what? Wait till next election?? But the problem is continuing on right now... As well, what if the majority does not care about your issue, or understand it, dose that then mean it is not important? Democracy is based on majority rule (not like we actually have a democracy anyways), thus meaning that if the majority does not agree with your opinion, your voice does not count, and what you think does not matter. this is what Bakunin called the tyrany of the majority. As well there are other options, but the candidates don't went us to think about them. In Oaxaca, and Chaiapas for example the indigenous farmers have decided to go with solutions to their food security that do not involve the government at all, like collectivism, and these strategies have worked well. As well there are many good strategies against corporate control that have been used by other groups like SHAC which is a anti-animal testing group that has done incredibly successful campaigns against HLS a huge animal testing lab based out of the UK and the USA. They have almost shut down this company, and used strategies that are neither based on political parties nor having enough money to be part of it. Rather they have used ecconomic stratagies based on targeting the companies that do buisness with HLS, causing over 500 companies to quit buisness with them, and almost bring the corporate giant to it's knees.
The last thing that bothered me about this was the opportunism. I have known many people that became politicians, often for good reasons. At first they see it as a strategy to get issues dealt with, then after a while it reverses, they seam to see the issues as a strategy to get elected. If he had been there to support the event, he would not have crowded the speaking time, he likely would not have gone home and changed into a suit first, he would not have handed out buisness cards, and would not have made sure to be the first person to speak, and the last for that matter. But this is typical of the politician. He, a new farm hand, came to a meeting attended by many farmers, and told them what they needed to do to resist, as if the farmers did not know better that he did about thier own lives. This attitude is the same attitude that colonialsist used, that many white activists use towards non-whites, and that many men use towards womyns groups.
It seamed ironic to me, the film was called Hijacked Future, and what we ended up with was our event being hijacked by the Green party. They, like all other parties want our support, and will say anything to get it... These are people who show in their actions that they will do almost anything to get power. Do we want them making decisions that affect our future?"
The Green party candidate in question is most likely Adam Saab, who's running in Victoria, the riding in which the event was held. His behaviour should have Green Party leader Elizabeth May asking herself a question:
Is hijacking community film screenings really the kind of behaviour she condones? Like the Liberal party and their troubles with Green Shift Inc, does May really want her party to be in the business of cutting the throats of those whose support she would otherwise be soliciting?
Just like it's hard to build a Green industry when you're constantly making adversaries out of environmental firms, it's hard to build a relationship with the grassroots -- especially the radical grassroots -- when you're constantly disrupting their events.
One would think that a fringe party like the Green party would understand the fringe political movements they want to appeal to. Instead, it seems that they just don't get it.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Intellectual Slavishness of Mallick Worship
"Nothing wrong here", says Unrepentant Old Hippie
As the Mighty Wind of outrage sweeps through the United States and Canada concerning Heather Mallick and her extremely intemperate and, frankly, loonish comments regarding American Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, it's unsurprising that a few members of Canada's extreme left is lining up alongside her in the impending scrum.
Among them, naturally, is Unrepentant Old Hippie JJ, who thinks there's nothing at all wrong with Mallick's extreme commentary, and that so-called right-wing "moonbats" are simply milking "fauxtrage".
However, what JJ in particular seems to miss is the impliations of Mallick's comments on her own personal pet cause -- the pro-abortion lobby.
Now, as with all intellectually dishonest pro-abortion lobbyists, JJ will be among the first to insist that she isn't, in fact, pro-abortion. Instead, she insists, she's pro-choice -- and yet, under the "wrong" circumstances will actually oppose choice and refuse to answer qeustions about that.
Yet when one takes a close second look at Mallick's comments about the much-maligned Briston Palin, it doesn't take a drastic intellectual leap of faith to understand the broader implications:
Never mind the fact that Mallick -- and those who, like her, are delighting themselves in throwing darts at what they've picked out as a vulnerable bullseye -- have never actually met Levi Johnson, and are extremely ill-equipped to judge his character.
Yet the question that remains is this: if Bristol Palin were to do what individuals such as Mallick seem to insist that she should and break off her relationship with Johnson -- again, something that these people actually know very little about, aside that a teen pregnancy has resulted from it -- what would be her alternatives?
This is a very simple question to answer: single parenthood, or an abortion.
Either way, Bristol Palin would spend a significant portion of her life carrying the very real stigma that still accompanies single teenaged parenthood: in short, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If Palin were decide to keep that child, she would face numerous disadvantages -- economically and socially. Whether individuals like Mallick or JJ care to admit it or not, society still tends to treat unwed teenage mothers as "tramps", "sluts", "whores", or any number of other epithets. This stigma encompasses nearly every facet of the young mother's life, both economically and socially.
Worse yet, after the child is born and continues to grow through their school years, that stigma will begin to attach itself to the child, instead.
Then, of course, there's an alternative: abortion. Once again, after having recieved an abortion, the young woman would still carry a very similar label. She would still be regarded as a "tramp", "slut" or "whore", and would actually have to double that with the "baby killer" epithet that the more extreme elements of the anti-abortion lobby would inevitably heave upon her.
The difference, of course, being, that at least after having had an abortion, the young woman in question could at least move somewhere else to escape that stigma (unless, of course, you're living under a media microscope, as Bristol Palin is).
While gleefully rushing to label Bristol's mother as a "toned down porn star", Mallick doesn't seem interested in coming to Bristol Palin's defense, as she's labelled a "slut" in a very public manner.
Defeating the public stigma surrounding teenage pregnancy would go a long way toward empowering young women like Bristol Palin to keep their babies without keeping their (actual or alleged) "ratboy" boyfriends.
But Mallick seems very disinterested in that. Especially not when there are partisan political points to be scored -- in a foreign country, no less -- by helping pile it on.
It would take very little for Heather Mallick -- or JJ, for that matter -- to do the right thing by coming out and admitting that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a private matter, and not a political football to kick around. Instead, we find JJ fetching Mallick the kicking tee in the extremely fickle name of pissing off some "wingnuts".
In Mallick's view, Bristol Palin is a "pramface", her fiancee a "ratboy", soon to be joined in a "shotgun wedding". "White trash", all around. A "slutty", "trampy", "whorish" "Alaskan Hillbilly".
There is, of course, the matter of thousands of other unwed teenaged mothers-to-be in the Unites States, likely taking note of the public humiliation being heaped on Bristol Palin and her family and thinking that an abortion is a much more attractive option than socially stigmatized single parenthood.
And JJ and Heather Mallick, north of the 49th parrallel, fiddling while their alleged "pro-choice" Rome burns to the ground.
They certainly insist that they don't favour abortion, and would prefer that women seek out other options. The other option, however, involves a great deal of social hardship -- and when the one who would suffer such hardship happens to be the daughter of an ideological enemy, all bets are off.
On a fairly similar vein, there's always Martin Rayner and his insistence that "well, other people are doing it, too".
Which doesn't make it any more acceptable, and one can expect that Bill Maher will be taken to task for his comments in time as well.
Then, there's the naturally-emerging protest that "well, the other guys do it, too!" Likely that's what Mallick herself meant when she told herself to "think like a Republican".
The problem with this being that dragging Bristol Palin through the mud in order to get at her mother is no less wrong than right-wing activists targetting the families of their political opponents. (No intellectually honest individual could pretend that such things have never happened.) And while it's abhorrent when right-wingers do it, it's equally abhorrent when left-wingers like Mallick do it.
Which, of course, takes one away from the point: when one considers all the social implications of Mallick's attitude toward Bristol Palin, it actually turns out that her comments regarding Sarah Palin are only the tip of the iceberg.
That's the irony of the entire affair: slavish Mallick worshippers, claiming to be feminists, lining up against the interests of legitimate feminism.
As the Mighty Wind of outrage sweeps through the United States and Canada concerning Heather Mallick and her extremely intemperate and, frankly, loonish comments regarding American Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, it's unsurprising that a few members of Canada's extreme left is lining up alongside her in the impending scrum.
Among them, naturally, is Unrepentant Old Hippie JJ, who thinks there's nothing at all wrong with Mallick's extreme commentary, and that so-called right-wing "moonbats" are simply milking "fauxtrage".
However, what JJ in particular seems to miss is the impliations of Mallick's comments on her own personal pet cause -- the pro-abortion lobby.
Now, as with all intellectually dishonest pro-abortion lobbyists, JJ will be among the first to insist that she isn't, in fact, pro-abortion. Instead, she insists, she's pro-choice -- and yet, under the "wrong" circumstances will actually oppose choice and refuse to answer qeustions about that.
Yet when one takes a close second look at Mallick's comments about the much-maligned Briston Palin, it doesn't take a drastic intellectual leap of faith to understand the broader implications:
"Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a fuckin' redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?It's not too hard to get the gist of Mallick's comments: Palin's relationship with the equally-maligned Levi Johnson is a disgrace, and the pregnancy resulting from it doubly so.
I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don't the Palins? I'm not the one preaching homespun values but I'd destroy that ratboy before I'd let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you.
...
Who delivered this line: "To do then now would be retro. To do then then was very now-tro, if you will." Was it Rev. James Dobson of Focus on the Family talking about Bristol Palin's shotgun wedding or was it a flashback to the Kingston Trio?"
Never mind the fact that Mallick -- and those who, like her, are delighting themselves in throwing darts at what they've picked out as a vulnerable bullseye -- have never actually met Levi Johnson, and are extremely ill-equipped to judge his character.
Yet the question that remains is this: if Bristol Palin were to do what individuals such as Mallick seem to insist that she should and break off her relationship with Johnson -- again, something that these people actually know very little about, aside that a teen pregnancy has resulted from it -- what would be her alternatives?
This is a very simple question to answer: single parenthood, or an abortion.
Either way, Bristol Palin would spend a significant portion of her life carrying the very real stigma that still accompanies single teenaged parenthood: in short, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If Palin were decide to keep that child, she would face numerous disadvantages -- economically and socially. Whether individuals like Mallick or JJ care to admit it or not, society still tends to treat unwed teenage mothers as "tramps", "sluts", "whores", or any number of other epithets. This stigma encompasses nearly every facet of the young mother's life, both economically and socially.
Worse yet, after the child is born and continues to grow through their school years, that stigma will begin to attach itself to the child, instead.
Then, of course, there's an alternative: abortion. Once again, after having recieved an abortion, the young woman would still carry a very similar label. She would still be regarded as a "tramp", "slut" or "whore", and would actually have to double that with the "baby killer" epithet that the more extreme elements of the anti-abortion lobby would inevitably heave upon her.
The difference, of course, being, that at least after having had an abortion, the young woman in question could at least move somewhere else to escape that stigma (unless, of course, you're living under a media microscope, as Bristol Palin is).
While gleefully rushing to label Bristol's mother as a "toned down porn star", Mallick doesn't seem interested in coming to Bristol Palin's defense, as she's labelled a "slut" in a very public manner.
Defeating the public stigma surrounding teenage pregnancy would go a long way toward empowering young women like Bristol Palin to keep their babies without keeping their (actual or alleged) "ratboy" boyfriends.
But Mallick seems very disinterested in that. Especially not when there are partisan political points to be scored -- in a foreign country, no less -- by helping pile it on.
It would take very little for Heather Mallick -- or JJ, for that matter -- to do the right thing by coming out and admitting that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a private matter, and not a political football to kick around. Instead, we find JJ fetching Mallick the kicking tee in the extremely fickle name of pissing off some "wingnuts".
In Mallick's view, Bristol Palin is a "pramface", her fiancee a "ratboy", soon to be joined in a "shotgun wedding". "White trash", all around. A "slutty", "trampy", "whorish" "Alaskan Hillbilly".
There is, of course, the matter of thousands of other unwed teenaged mothers-to-be in the Unites States, likely taking note of the public humiliation being heaped on Bristol Palin and her family and thinking that an abortion is a much more attractive option than socially stigmatized single parenthood.
And JJ and Heather Mallick, north of the 49th parrallel, fiddling while their alleged "pro-choice" Rome burns to the ground.
They certainly insist that they don't favour abortion, and would prefer that women seek out other options. The other option, however, involves a great deal of social hardship -- and when the one who would suffer such hardship happens to be the daughter of an ideological enemy, all bets are off.
On a fairly similar vein, there's always Martin Rayner and his insistence that "well, other people are doing it, too".
Which doesn't make it any more acceptable, and one can expect that Bill Maher will be taken to task for his comments in time as well.
Then, there's the naturally-emerging protest that "well, the other guys do it, too!" Likely that's what Mallick herself meant when she told herself to "think like a Republican".
The problem with this being that dragging Bristol Palin through the mud in order to get at her mother is no less wrong than right-wing activists targetting the families of their political opponents. (No intellectually honest individual could pretend that such things have never happened.) And while it's abhorrent when right-wingers do it, it's equally abhorrent when left-wingers like Mallick do it.
Which, of course, takes one away from the point: when one considers all the social implications of Mallick's attitude toward Bristol Palin, it actually turns out that her comments regarding Sarah Palin are only the tip of the iceberg.
That's the irony of the entire affair: slavish Mallick worshippers, claiming to be feminists, lining up against the interests of legitimate feminism.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Just Call Him Mr Lost Cause
Adam Campbell doesn't stand a chance in Vegreville-Wainwright -- And he knows it
For a party as politically doomed in Alberta as the federal Liberals are, it probably pays to have an individual one can kick around, wheeling him out in various ridings as a glorified punching bag.
For Liberal leaders Paul Martin and (now) Stephane Dion, Adam Campbell is that very individual.
In 2004 and 2006, Campbell lost to Crowfoot MP Kevin Sorenson, who on each occasion captured 80% of the vote in the riding. In 2008, Campbell has been parachuted to run against Vegreville-Wainright incumbent Leon Benoit, who has consistently claimed more than 70% of the vote in his riding.
To credit his acceptance of reality -- if not his competitive spirit -- Campbell seems to have resigned himself to his inevitable October 14 defeat.
"It's going to be a real uphill struggle," Campbell acknowledged. "I'm aiming to get over 10 per cent of the vote."
"I know I stand a very poor chance of winning. That leaves you much more freer. You can be much more controversial, there's much less responsibility," Campbell added.
Which makes a certain amount of sense, if one thinks solely in terms of one's own electability, and not the electability of their party.
Of course, no one's going to suggest that the Liberal party shouldn't run a candidate in Vegreville-Wainwright. After all, an election in which any significant number of candidates are elected by acclaimation is significantly short of democratic.
And certainly the Liberals need a candidate there. Clearly, Duff Stewart must be tired of getting crushed.
One almost has to admire individuals like Adam Campbell. Canadian politics, like anything else, needs its lovable losers.
For a party as politically doomed in Alberta as the federal Liberals are, it probably pays to have an individual one can kick around, wheeling him out in various ridings as a glorified punching bag.
For Liberal leaders Paul Martin and (now) Stephane Dion, Adam Campbell is that very individual.In 2004 and 2006, Campbell lost to Crowfoot MP Kevin Sorenson, who on each occasion captured 80% of the vote in the riding. In 2008, Campbell has been parachuted to run against Vegreville-Wainright incumbent Leon Benoit, who has consistently claimed more than 70% of the vote in his riding.
To credit his acceptance of reality -- if not his competitive spirit -- Campbell seems to have resigned himself to his inevitable October 14 defeat.
"It's going to be a real uphill struggle," Campbell acknowledged. "I'm aiming to get over 10 per cent of the vote."
"I know I stand a very poor chance of winning. That leaves you much more freer. You can be much more controversial, there's much less responsibility," Campbell added.
Which makes a certain amount of sense, if one thinks solely in terms of one's own electability, and not the electability of their party.
Of course, no one's going to suggest that the Liberal party shouldn't run a candidate in Vegreville-Wainwright. After all, an election in which any significant number of candidates are elected by acclaimation is significantly short of democratic.
And certainly the Liberals need a candidate there. Clearly, Duff Stewart must be tired of getting crushed.
One almost has to admire individuals like Adam Campbell. Canadian politics, like anything else, needs its lovable losers.
Dion Makes His Case as a Leader
Ever since his ascension as Liberal party leader, one of the Conservative party's criticisms of Stephane Dion is that he is "not a leader".
The Conservatives played and re-played footage of Dion's embarrassing breakdown onstage during the Liberal leadership contest when he complained that now-deputy leader Michael Ignatieff's criticisms of the Liberal party's performance vis a vis climate change -- and ergo Dion's as Environment Minister -- were "unfair".
With more than a year of these ads -- and necessary interventions by Bob Rae into the Liberal campaign -- erroding the Canadian public's perceptions of Dion as a leader, it's only natural that Dion needs to re-brand and re-assert his leadership qualities during the 2008 campaign.
Thus, the introduction of this new ad.
In it, the Liberals document Dion's leadership at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. As the spot claims, Dion's efforts, despite the incooperativeness of "one country" (guess who?), the Liberal leader secured an agreement among 182 countries to fight global warming.
It seems like an impressive accomplishment -- the very thing that should help to improve impressions of Dion's leadership skills.
Of course, the agreement reached at the UN Climate Change conference seem less impressive once one realizes that so little action was taken by Dion to satisfy Canada's obligations under the agreement afteward. To that end, it seems that Dion is able to assert leadership as it pertains to how other governments are supposed to act. Toward his own? That has, to a certain extent, already been seen.
The spot also plays to an anti-American constituency that the Liberals and NDP have each sought to harness on a regular basis over the past few decades, and particularly over the past eight years.
In noting the alleged incalcitrance of the American government, the ad seems to take on a dramatic note -- Stephane Dion standing up to the goliath of the global stage. But it hardly asserts fresh leadership to follow the same course so often tread by Liberal leaders ever since Pierre Trudeau made it fashionable.
As a further weakness, this ad is merely an election-time reworking of an ad ran by the Liberals in response to the "Not a Leader" ads run by the Tories.
It plays to the necessary frugality of the Liberal campaign -- such an ad can be produced fairly cheaply. But if such an ad failed to improve Canadian impressions of Dion's leadership skills before an election, one has to wonder if it will do so now.
In the end, such questions are largely irrelevant. After the sustained attacks on Dion's leadership abilities, re-branding was necessary one way or the other. Whether or not it succeeds will only be told in time.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Will Bill Casey Be Vindicated in Cumberland-Colchester?
Independent Casey may have an edge in election
During the first few weeks of the 2008 federal election, it's become apparent that Cumberland-Colchester MP Bill Casey may have his work truly cut out for him.
Elected as a Conservative MP during the 2006 election, Casey was kicked out of the Tory caucus for voting against the 2007/08 budget.
Even though the Premier of Nova Scotia, Rodney MacDonald, eventually accepted a compromise on the issue of Equalization and the Atlantic Accord, Casey could not. He legitimately believed he was voting in the best interests of his constituents.
Even as the Conservatives parachuted Joel Bernard, a former provincial MLA in New Brunswick and policy advisor to Stockwell Day to run against Casey and the NDP nominated potential star candidate Brad Pye and has supported him heavily, Casey has drawn new supporters, including an endorsement from Green Party leader Elizabeth May.
The Green party even declined to run a candidate against Casey.
Yet, stripped of Conservative party resources and support, Casey faces a very solitary political climate. He even has to contend against funds raised during his tenure with the Conservative party -- funds that would have been raised for a preposed 2008 Bill Casey Tory campaign.
Yet even as he finds himself cast adrift in the shifting seas of political fortune, Casey has recieved hope from two unlikely sources.
First, from a unique poll conducted by the Fair Trade Community Cafe in Truro Nova Scotia. In a highly unscientific (yet fascinating) "tip poll", in which patrons declared their support for the candidates in their riding by depositing their servers' tip in a marked jar.
Casey came out on top in the poll with a total of $46.70. Pye came in second with a haul of $31.68. A Green Party candidate (yet unnamed) was favoured by $22.25. Bernard was bequeathed $20.23, and Liberal candidate Tracy Parsons earned $15.17.
It's hard to put solid political stock in such an implicitly unscientific poll.
It's easier to put solid political stock into the endorsement of numerous Nova Scotia provincial cabinet ministers: Education Minister Karen Casey (relationship undetermined), Transportation Minister Murray Scott and Service Minister Jamie Muir have stood behind Casey, even as their Premier clearly pulls for the federal Tories.
As the election progresses, it seems that Casey has support amongst his constituents, and friends in high places.
Even with all the disadvantages that tend to pile up against independent candidates, Bill Casey just may retain his riding in Cumberland-Colchester.
During the first few weeks of the 2008 federal election, it's become apparent that Cumberland-Colchester MP Bill Casey may have his work truly cut out for him.
Elected as a Conservative MP during the 2006 election, Casey was kicked out of the Tory caucus for voting against the 2007/08 budget.Even though the Premier of Nova Scotia, Rodney MacDonald, eventually accepted a compromise on the issue of Equalization and the Atlantic Accord, Casey could not. He legitimately believed he was voting in the best interests of his constituents.
Even as the Conservatives parachuted Joel Bernard, a former provincial MLA in New Brunswick and policy advisor to Stockwell Day to run against Casey and the NDP nominated potential star candidate Brad Pye and has supported him heavily, Casey has drawn new supporters, including an endorsement from Green Party leader Elizabeth May.
The Green party even declined to run a candidate against Casey.
Yet, stripped of Conservative party resources and support, Casey faces a very solitary political climate. He even has to contend against funds raised during his tenure with the Conservative party -- funds that would have been raised for a preposed 2008 Bill Casey Tory campaign.
Yet even as he finds himself cast adrift in the shifting seas of political fortune, Casey has recieved hope from two unlikely sources.
First, from a unique poll conducted by the Fair Trade Community Cafe in Truro Nova Scotia. In a highly unscientific (yet fascinating) "tip poll", in which patrons declared their support for the candidates in their riding by depositing their servers' tip in a marked jar.
Casey came out on top in the poll with a total of $46.70. Pye came in second with a haul of $31.68. A Green Party candidate (yet unnamed) was favoured by $22.25. Bernard was bequeathed $20.23, and Liberal candidate Tracy Parsons earned $15.17.
It's hard to put solid political stock in such an implicitly unscientific poll.
It's easier to put solid political stock into the endorsement of numerous Nova Scotia provincial cabinet ministers: Education Minister Karen Casey (relationship undetermined), Transportation Minister Murray Scott and Service Minister Jamie Muir have stood behind Casey, even as their Premier clearly pulls for the federal Tories.
As the election progresses, it seems that Casey has support amongst his constituents, and friends in high places.
Even with all the disadvantages that tend to pile up against independent candidates, Bill Casey just may retain his riding in Cumberland-Colchester.
Harper to Ritz: Thanks a Lot, Gerry
In the branding war that inevitably envelopes any modern political election, Gerry Ritz may have just handed the Liberal party a potential atom bomb -- or at least a biological weapon.
In an ad released yesterday, the Liberal party has taken aim at Stephen Harper via Ritz. In detailing Ritz's outrageous and unacceptable comments regarding the Listeria outbreak, this spot has the potential to critically wound the Conservatives in virtually any riding where Listeriosis claimed a victim.
Entitled "The Real Harper", the ad describes Ritz's comments (very accurately) as "a new low".
After detailing Ritz's comments, accusing him of playing politics while 17 Canadians died -- itself a likely inaccurate claim -- the ad notes Harper's refusal to fire Ritz, accusing him of "standing by his crony".
Crony, rather than colleague.
In the end, it asks voters a very simple question: "do you really want more of this?" It's the kind of episode that may give many decided Conserative voters pause to reconsider.
In a sense, this spot takes aim at an easy target. It's easy to counter-brand Stephen Harper with an image that he'll inevitably have to wear as Ritz' party leader. But then again, considering that Harper had an opportunity to discipline Ritz -- that is, aside from a likely private screaming session -- and declined, Harper very much has agreed to take this controversy upon his own shoulders.
Of course, the ad doesn't mention a similar incident involving the Liberal party -- one that, fortunately for the Grits, didn't directly relate to the deaths of Canadians.
This ad scores a critical counter-branding hit to Harper's carefully-crafted "sweater vest" persona. (Then again, questions remain about how severe the damage really is, considering that this is an image Canadians have largely been rejecting.
Either way, Stephen Harper has no one but Gerry Ritz -- and himself -- to blame for this blow to his brand image. It will take some strenuous re-branding to try and recover from it.
It's hard to fault the Liberals for taking advantage of this gaffe. The Conservatives certainly would have done likewise to the Liberals given the opportunity.
Perhaps in time, Harper will think of an appropriate way to "thank" Gerry Ritz.
Delicious Irony, Bob Rae Style
Does Bob Rae really seem to be the appropriate guy to carry an anti-NDP message?
It's been said that a leopard never changes his spots -- an adage that could take some fascinating twists around Liberal leader Stephane Dion's right-hand man, Bob Rae.
Rae, it's been constantly noted, used to be the NDP Premier of Ontario. Now, he's running for the Liberal party.
Rae spent today touring British Columbia, one of the NDP's traditional bastions of strength, claiming that only the Liberal party could prevent a Stephen Harper majority.
"I have no hesitation in saying that Jack Layton's NDP -- as it's now called -- really has taken some very bizarre positions," Rae announced. He pointed the finger squarely at NDP leader Jack Layton for helping defeat Paul Martin's minority government, leading to the election that ended up with Stephen Harper emerging victorious.
"That's why I describe the Harper government as the house that Jack built," Rae said.
Unsurprisingly, Rae clearly overlooks the rampang corruption of the 13-year Liberal government which culiminated in (but certainly was not limited to) the Sponsorship Scandal. Martin's too-little-too-late efforts to clean up the mess notwithstanding, allowing a government that had so clearly devestated the public trust would actually have been inrresponsible.
In fact, Layton's decision to pull the plug on Martin was actually the repsonsible thing to do for his own party. The NDP improved its seat total to 29 -- a ten-seat improvement from 19. Layton accomplished this task at the direct expense of the Liberal party.
Apparently, Jack Layton never recieved Rae's memo professing his obvious belief that the #1 priority of the NDP is to keep the Liberal party in power. Apparently.
Rae's finger-pointing in BC really point back to two things: first, a Liberal inability to accept responsibility for their own defeat. Secondly, as Michael Byers points out, it seems to suggest some desperation on Rae and Dion's part.
"I find it strange that Bob Rae, who is not yet the leader of the Liberal party, has come all the way to British Columbia to help Stephane Dion out here," Byers announced. "It's a reflection of just how badly Mr. Dion is doing in communicating his policy. I think it's an act of desperation."
In the end, Rae's desparation seems to have him dabbling in sheer irony.
After all, Bob Rae didn't decline to defeat then-Ontario Premier David Petersen in the 1990 Ontario election.
Out, damn spot.
It's been said that a leopard never changes his spots -- an adage that could take some fascinating twists around Liberal leader Stephane Dion's right-hand man, Bob Rae.
Rae, it's been constantly noted, used to be the NDP Premier of Ontario. Now, he's running for the Liberal party.
Rae spent today touring British Columbia, one of the NDP's traditional bastions of strength, claiming that only the Liberal party could prevent a Stephen Harper majority.
"I have no hesitation in saying that Jack Layton's NDP -- as it's now called -- really has taken some very bizarre positions," Rae announced. He pointed the finger squarely at NDP leader Jack Layton for helping defeat Paul Martin's minority government, leading to the election that ended up with Stephen Harper emerging victorious.
"That's why I describe the Harper government as the house that Jack built," Rae said.
Unsurprisingly, Rae clearly overlooks the rampang corruption of the 13-year Liberal government which culiminated in (but certainly was not limited to) the Sponsorship Scandal. Martin's too-little-too-late efforts to clean up the mess notwithstanding, allowing a government that had so clearly devestated the public trust would actually have been inrresponsible.
In fact, Layton's decision to pull the plug on Martin was actually the repsonsible thing to do for his own party. The NDP improved its seat total to 29 -- a ten-seat improvement from 19. Layton accomplished this task at the direct expense of the Liberal party.
Apparently, Jack Layton never recieved Rae's memo professing his obvious belief that the #1 priority of the NDP is to keep the Liberal party in power. Apparently.
Rae's finger-pointing in BC really point back to two things: first, a Liberal inability to accept responsibility for their own defeat. Secondly, as Michael Byers points out, it seems to suggest some desperation on Rae and Dion's part.
"I find it strange that Bob Rae, who is not yet the leader of the Liberal party, has come all the way to British Columbia to help Stephane Dion out here," Byers announced. "It's a reflection of just how badly Mr. Dion is doing in communicating his policy. I think it's an act of desperation."
In the end, Rae's desparation seems to have him dabbling in sheer irony.
After all, Bob Rae didn't decline to defeat then-Ontario Premier David Petersen in the 1990 Ontario election.
Out, damn spot.
Friday, September 19, 2008
A Bizarre Taste of Their Own Medicine
However will Canada's pro-CHRC crowd carve this Turkey?
In what must certainly be regarded as a rather bizarre twist for many supporters of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, global atheist heavyweight Richard Dawkins' website has been banned in Turkey.
In what appears to the rational mind to be a rather befuddling and childish complaint, well-established Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar -- also known by his pen name, Harun Yahya -- complained that Dawkins insulted him on numerous online forums and blogs.
"We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people," said Seda Aral, Oktar's press assistant. "We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed. We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."
Oktar has described Dawkins' criticisms of Oktar's the Atlas of Creation as "defamatory" and "blasphemous".
Interestingly, many of Richard Dawkins' most fervent supporters in Canada were also wildly supportive of the complaints filed against Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant when he published the infamous "Prophet Mohammad cartoons" that had incited riots in Denmark.
Levant more recently faces complains regarding his re-publishing of the letter written by Reverend Stephen Boissoin to the Red Deer Advocate.
For the record, LGBT website Xtra.ca has also re-printed the letter. Whether or not they'll be subject of a CHRC complaint has yet to be seen, but should be considered fairly predictable.
The nature of the complaint was that the cartoons in question were "defamatory", and "encouraged hatred".
Meanwhile, Oktar also attempted to have Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, claiming that it encourages hatred of religion. Fortunately, Oktar was unsuccessful to that end.
It should be interesting to see how the pro-Dawkins, pro-CHRC crowd will react to this little nugget.
But if they have any sense in their heads whatsoever -- and in some cases, that has yet to be seen -- they may be persuaded to take a new stance toward the runaway CHRC.
"In the words of the late great Colonel Sanders: I'm too drunk to taste this chicken."
In what must certainly be regarded as a rather bizarre twist for many supporters of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, global atheist heavyweight Richard Dawkins' website has been banned in Turkey.
In what appears to the rational mind to be a rather befuddling and childish complaint, well-established Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar -- also known by his pen name, Harun Yahya -- complained that Dawkins insulted him on numerous online forums and blogs.
"We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people," said Seda Aral, Oktar's press assistant. "We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed. We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."
Oktar has described Dawkins' criticisms of Oktar's the Atlas of Creation as "defamatory" and "blasphemous".
Interestingly, many of Richard Dawkins' most fervent supporters in Canada were also wildly supportive of the complaints filed against Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant when he published the infamous "Prophet Mohammad cartoons" that had incited riots in Denmark.
Levant more recently faces complains regarding his re-publishing of the letter written by Reverend Stephen Boissoin to the Red Deer Advocate.
For the record, LGBT website Xtra.ca has also re-printed the letter. Whether or not they'll be subject of a CHRC complaint has yet to be seen, but should be considered fairly predictable.
The nature of the complaint was that the cartoons in question were "defamatory", and "encouraged hatred".
Meanwhile, Oktar also attempted to have Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, claiming that it encourages hatred of religion. Fortunately, Oktar was unsuccessful to that end.
It should be interesting to see how the pro-Dawkins, pro-CHRC crowd will react to this little nugget.
But if they have any sense in their heads whatsoever -- and in some cases, that has yet to be seen -- they may be persuaded to take a new stance toward the runaway CHRC.
"In the words of the late great Colonel Sanders: I'm too drunk to taste this chicken."
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Viral Politics 101
With the advent of web 2.0, viral politics has been all the rage for a good long time now.
Yet with many attempts by presumedly younger (predumedly hipper) individuals attempting to take their political messages to the internet, it's probably ironic that a 72-year-old man can do it better.
The Broadbent video above is everything a viral video should be: captivating, and worht passing around through word-of-mouth.
Quite unlike the Conservative alternative below.
In the above ad, Broadbent manages to successfully brand himself as hip by accepting his inevitable un-hipness. The ad is a classic throwback to the terminally un-hip ads of the early 1990s when rap and hip hop were only becoming household words. Its campiness -- and clearly intentionally poor production value -- carries it a long way.
(Admit it. You can't stop watching this bloody thing, can you? -Ed.)
If only Canada's current political leaders could manage something this brilliant, they'd really be in business.
Gerry Ritz in Context
Unforunate as it is, all parties have their asshole candidates
As the controversy surrounding the ridiculous comments made by federal Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz -- not-so-cleverly dubbed "Ritz Crackers" by the Edmonton Sun -- Canadians are reminded of a sobering fact.
Many politicians are assholes.
For his own part, Ritz's comments transcend assholishness. Gerry Ritz is not merely an asshole. Gerry Ritz is a fucking asshole. (And yet while living in Lloydminster, you voted for that guy twice. Funny, that. -Ed)
In a conference call with Department of Agriculture bureaucrats, scientists and his political staff, Ritz made some... colourful comments regarding the Listeria outbreak related to Maple Leaf Foods throughout August and September.
This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts," Ritz remarked (cue drum beat).
After hearing Listerosis had claimed a victim in Prince Edward Island, Ritz said. "Please tell me it's Wayne Easter."
Easter has called for Ritz's resignation over the Conservative handling of the outbreak -- despite the fact that Michael McCain, the CEO of Maple Leaf Foods has already exhonerated the government, noting that Maple Leaf staff is to blame for the outbreak.
Of course, there are no political points to be scored in allowing Maple Leaf Foods to take responsibility for the matter.
Easter had previously claimed that the Tories were conspiring against him. Which is an odd accusation, considering that Liberal leader Stephane Dion is blatantly conspiring with Green party leader Elizabeth May to dislodge Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay.
The "Ritz Crackers" affair is outrageous, but it brings to memory another outrageous episode in recent Canadian political history in which Jane Cornelius, the president of the St Catharines Liberal riding association distributed a joke about a hypothetical assassination of Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- by allied troops, no less.
Meanwhile Walt Lastewka, a Liberal candidate and former MP embroiled in the Cornelius affair by way of his dfense of Cornelius, showed considerable class recently by temporarily suspending his campaign in the wake of Tory opponent (and incumbent) Rick Dykstra's recent bereavement.
On another, distinctly un-classy, note much has been made about Harper's defense of Ritz, and for good reason. But then one also has to recall that Stephane Dion merely accepted Cornelius' apology in St Catharines and pursued no futher action.
In each case, apparently, a simple apology is supposed to make the whole matter go away. But it doesn't.
Canadians have the right to expect higher standards of those involved in politics. Just as Cornelius let down her former Liberals and the constituents of her riding, Gerry Ritz has let down his fellow Conservatives and, more importantly, the constituents of Battleford-Lloydminster.
If the individuals in question won't say so, their leaders should. In each case, the leaders in question will inevitably have to wear the indiscretions of their prematurely-excused colleagues.
There is no question that Gerry Ritz and Jane Cornelius are assholes.
Unfortunately, however, this is politics. There are plenty of assholes to go around.
As the controversy surrounding the ridiculous comments made by federal Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz -- not-so-cleverly dubbed "Ritz Crackers" by the Edmonton Sun -- Canadians are reminded of a sobering fact.
Many politicians are assholes.
For his own part, Ritz's comments transcend assholishness. Gerry Ritz is not merely an asshole. Gerry Ritz is a fucking asshole. (And yet while living in Lloydminster, you voted for that guy twice. Funny, that. -Ed)
In a conference call with Department of Agriculture bureaucrats, scientists and his political staff, Ritz made some... colourful comments regarding the Listeria outbreak related to Maple Leaf Foods throughout August and September.
This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts," Ritz remarked (cue drum beat).
After hearing Listerosis had claimed a victim in Prince Edward Island, Ritz said. "Please tell me it's Wayne Easter."
Easter has called for Ritz's resignation over the Conservative handling of the outbreak -- despite the fact that Michael McCain, the CEO of Maple Leaf Foods has already exhonerated the government, noting that Maple Leaf staff is to blame for the outbreak.
Of course, there are no political points to be scored in allowing Maple Leaf Foods to take responsibility for the matter.
Easter had previously claimed that the Tories were conspiring against him. Which is an odd accusation, considering that Liberal leader Stephane Dion is blatantly conspiring with Green party leader Elizabeth May to dislodge Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay.
The "Ritz Crackers" affair is outrageous, but it brings to memory another outrageous episode in recent Canadian political history in which Jane Cornelius, the president of the St Catharines Liberal riding association distributed a joke about a hypothetical assassination of Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- by allied troops, no less.
Meanwhile Walt Lastewka, a Liberal candidate and former MP embroiled in the Cornelius affair by way of his dfense of Cornelius, showed considerable class recently by temporarily suspending his campaign in the wake of Tory opponent (and incumbent) Rick Dykstra's recent bereavement.
On another, distinctly un-classy, note much has been made about Harper's defense of Ritz, and for good reason. But then one also has to recall that Stephane Dion merely accepted Cornelius' apology in St Catharines and pursued no futher action.
In each case, apparently, a simple apology is supposed to make the whole matter go away. But it doesn't.
Canadians have the right to expect higher standards of those involved in politics. Just as Cornelius let down her former Liberals and the constituents of her riding, Gerry Ritz has let down his fellow Conservatives and, more importantly, the constituents of Battleford-Lloydminster.
If the individuals in question won't say so, their leaders should. In each case, the leaders in question will inevitably have to wear the indiscretions of their prematurely-excused colleagues.
There is no question that Gerry Ritz and Jane Cornelius are assholes.
Unfortunately, however, this is politics. There are plenty of assholes to go around.
Canadian Leaders Can't Sell Ice To...
...Well, you know...
A recent poll conducted by Ipsos Reid suggests that Canada's political leaders may not be selling themselves to Canadians quite as effectively as they had hoped.
Conservative party leader Stephen Harper's brand image of a sound economic leader, Liberal leader Stephane Dion's brand image of an economically-sound environmentist and NDP leader Jack Layton's brand image of a working-class crusader seem to have been rejcted by Canadians.
"People do think the direction he [Harper] would take the country if he was unfettered from a minority government is something that they wouldn't like to see," suggested polster Darrell Bricker. "More in line with what George Bush might do if he was elected prime minister."
According to Bricker, 50% of Canadians agreed that a Harper majority would govern like George W Bush.
Another 50% seem to believe that Harper does have a hidden agenda.
45% disagreed with the notion that Jack Layton would act in the interest of working-class Canadians. It turns out that Layton may not be able to fill the Barack Obama-esque shoes he's picked out for himself. "When we start talking about things like issues he wants to talk about, I don't know that he has credibility," Bricker noted.
Liberal party leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift was rejected by 55% of polled Canadians.
But only 48% of Canadians believe electing Dion is too risky. "That means there's another 52 per cent who think that's not a problem. It shows that he's capable of being in the game," Bricker said. "It shows that instead of campaigning on specific environmental and economic issues, he should just be going after Harper."
Of course, on the other hand, it also means that Harper only has to maintain his focus on Dion's Green Shift. And just because 52% of Canadians don't yet think Dion is too big a risk to take, that doesn't mean they can't be convinced.
In the meantime, Canadian political leaders are going to have to get a lot more sophisticated if they want to be able to brand themselves according to their own wishes.
In some cases, the enterprise is largely doomed from the start. For example, Jack Layton wants to brand himself and his party as the party for "working class Canadians". Yet more and more working class Canadians are waking up to the reality that "working class" is really only a rhetorical abstraction, and that they've been enjoying the standard of living previously enjoyed by the so-called "middle class".
Layton seemingly has yet to clue in to the fact that, particularly in western Canada, non-unionized working class voters tend to vote Conservative rather than NDP.
For proof of that, one need only set foot on an Alberta drilling rig and ask them who they're voting for. Layton isn't terribly likely to get a rousing endorsement.
In other words, Dion continues to brand himself in a largely out-dated and innacurate role, while economic circumstances themselves serve as a counter-branding force.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper tries to brand himself as an inherently moderate politician. Which should be fair enough -- his time in office has mostly proven that to be true. But Harper is trying to do this while his opponents bend over backwards to portray him as "Steve", George W Bush's northern sidekick with a sinister hidden agenda.
In order to effectively re-brand, Harper would need to be able to decisively refute the counter-branding accusations of his opponents. This, of course, leaves him facing something of a dilemma: how does one refute a premise that rests on a fundamental lack of evidence for it?
The only way Harper could hope to re-brand his image would be to win a majority government than govern entirely differently than most Canadians seem to expect him to. Therein lies Harper's fundamental problem: a majority government is what most Canadians seem afraid to trust him with.
For Stephane Dion, his insistence that his Green Shift is economically safe is too easily undermined by the grandiosity of his plans. He could certainly follow Bricker's advice and simply attack Harper, but at the end of the day, he would be left without an image to rally voters around.
The famed Liberal party brand may be enough to secure the support of the Liberal partisans who aren't being driven away by his Green Shift ambitions, and perhaps even woo a few environmentalists (those who can be drawn away from the Green party and NDP). Yet there remains a question of whether or not Harper and the Conservatives won't recieve an election-day ballot box bonus in the form of conservative Liberals voting to avert a potential economic disaster with the Liberal party logo stamped all over it.
Canada's political leaders may be able to do a better job of selling their chosen brand images if they adjust their approach. Then again, the notion of choosing brand images that are more in line with the popular opinion of those leaders should have a certain pragmatic appeal as well.
A recent poll conducted by Ipsos Reid suggests that Canada's political leaders may not be selling themselves to Canadians quite as effectively as they had hoped.
Conservative party leader Stephen Harper's brand image of a sound economic leader, Liberal leader Stephane Dion's brand image of an economically-sound environmentist and NDP leader Jack Layton's brand image of a working-class crusader seem to have been rejcted by Canadians.
"People do think the direction he [Harper] would take the country if he was unfettered from a minority government is something that they wouldn't like to see," suggested polster Darrell Bricker. "More in line with what George Bush might do if he was elected prime minister."
According to Bricker, 50% of Canadians agreed that a Harper majority would govern like George W Bush.
Another 50% seem to believe that Harper does have a hidden agenda.
45% disagreed with the notion that Jack Layton would act in the interest of working-class Canadians. It turns out that Layton may not be able to fill the Barack Obama-esque shoes he's picked out for himself. "When we start talking about things like issues he wants to talk about, I don't know that he has credibility," Bricker noted.
Liberal party leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift was rejected by 55% of polled Canadians.
But only 48% of Canadians believe electing Dion is too risky. "That means there's another 52 per cent who think that's not a problem. It shows that he's capable of being in the game," Bricker said. "It shows that instead of campaigning on specific environmental and economic issues, he should just be going after Harper."
Of course, on the other hand, it also means that Harper only has to maintain his focus on Dion's Green Shift. And just because 52% of Canadians don't yet think Dion is too big a risk to take, that doesn't mean they can't be convinced.
In the meantime, Canadian political leaders are going to have to get a lot more sophisticated if they want to be able to brand themselves according to their own wishes.
In some cases, the enterprise is largely doomed from the start. For example, Jack Layton wants to brand himself and his party as the party for "working class Canadians". Yet more and more working class Canadians are waking up to the reality that "working class" is really only a rhetorical abstraction, and that they've been enjoying the standard of living previously enjoyed by the so-called "middle class".
Layton seemingly has yet to clue in to the fact that, particularly in western Canada, non-unionized working class voters tend to vote Conservative rather than NDP.
For proof of that, one need only set foot on an Alberta drilling rig and ask them who they're voting for. Layton isn't terribly likely to get a rousing endorsement.
In other words, Dion continues to brand himself in a largely out-dated and innacurate role, while economic circumstances themselves serve as a counter-branding force.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper tries to brand himself as an inherently moderate politician. Which should be fair enough -- his time in office has mostly proven that to be true. But Harper is trying to do this while his opponents bend over backwards to portray him as "Steve", George W Bush's northern sidekick with a sinister hidden agenda.
In order to effectively re-brand, Harper would need to be able to decisively refute the counter-branding accusations of his opponents. This, of course, leaves him facing something of a dilemma: how does one refute a premise that rests on a fundamental lack of evidence for it?
The only way Harper could hope to re-brand his image would be to win a majority government than govern entirely differently than most Canadians seem to expect him to. Therein lies Harper's fundamental problem: a majority government is what most Canadians seem afraid to trust him with.
For Stephane Dion, his insistence that his Green Shift is economically safe is too easily undermined by the grandiosity of his plans. He could certainly follow Bricker's advice and simply attack Harper, but at the end of the day, he would be left without an image to rally voters around.
The famed Liberal party brand may be enough to secure the support of the Liberal partisans who aren't being driven away by his Green Shift ambitions, and perhaps even woo a few environmentalists (those who can be drawn away from the Green party and NDP). Yet there remains a question of whether or not Harper and the Conservatives won't recieve an election-day ballot box bonus in the form of conservative Liberals voting to avert a potential economic disaster with the Liberal party logo stamped all over it.
Canada's political leaders may be able to do a better job of selling their chosen brand images if they adjust their approach. Then again, the notion of choosing brand images that are more in line with the popular opinion of those leaders should have a certain pragmatic appeal as well.
That Sure Didn't Take Long
With opposition parties likely getting ready to gear up their law and order policy planks following yesterday's school shooting in Toronto, it's unsurprising that the Conservatives have reacted so quickly with a spot addressing crime.
With Stephane Dion likely to step up his gun control-related rhetoric in the aftermath of these shootings, the Conservatives seem to be moving to preemptively re-brand ahead of futher accusations on Dion's behalf that the Tories haven't made Canada a safer place.
In the ad -- clearly produced at the same time as the preceding "sweater vest" ads -- Harper talks about the need for preventative measures when dealing with crime, but notes that "soft on crime does not work".
The implicit accusation is that the opposition parties are soft on crime -- an accusation that could gain traction in wake of the opposition's treatment of various Conservative anti-crime bills.
In other words, the Conservative campaign is counter-branding the opposition as soft on crime even as it re-brands itself as the party of law and order.
Moreover, the advertising arm of the Conservative campaign is clearly operating just the way it should. It's been responsive to the news and proactive in regards to the opposition.
A question remains about whether the Tory crime spot is being released too soon following the high-profile Toronto shooting. But one thing's for certain: in terms of advertising, the Conservative machine is burying their competitors, and the party's extremely successful fundraising is helping them do it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Dion's Problem With the the Economy
Stephane Dion's 'plan b' is still 'plan a'
With the Liberal campaign continuing to sag (yet somehow the Toronto Star figures it's "firing on all cylinders" -- Quelle surprise!), the common wisdom seems to be that Stephane Dion needs to stop talking about the Green Shift plan.
Because most Canadians are clearly more concerned about the economy, they argue, Dion should instead be talking about that.
Unfortunately for Dion, Dion's plan for the environment -- the Green Shift -- is also his plan for the economy.
And it only gets worse from there. As Conservative strategist Tim Powers points out in today's Globe and Mail, Bob Rae carries all kind of economic baggage with him from his days as the Premier of Ontario. Rae also managed to almost entirely alienate his former NDP followers -- the same followers the Liberal party will need to woo in order to stave off a third-place finish in this election, let alone win.
But Stephane Dion's environmental problem has become his campaign problem. And with little else of substance to campaign on, Dion may have no way out of this one -- and little hope of even holding on to the keys of Stornoway, let alone upgrading to 24 Sussex Drive.
With the Liberal campaign continuing to sag (yet somehow the Toronto Star figures it's "firing on all cylinders" -- Quelle surprise!), the common wisdom seems to be that Stephane Dion needs to stop talking about the Green Shift plan.
Because most Canadians are clearly more concerned about the economy, they argue, Dion should instead be talking about that.
Unfortunately for Dion, Dion's plan for the environment -- the Green Shift -- is also his plan for the economy.
But Stephane Dion's environmental problem has become his campaign problem. And with little else of substance to campaign on, Dion may have no way out of this one -- and little hope of even holding on to the keys of Stornoway, let alone upgrading to 24 Sussex Drive.
Tory Eyes Blind to the World Outside?
Conservatives thin on foreign policy thinkersm experience
As conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia continue to dominate the established international agenda and advocates for intervention in Zimbabwe, Myanmar and the Sudan continue to demand attention, there is no question that foreign policy will be a hot-button topic in the new Parliament regardless of which party wins the election.
On that note, some may be surprised to find out that, since current Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson has declined to run for reelection, the incumbent Conservative party is shockingly short on foreign policy expertise.
Emerson, most will recall, took over the portfolio from Maxime Bernier, whose misadventures with classified information made him a tremendous liability to cabinet. Previous to Bernier's ascension to the portfolio -- which speculation suggests he was never had any interest in -- Peter MacKay handled the department fairly successfully before being suffled to National Defense to make up for the emerging of deficiencies of previous minister Gordon O'Connor.
MacKay has since managed the Department of Defense effectively. Which leads one to wonder whom, precisely, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would appoint to Foreign Affairs following what currently seems to be an impending election victory.
As Embassy points out, however, the Conservatives seem to be suffering from a shortage of experience and expertise on the Foreign Affairs portfolio, while their various opponents seem to be awash in it.
First and foremost, naturally, there's Liberal Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff has written extensively on the topic of human rights, ethnic conflict, and the laws of war. He also has a tremendous amount of journalistic experience under his belt, harkening to his days with the BBC.
The NDP's answer to Michael Ignatieff is Michael Byers. Byers is a recognized expert on arctic sovereignty issues, and served as part of the Amnesty International legal team that sought Augusto Pinochet's conviction for crimes against humanity.
Also representing the NDP is Brad Pye, who has experience advancing democracy abroad with the National Democratic Institute (which, unsurprisingly, has deep ties to the American Democratic party, serving to further undermine NDP complaints about alleged importing of American political ideas by the Conservative party).
Also running for the Liberals is Dr Kirsty Duncan, a former panelist on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- expertise which clearly falls into line with Stephane Dion's Green Shift agenda.
The Liberal ticket will also feature Anne Park Shannon, a former civil servant in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
War Child Canada president Dr Eric Hoskins will also be running for the Liberals. Hoskins will almost certainly supplement Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire's expertise on issues related to children in warzones, particularly child soldiers.
Attempting a comeback is former Liberal Defense Minister David Pratt. Pratt has been out of Parliament since his 2004 defeat at the hands of Conservative Pierre Poillevre.
With arguably little expertise to spread between Foreign Affairs and Defense, Pratt would provide the Liberals with yet another weapon to use against the Conservative government -- provided, of course that he can manage to unseat Tory Environment Minister John Baird.
The Green party also has a score of candidates promoting themselves as foreign policy experts -- foremost among them the Ottawa Group of Four.
The Conservatives are considered to have one foreign policy heavyweight in their fold -- Patrick Boyer, who served in various foreign affairs-related sectors under Brian Mulroney. However, Boyer is running against the aforementioned Michael Ignatieff, and is as such unlikely to win.
With so many formidable (or at least formidable-seeming) opponents to compete against, it's a near certainty that foreign policy will be a weakpoint for the Conservatives not only during this election, but also during the upcoming Parliament.
There is, of course, a long-term solution to this problem: the Tories need to cultivate stronger relationships with the Senior Civil Service in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and need to start cultivating stronger relationships with various international Non Governmental Organizations.
That the Conservative party is attracting so few potential candidates from NGOs perhaps underscores a fundamental lack of understanding about the emerging shape of the global political order: one in which governments cooperate with civil society in the formulation of foreign policy.
The Conservatives are also clearly lacking a relationship with academia. If the Conservatives truly want to be able to claim to have an eye on the outside world, it would pay to start recruting from those who actually study it.
Until the Conservative party can muster some candidates with legitimate foreign policy chops, it will be hard to view a Conservative foreign policy as comprehensive and outward-looking.
As conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia continue to dominate the established international agenda and advocates for intervention in Zimbabwe, Myanmar and the Sudan continue to demand attention, there is no question that foreign policy will be a hot-button topic in the new Parliament regardless of which party wins the election.
On that note, some may be surprised to find out that, since current Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson has declined to run for reelection, the incumbent Conservative party is shockingly short on foreign policy expertise.
Emerson, most will recall, took over the portfolio from Maxime Bernier, whose misadventures with classified information made him a tremendous liability to cabinet. Previous to Bernier's ascension to the portfolio -- which speculation suggests he was never had any interest in -- Peter MacKay handled the department fairly successfully before being suffled to National Defense to make up for the emerging of deficiencies of previous minister Gordon O'Connor.
MacKay has since managed the Department of Defense effectively. Which leads one to wonder whom, precisely, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would appoint to Foreign Affairs following what currently seems to be an impending election victory.
As Embassy points out, however, the Conservatives seem to be suffering from a shortage of experience and expertise on the Foreign Affairs portfolio, while their various opponents seem to be awash in it.
First and foremost, naturally, there's Liberal Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff has written extensively on the topic of human rights, ethnic conflict, and the laws of war. He also has a tremendous amount of journalistic experience under his belt, harkening to his days with the BBC.
The NDP's answer to Michael Ignatieff is Michael Byers. Byers is a recognized expert on arctic sovereignty issues, and served as part of the Amnesty International legal team that sought Augusto Pinochet's conviction for crimes against humanity.
Also representing the NDP is Brad Pye, who has experience advancing democracy abroad with the National Democratic Institute (which, unsurprisingly, has deep ties to the American Democratic party, serving to further undermine NDP complaints about alleged importing of American political ideas by the Conservative party).
Also running for the Liberals is Dr Kirsty Duncan, a former panelist on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- expertise which clearly falls into line with Stephane Dion's Green Shift agenda.
The Liberal ticket will also feature Anne Park Shannon, a former civil servant in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
War Child Canada president Dr Eric Hoskins will also be running for the Liberals. Hoskins will almost certainly supplement Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire's expertise on issues related to children in warzones, particularly child soldiers.
Attempting a comeback is former Liberal Defense Minister David Pratt. Pratt has been out of Parliament since his 2004 defeat at the hands of Conservative Pierre Poillevre.
With arguably little expertise to spread between Foreign Affairs and Defense, Pratt would provide the Liberals with yet another weapon to use against the Conservative government -- provided, of course that he can manage to unseat Tory Environment Minister John Baird.
The Green party also has a score of candidates promoting themselves as foreign policy experts -- foremost among them the Ottawa Group of Four.
The Conservatives are considered to have one foreign policy heavyweight in their fold -- Patrick Boyer, who served in various foreign affairs-related sectors under Brian Mulroney. However, Boyer is running against the aforementioned Michael Ignatieff, and is as such unlikely to win.
With so many formidable (or at least formidable-seeming) opponents to compete against, it's a near certainty that foreign policy will be a weakpoint for the Conservatives not only during this election, but also during the upcoming Parliament.
There is, of course, a long-term solution to this problem: the Tories need to cultivate stronger relationships with the Senior Civil Service in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and need to start cultivating stronger relationships with various international Non Governmental Organizations.
That the Conservative party is attracting so few potential candidates from NGOs perhaps underscores a fundamental lack of understanding about the emerging shape of the global political order: one in which governments cooperate with civil society in the formulation of foreign policy.
The Conservatives are also clearly lacking a relationship with academia. If the Conservatives truly want to be able to claim to have an eye on the outside world, it would pay to start recruting from those who actually study it.
Until the Conservative party can muster some candidates with legitimate foreign policy chops, it will be hard to view a Conservative foreign policy as comprehensive and outward-looking.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
September Officially Becomes Nexus Bloggiest Month Ever!
...And it's only the 16th. Fucking election.
And to all our valued readers, thank you for your support.
Stay tuned for what I confidently believe I can say is the best election coverage of any blog in Canada.
And to all our valued readers, thank you for your support.
Stay tuned for what I confidently believe I can say is the best election coverage of any blog in Canada.
Can Anyone Say "Leader of the Opposition Jack Layton"
19% of Canadians -- and counting -- can
As the 2008 federal election progresses, it seems that Liberal leader Stephane Dion may be sho' nuff fucked.
With Stephen Harper's Conservative party comfortably in control of this election with 38% support, Dion's Liberals are polling at 23% -- a narrow lead over Jack Layton's NDP, who are polling at 19%.
"Although it is clear that the Liberals retain a small edge, on some days the difference is within the margin of error," said Ekos president Frank Graves.
In other words, the Stephane Dion Liberals are statistically tied with the NDP.
This comes as Dion gathers his former leadership rivals around him for campaign help.
Which he could certainly use. After all, as the campaign progresses, some of Dion's star candidates are nowhere to be seen -- in particular, Michael Ignatieff has inexplicably been a non-entity during this election campaign.
It seems even perennial insufferable douchebag Scott Reid can figure this one out.
Whether even the combined popularity of Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Ken Dryden and Martha Hall Findlay (among others) can save Dion at this point is anyone's guess. (You were going to make a "Kermit De Frog" joke here, weren't you? I have a sixth sense for these things. -Ed)
...Unless, of course, there's a reason why some of his higher-profile "team members" don't seem to be so eager to be seen with him.
An election result with the Liberals being punted from the status of Official Opposition in favour of the NDP would unquestionably turf any further leadership ambitions on Dion's behalf. The smart money says that any one of these individuals would absolutely love to play hero and lead the Liberal party out of the dredges of third-party status and back into the government benches.
Which would, of course, cast the Jamie Carroll affair in a whole new light.
Carroll, as some may recall, resigned as the national director of the Liberal party over outrage over comments he made about the backroom deals being made in the name of the leadership ambitions of Dion's rivals.
Of course, before anyone can even begin to worry about that, they have to worry about the current election. The Liberals still have almost a month to turn this thing around.
"If the alarm bells are not ringing already at Liberal headquarters, they should now," Graves says.
The question is: are those alarm bells being heard?
As the 2008 federal election progresses, it seems that Liberal leader Stephane Dion may be sho' nuff fucked.
With Stephen Harper's Conservative party comfortably in control of this election with 38% support, Dion's Liberals are polling at 23% -- a narrow lead over Jack Layton's NDP, who are polling at 19%.
"Although it is clear that the Liberals retain a small edge, on some days the difference is within the margin of error," said Ekos president Frank Graves.
In other words, the Stephane Dion Liberals are statistically tied with the NDP.
This comes as Dion gathers his former leadership rivals around him for campaign help.
Which he could certainly use. After all, as the campaign progresses, some of Dion's star candidates are nowhere to be seen -- in particular, Michael Ignatieff has inexplicably been a non-entity during this election campaign.
It seems even perennial insufferable douchebag Scott Reid can figure this one out.
Whether even the combined popularity of Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Ken Dryden and Martha Hall Findlay (among others) can save Dion at this point is anyone's guess. (You were going to make a "Kermit De Frog" joke here, weren't you? I have a sixth sense for these things. -Ed)
...Unless, of course, there's a reason why some of his higher-profile "team members" don't seem to be so eager to be seen with him.
An election result with the Liberals being punted from the status of Official Opposition in favour of the NDP would unquestionably turf any further leadership ambitions on Dion's behalf. The smart money says that any one of these individuals would absolutely love to play hero and lead the Liberal party out of the dredges of third-party status and back into the government benches.
Which would, of course, cast the Jamie Carroll affair in a whole new light.
Carroll, as some may recall, resigned as the national director of the Liberal party over outrage over comments he made about the backroom deals being made in the name of the leadership ambitions of Dion's rivals.
Of course, before anyone can even begin to worry about that, they have to worry about the current election. The Liberals still have almost a month to turn this thing around.
"If the alarm bells are not ringing already at Liberal headquarters, they should now," Graves says.
The question is: are those alarm bells being heard?
Liberal Ad Strikes Back at Conservatives
In only their second English-language ad released during this election campaign, the Liberal party has finally deployed its first English-language counter-branding spot against Stephen Harper.
For some political parties, a week would be a long time to wait. For the cash-strapped Liberal party, maybe not so much.
That being said, the ad begins by pushing Harper's image closer to that of an unpopular American president. In a marginally creative shift, however, that president isn't George W Bush, although it is a Republican.
Instead, it's Ronald Regan, as the spot substitutes Harper's name into the "Reganomics" label so often used to describe Regan's trickle-down economic policies.
The ad first questions Harper's commitment to environmental policy. Obviously, the ad doesn't mention that Liberal MP Ralph Goodale recently admitted that, by the criteria that most environmental groups allegedly judge environmental policy, the Tory Green Plan is superior to the Liberal Green Shift.
The spot accuses the Conservatives of writing a "blank cheque" to oil companies to pollute and gouge Canadians at the gas pumps. Conservative Environment Minister John Baird has already struck back for the Tories on this issue, pointing out that the Green Shift plan would allow oilsand developers to continue polluting so long as they're willing to pay carbon taxes.
The spot also points out some of Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's comments about Ontario last year, wherein he questioned whether or not the province needed to cut corporate taxes in order to make investment in the province more viable.
The ad also notes the number of programs -- 66 in total according to the ad -- and accuses Harper of "divide and conquer politics".
This overlooks the fact that it's traditionally been the Liberals who have indulged themselves in "divide and conquer politics", pandering to Quebec and Ontario while largely ignoring the rest of the country. Only after the rise of the Bloc Quebecois have the Liberals been required to win seats across the country in order to form governments.
It's intriguing to see the Liberals, in the course of their counter-branding effort, trying to brand the Conservatives with a fault that has traditionally been their own.
Whether or not it works will be another story entirely.
The ad concludes by welcoming Canadians to "turn the page" with the Liberal Green Shift plan. The drab black-and-white images played during the "Harpernomics" portion of the ad is then substituted for colour images of promised environmentally-friendly prosperity under the Green Shift.
However, with the release of this ad -- their second ad promoting their vaunted Green Shift plan -- the Liberals are at risk of becoming a single-issue party.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives have released ads concerning immigration, foreign policy, trade policy, and child care. While none of these ads tell the viewer very much about the related Conservative policies, they make the Conservative platform seem a good deal more comprehensive than the Liberal alternative.
Meanwhile, the ad also has a pivotal weakness: it's certain to remind voters who don't like Harper why they dislike him, but they're unlikely to convince many undecided voters against him, nor do they make any real specific appeal for NDP or Green party voters to switch to the Liberals.
At least one thing can be said for certain: with their first anti-Harper ad on the air in English Canada, the Liberal campaign's gloves have effectively come off.
The second round of this election has officially begun.
Afghanistan - MacKay Still Has Questions to Answer
Questions remain concerning Canada's Post-2011 Role in Afghanistan
The promised 2011 end-date to Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan may be welcome to those many Canadians who end the war, but even in making this promise, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defense Minister Peter MacKay have some explaining to do.
The now-planned end of the combat mission in 2011 doesn't constitute "cutting and running", according to MacKay. "Certainly not. We have been there in a military developmental and diplomatic role for some time now. We made significant contributions to the development of Afghanistan. We have done our share."
Of course, at the end of the day, it will matter very little as to whether or not Canada has "done its share" if the job remains undone.
Fortunately, in comments reported in the September 11th issue of the Globe and Mail, MacKay has suggested that Canada will maintain a role in Afghanistan after 2011.
"We're there in numerous roles. We're there participating in reconstruction and development through CIDA,” he said. "We have diplomats who are working in Kabul. We have a significant number of civilian police trainers and military trainers and there are of course going to be NGOs [non-governmental organizations], so Canada will continue to support the effort to rebuild Afghanistan."
"But the Stephen Harper was crystal clear. He said the mission ends in 2011 and that's consistent with the vote that was taken in Parliament. That's respecting Parliament's voice."
Unfortunately, there are questions that remain unanswered. To have CIDA and Canadian diplomats at work in Afghanistan after 2011 is all and good, but an important question remains:
Afghanistan will almost certainly remain a theatre of warfare after 2011. As such, Canadians need to know who will fill the role of securing said theatre for our aid workers and diplomats.
To effect a full-scale withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan -- as Stephen Harper has indicated -- would be, as Jim Davis has noted -- irresponsible.
And not merely so the deaths of the soldiers already killed in Afghanistan aren't in vain, because it would be irresponsible to leave our aid workers and diplomats in harm's way.
In the end, only one real option remains: that of Canadian troops remaining in Afghanistan to ensure our aid workers and diplomats are properly protected. This would, by necessity, mean Canadian troops staying in Afghanistan in more than simply a "technical" role.
MacKay and Harper may want to wait until after the election to make any final decisions on Afghanistan. After all, it may be "Parliament's wishes" that the combat mission in Khandahar end at that time, but if "Parliament's wishes" are that Canadian diplomats and CIDA workers remain in Afghanistan protected only by the good graces of the Afghan army and our NATO allies, Parliament as a whole may find itself explaining itself to Canadians in the event that any of them come to harm.
Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay most certainly don't want to find themselves at the forefront of that.
The promised 2011 end-date to Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan may be welcome to those many Canadians who end the war, but even in making this promise, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defense Minister Peter MacKay have some explaining to do.
The now-planned end of the combat mission in 2011 doesn't constitute "cutting and running", according to MacKay. "Certainly not. We have been there in a military developmental and diplomatic role for some time now. We made significant contributions to the development of Afghanistan. We have done our share."Of course, at the end of the day, it will matter very little as to whether or not Canada has "done its share" if the job remains undone.
Fortunately, in comments reported in the September 11th issue of the Globe and Mail, MacKay has suggested that Canada will maintain a role in Afghanistan after 2011.
"We're there in numerous roles. We're there participating in reconstruction and development through CIDA,” he said. "We have diplomats who are working in Kabul. We have a significant number of civilian police trainers and military trainers and there are of course going to be NGOs [non-governmental organizations], so Canada will continue to support the effort to rebuild Afghanistan."
"But the Stephen Harper was crystal clear. He said the mission ends in 2011 and that's consistent with the vote that was taken in Parliament. That's respecting Parliament's voice."
Unfortunately, there are questions that remain unanswered. To have CIDA and Canadian diplomats at work in Afghanistan after 2011 is all and good, but an important question remains:
Afghanistan will almost certainly remain a theatre of warfare after 2011. As such, Canadians need to know who will fill the role of securing said theatre for our aid workers and diplomats.
To effect a full-scale withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan -- as Stephen Harper has indicated -- would be, as Jim Davis has noted -- irresponsible.
And not merely so the deaths of the soldiers already killed in Afghanistan aren't in vain, because it would be irresponsible to leave our aid workers and diplomats in harm's way.
In the end, only one real option remains: that of Canadian troops remaining in Afghanistan to ensure our aid workers and diplomats are properly protected. This would, by necessity, mean Canadian troops staying in Afghanistan in more than simply a "technical" role.
MacKay and Harper may want to wait until after the election to make any final decisions on Afghanistan. After all, it may be "Parliament's wishes" that the combat mission in Khandahar end at that time, but if "Parliament's wishes" are that Canadian diplomats and CIDA workers remain in Afghanistan protected only by the good graces of the Afghan army and our NATO allies, Parliament as a whole may find itself explaining itself to Canadians in the event that any of them come to harm.
Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay most certainly don't want to find themselves at the forefront of that.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Can the Tories Sweep Saskatchewan?
Green Shift plan not playing well in Saskatchewan
As observers look ahead to the results of the 14 October federal election, two questions loom large.
First: will the Conservatives sweep Alberta again?
Second: can the Conservatives sweep Saskatchewan?
In Alberta, the prospects of another smothering Conservative victory remain strong. Although Rahim Jaffer could be upset in Edmonton-Strathcona and Laurie Hawn will have to work hard to hold Edmonton Centre, the Tories still have a solid provincial victory earlier in the year giving them the momentum they need to maintain their lock on Alberta.
In Saskatchewan, meanwhile, Wascana MP Ralph Goodale remains the only Liberal awash in a sea of blue.
He was one of two non-Conservative MPs in the province until Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River MP Gary Merasty resigned his seat. In a by-election he was replaced by Conservative Rob Clarke, who defeated Liberal Joan Beatty. Beatty had been hand-chosen by Stephane Dion over current candidate David Orchard, who had been chosen by the party's riding association.
Orchard has already called for Dion to soften the Green Shift's inevitable impact on farmers.
Orchard has, against Dion's inclinations, been cast into a star candidate role in Saskatchewan. But that isn't where Liberal troubles end in the province. Not by a longshot.
Just as in Alberta, conservatives in Saskatchewan have an election victory -- this one by Brad Wall's Saskatchewan party -- to provide them with momentum.
Wall has come out and criticized Liberal leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift plan. Wall noted that the Green Shift plan would result in a loss of $500 million per annum for Saskatchewan and a 41% increase in electricity costs by 2012.
For his own part, Goodale denounced Wall's claims as "crock of unmitigated horsefeathers."
Unfortunately for Goodale, horses don't have feathers, and Scott Brison, one of the masterminds of the Green Shift plan, has already admitted that the plan will result in higher electicity costs.
"Their arithmetic is just completely wrong, mistaken and false," Goodale insisted, noting that corporate tax cuts accompanying carbon taxation should make up for the extra costs. In theory.
"This is the old Conservative tactic of throw enough mud against the fan and hope everyone gets splattered," Goodale added.
According to political scientist Ken Rasmussen, Wall's comments likely won't have much effect on the election in Saskatchewan. "This is a province that the Tories have, I wouldn't say sewn up, but they're probably going to be quite effective in retaining their seats," he noted.
University of Saskatchewan political scientist David McGrane thinks otherwise. "The fact that Premier Wall has been so outspoken in saying that the Green Shift is harmful for Saskatchewan, that's definitely going to play in favour of the Conservatives," he predicted.
Meanwhile, David Orchard may be stepping on the wrong toes in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River by opposing uranium mining. This in a rural riding where the Green Shift will almost certainly prove to be anathema. “The proposed carbon tax will spell economic doom for the north, in forestry, exploration, farming. Orchard is against uranium mining and oil development,” Rob Clarke noted. “The carbon tax is going to increase fuels costs and raise costs on all household items. Being in government, I will prevent that from happening."
Stephen Harper has offered solid support of his candidate in Wascana, Michelle Hunter.
Clearly, Harper understands the value of unseating Goodale, a former Finance Minister.
For his own part, Goodale insists that the Liberal Green Shift plan would be less costly than the Conservative plan. "They are going to impose costs by imposing their regulations and the target they're aiming at is 35 per cent more severe than Mr Dion's plan. But the crucial difference is that the Dion plan has across-the-board income tax cuts for every family, every individual, every business in the country that will add up to the biggest reduction in income tax in Canadian history," Goodale insisted.
So, while Goodale admits that, by the measuring stick that most environmentalists are measuring climate change policy, Harper's plan is better, Goodale wants to insist that, well, the Liberal plan will at least be cheaper.
Goodale and the Liberals can't even seem to play straight with the environmental lobby.
All the while many Canadians remain concerned about Dion's plans for potential carbon tariffs and seeming lack of a post-Green Shift vision, particularly vis a vis the recovery of lost revenue once carbon tax revenues decline with greenhouse gas emissions.
The Liberals have their work cut out for them in Saskatchewan. Come October 14, Saskatchewan could be joing Alberta adorned in Tory blue.
As observers look ahead to the results of the 14 October federal election, two questions loom large.
First: will the Conservatives sweep Alberta again?
Second: can the Conservatives sweep Saskatchewan?
In Alberta, the prospects of another smothering Conservative victory remain strong. Although Rahim Jaffer could be upset in Edmonton-Strathcona and Laurie Hawn will have to work hard to hold Edmonton Centre, the Tories still have a solid provincial victory earlier in the year giving them the momentum they need to maintain their lock on Alberta.
In Saskatchewan, meanwhile, Wascana MP Ralph Goodale remains the only Liberal awash in a sea of blue.He was one of two non-Conservative MPs in the province until Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River MP Gary Merasty resigned his seat. In a by-election he was replaced by Conservative Rob Clarke, who defeated Liberal Joan Beatty. Beatty had been hand-chosen by Stephane Dion over current candidate David Orchard, who had been chosen by the party's riding association.
Orchard has already called for Dion to soften the Green Shift's inevitable impact on farmers.
Orchard has, against Dion's inclinations, been cast into a star candidate role in Saskatchewan. But that isn't where Liberal troubles end in the province. Not by a longshot.
Just as in Alberta, conservatives in Saskatchewan have an election victory -- this one by Brad Wall's Saskatchewan party -- to provide them with momentum.
Wall has come out and criticized Liberal leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift plan. Wall noted that the Green Shift plan would result in a loss of $500 million per annum for Saskatchewan and a 41% increase in electricity costs by 2012.
For his own part, Goodale denounced Wall's claims as "crock of unmitigated horsefeathers."
Unfortunately for Goodale, horses don't have feathers, and Scott Brison, one of the masterminds of the Green Shift plan, has already admitted that the plan will result in higher electicity costs.
"Their arithmetic is just completely wrong, mistaken and false," Goodale insisted, noting that corporate tax cuts accompanying carbon taxation should make up for the extra costs. In theory.
"This is the old Conservative tactic of throw enough mud against the fan and hope everyone gets splattered," Goodale added.
According to political scientist Ken Rasmussen, Wall's comments likely won't have much effect on the election in Saskatchewan. "This is a province that the Tories have, I wouldn't say sewn up, but they're probably going to be quite effective in retaining their seats," he noted.
University of Saskatchewan political scientist David McGrane thinks otherwise. "The fact that Premier Wall has been so outspoken in saying that the Green Shift is harmful for Saskatchewan, that's definitely going to play in favour of the Conservatives," he predicted.
Meanwhile, David Orchard may be stepping on the wrong toes in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River by opposing uranium mining. This in a rural riding where the Green Shift will almost certainly prove to be anathema. “The proposed carbon tax will spell economic doom for the north, in forestry, exploration, farming. Orchard is against uranium mining and oil development,” Rob Clarke noted. “The carbon tax is going to increase fuels costs and raise costs on all household items. Being in government, I will prevent that from happening."Stephen Harper has offered solid support of his candidate in Wascana, Michelle Hunter.
Clearly, Harper understands the value of unseating Goodale, a former Finance Minister.
For his own part, Goodale insists that the Liberal Green Shift plan would be less costly than the Conservative plan. "They are going to impose costs by imposing their regulations and the target they're aiming at is 35 per cent more severe than Mr Dion's plan. But the crucial difference is that the Dion plan has across-the-board income tax cuts for every family, every individual, every business in the country that will add up to the biggest reduction in income tax in Canadian history," Goodale insisted.
So, while Goodale admits that, by the measuring stick that most environmentalists are measuring climate change policy, Harper's plan is better, Goodale wants to insist that, well, the Liberal plan will at least be cheaper.
Goodale and the Liberals can't even seem to play straight with the environmental lobby.
All the while many Canadians remain concerned about Dion's plans for potential carbon tariffs and seeming lack of a post-Green Shift vision, particularly vis a vis the recovery of lost revenue once carbon tax revenues decline with greenhouse gas emissions.
The Liberals have their work cut out for them in Saskatchewan. Come October 14, Saskatchewan could be joing Alberta adorned in Tory blue.
Canadians Thinking Less of Our Leaders
Election costs party leaders in public regard
As the 2008 federal election progresses, each party leader is hoping to make a positive impression on Canadians and improve their party's standings in the House of Commons.
Almost inevitably, some parties will accomplish the latter. But a poll released yesterday reveals that none have yet accomplished the latter. In fact, Canada's political leaders have done the precise opposite.
Stephen Harper's sweater vest and lack-lustre campaign ads couldn't save him from being the leader losing the most -- 36% of polled Canadians hold him in lesser regard, likely due to an unprincipled election call and a pair of serious campaign gaffes on the part of his Conservative Party.
Liberal leader Stephane Dion suffered as well. 32% of Canadians hold him in lower regard following a week in which he claimed he wanted an open debate about his Green Shift plan, but instead settled for calling his Conservative opponents liars.
Jack Layton tried to emulate Barack Obama, but 15% of Canadians found him to be considerably less appealing than that.
23% of polled Canadians found Gilles Duceppe less appealing. Picking at the religious beliefs of a Conservative candidate probably didn't help him much, but then again the only numbers that are really applicable to Duceppe are the ones collected in Quebec.
Hopefully, Canada's political leaders will avert the course they've been following and give Canadians a little less reason to feel cynical and discouraged about our politics.
As the 2008 federal election progresses, each party leader is hoping to make a positive impression on Canadians and improve their party's standings in the House of Commons.
Almost inevitably, some parties will accomplish the latter. But a poll released yesterday reveals that none have yet accomplished the latter. In fact, Canada's political leaders have done the precise opposite.
Stephen Harper's sweater vest and lack-lustre campaign ads couldn't save him from being the leader losing the most -- 36% of polled Canadians hold him in lesser regard, likely due to an unprincipled election call and a pair of serious campaign gaffes on the part of his Conservative Party.
Liberal leader Stephane Dion suffered as well. 32% of Canadians hold him in lower regard following a week in which he claimed he wanted an open debate about his Green Shift plan, but instead settled for calling his Conservative opponents liars.
Jack Layton tried to emulate Barack Obama, but 15% of Canadians found him to be considerably less appealing than that.
23% of polled Canadians found Gilles Duceppe less appealing. Picking at the religious beliefs of a Conservative candidate probably didn't help him much, but then again the only numbers that are really applicable to Duceppe are the ones collected in Quebec.
Hopefully, Canada's political leaders will avert the course they've been following and give Canadians a little less reason to feel cynical and discouraged about our politics.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Is It Or Isn't It?
Elizabeth May confrims why she shouldn't have been allowed in the debate
In what should be treated as cause for second thought for those Canadians who support Elizabeth May taking part in the televised leaders' debate, Green party leader Elizabeth May told CTV's Question Period today that she's going to help Stephane Dion explain his Green Shift plan to the Canadian people.
Moreover, she actually wants to take credit for the entire policy.
"Since it's our plan, the 'Green Shift' plan, I can explain it fully," May insisted.
This could certainly put an amusing twist on Stephen Harper's insistence that "Elizabeth May is not an opponent of Stephane Dion. She is his candidate in Central Nova, and I think it would be fundamentally unfair to have two candidates who are essentially running on the same platform in the debate."
Apparently, Stephane Dion may in fact be Elizabeth May's candidate in St Laurent-Cartierville. After all, she's formally taking credit for his policies.
To her partial credit, May has voiced some disagreement with Dion on some issues.
"Where I agree with him, I'll agree with him," she insisted. "And where I disagree with him -- on issues like NAFTA, nuclear power, some of the economic policies that the Liberals have traditionally espoused -- I will be taking him on in a respectful way, as I will the other leaders."
Yet on the fundamental issue on which Dion wants to contest this election -- "his" (apparently actually Elizabeth May's) Green plan -- May has already formally pledged herself to help him during the debates.
All of this, even as she and Dion decline to field candidates against one another, and as Blair Wilson -- conveniently, a former Liberal -- conveniently defects to her party. And May still claims there's no backroom deal.
"I think the notion of a backroom pact is such nonsense," she told Question Period.
At least one thing's for certain: if May and Dion haven't made themselves utterly transparent -- and their backroom deal obvious -- by this point, May will do so for the both of them the instant she utters "What Stephane is trying to say" during the course of the debate.
If further evidence that May's inclusion of the debates is actually needed, one can rest assured that May will provide it in time. If not on Oct 1 & 2, then sooner.
In what should be treated as cause for second thought for those Canadians who support Elizabeth May taking part in the televised leaders' debate, Green party leader Elizabeth May told CTV's Question Period today that she's going to help Stephane Dion explain his Green Shift plan to the Canadian people.
Moreover, she actually wants to take credit for the entire policy.
"Since it's our plan, the 'Green Shift' plan, I can explain it fully," May insisted.
This could certainly put an amusing twist on Stephen Harper's insistence that "Elizabeth May is not an opponent of Stephane Dion. She is his candidate in Central Nova, and I think it would be fundamentally unfair to have two candidates who are essentially running on the same platform in the debate."
Apparently, Stephane Dion may in fact be Elizabeth May's candidate in St Laurent-Cartierville. After all, she's formally taking credit for his policies.To her partial credit, May has voiced some disagreement with Dion on some issues.
"Where I agree with him, I'll agree with him," she insisted. "And where I disagree with him -- on issues like NAFTA, nuclear power, some of the economic policies that the Liberals have traditionally espoused -- I will be taking him on in a respectful way, as I will the other leaders."
Yet on the fundamental issue on which Dion wants to contest this election -- "his" (apparently actually Elizabeth May's) Green plan -- May has already formally pledged herself to help him during the debates.
All of this, even as she and Dion decline to field candidates against one another, and as Blair Wilson -- conveniently, a former Liberal -- conveniently defects to her party. And May still claims there's no backroom deal.
"I think the notion of a backroom pact is such nonsense," she told Question Period.
At least one thing's for certain: if May and Dion haven't made themselves utterly transparent -- and their backroom deal obvious -- by this point, May will do so for the both of them the instant she utters "What Stephane is trying to say" during the course of the debate.
If further evidence that May's inclusion of the debates is actually needed, one can rest assured that May will provide it in time. If not on Oct 1 & 2, then sooner.
Who Are the "Ottawa Group of Four"?
Maillet, Lemieux, Ghanem and Manoussi have big leftist-utopian dreams
When Ottawa-area Green party candidate Qais Ghanem recently drew some criticism over his attitude toward Israel, an interesting sub-plot emerged in the Green party's attempts to convince themselves they're politically relevant in Canada: that of the "Ottawa group of four".
Consisting of Ghanem, Paul Maillet, Sylvie Lemieux and Akbar Manoussi, the group is made up of four Ottawa-area candidates cumulatively promoting their own policies both in the course of a federal election, and within the Green party itself.
In the end, there may be no better way to judge the Group of Four then by their policies. Fortunately, they've been kind enough to supply anyone enterprising enough to look with a list.
The "Ottawa Group of Four 2008 Proposed Policy Resolutions" document takes pains to note that it "does not necessarily represent the official policy
of the Green Party of Canada." It covers topics ranging from electoral reform to policy development.
From surveying the proposed resolutions, it would seem that Paul Maillet is the ringleader of the Group of Four -- he sponsors seven of the resolutions. Sylvie Lemieux sponsors another five. The remaining resolution -- the infamous "Palestine" resolution -- is sponsored by Qais Ghanem.
In all, the document presents 14 recommendations. The first deals with electoral reform:
The four start out by recognizing that Canadians continue to favour the ability to elect their representatives directly "in a fair, transparent and open process." Yet they resolve that Canada's electoral system be reformed to elect Members of Parliament proportionally -- a process under which its utterly impossible to elect them directly.
Furthermore, even under mixed-member plurality systems, in which a portion of Parliament would be elected under the existing first-past-the-post system and another portion elected proportionally, the question of precisely how Members of Parliament would be selected remains a critical one.
Interestingly, the four seem to have their answer -- these members should be selected through an affirmative action program.
Of course, the question of who would make the decisions regarding who gets elected to Parliament under such a system is another matter entirely. Suffice to say there is virtually no way such a system could be administered in a fully open and transparent manner.
The second resolution proposed by the group of four addresses the very nature of Green Party policy:
This is simply wise politics for a party that would like to one day contend for national power -- even if right now its willing to settle for being a sidekick for the Liberal party.
However, not all is as rosy as it would seem. The Group of Four has still left themselves a club with which to handle party dissidents:
That being said, this is an issue that could prove useful to Green party leader Elizabeth May. After all, May's own views on abortion may find herself outside the party line on the topic.
It may also prove useful to Ghanem himself, who hs proven to have sympathy for the 9/11 "truth" movement.
Resolution six follows in a much different vein:
Little is outlined about the specific role the military would play under a Green party government -- although we can imagine. Many references are made to "the primacy of diplomacy", but little said about what happens when diplomacy fails. Numerous references are made about human rights, but nothing is said about how a Green party government would address states that violate human rights.
These turn out to be important issues to overlook as one turns toward the next resolution:
The Group of Four seems to imagine Canadian forces defending areas of neutrality within Afghanistan so their imagined negotiations can proceed. However, their approach suffers from two key misconceptions:
First off, the Taliban is not interested in negotiating in any realistic sense. Secondly, the world knows full well what the Taliban plans to re-institute in Afghanistan upon re-taking power there, and that should be considered non-negotiable to anyone with a legitimate concern for human rights.
The eighth resolution is the infamous "Palestine" resolution:
However, it remains scant on key details that make it seem much less than benign. For example, the resolution asserts the right of Palestinians to "return to their homes and property". It doesn't seem to address the claims of numerous Palestinians to the entirety of the country.
Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that Israel has been at a continuous state of de facto warfare ever since its establishment. There is a great deal of virtue to be found in the argument that Israel should relinquish the West Bank and the other occupied territories. Yet, under the duress of attacks by Islamic and Palestinian terrorist groups, Israel has never truly known peacetime.
The resolution wisely calls upon Palestian groups to cease violent action against Israel, just as it calls upon Israel to cease violent action against Palestians. Yet it seems to overlook that many elements of Islamic culture in the Middle East have begun to honour those who perpetrate violence against Israelis -- even children -- and celebrating them as heroes.
How can one honestly expect Palestinian groups to cease violent action against Israel in a cultural climate where a man who smashes an Israeli child's head in (while her father watches) is hailed as a hero?
Resolution nine is another resolution that could be effected by the Group of Four's "issues of conscience" resolution:
Only time -- and an unlikely Green party election victory -- could tell.
The next two resolutions deal with aboriginal peoples:
After all, what could be said about this in Montreal, where the entirety of the downtown area is subject to an (as yet) unresolved aboriginal landclaim? What about British Columbia, where some of the claims actually exceed the sum of the land actually in British Columbia?
Furthermore, there is also the matter of the public outcry that arises whenever a politician talks about the need to restore autonomy and self-reliance to Canada's aboriginal peoples (the latter of the two propositions clearly being the allegedly troublesome one).
First off, the insistence that aboriginal peoples must be recognized as autonomous and self-reliant conflicts drastically with the notion of funding their governments on an indefinite basis. University of Calgary Political Scientist Tom Flanagan is right when he notes that the best solutions to the dilemmas surrounding aboriginal peoples and their relationship with the Canadian government will inevitably include granting these bands the power to collect taxes within their jurisdiction.
However, the notion of replacing the Department of Indian Affairs with a department that would function on a more cooperative basis would be good for all Canadians, not just aboriginals.
The twelfth resolution is actually quite novel:
Finally, the 13th resolution deals with the currently malignant environment in which the Canadian Parliament has conducted itself -- an environment that all of our political parties and elected officials have contriubted to:
Of course, there's more to the Ottawa Group of Four than this package of policies. But it is interesting to consider what the Green party may or may not become under the leadership or influence of such a clique.
Many Canadians may want to question whether or not Canada can go where the Ottawa Group of Four would have the Green Party lead it, or even if it should.
When Ottawa-area Green party candidate Qais Ghanem recently drew some criticism over his attitude toward Israel, an interesting sub-plot emerged in the Green party's attempts to convince themselves they're politically relevant in Canada: that of the "Ottawa group of four".
Consisting of Ghanem, Paul Maillet, Sylvie Lemieux and Akbar Manoussi, the group is made up of four Ottawa-area candidates cumulatively promoting their own policies both in the course of a federal election, and within the Green party itself.
In the end, there may be no better way to judge the Group of Four then by their policies. Fortunately, they've been kind enough to supply anyone enterprising enough to look with a list.
The "Ottawa Group of Four 2008 Proposed Policy Resolutions" document takes pains to note that it "does not necessarily represent the official policy
of the Green Party of Canada." It covers topics ranging from electoral reform to policy development.
From surveying the proposed resolutions, it would seem that Paul Maillet is the ringleader of the Group of Four -- he sponsors seven of the resolutions. Sylvie Lemieux sponsors another five. The remaining resolution -- the infamous "Palestine" resolution -- is sponsored by Qais Ghanem.
In all, the document presents 14 recommendations. The first deals with electoral reform:
"Resolution 1 - Electoral ReformOne wonders if Ghanem, Lemieux, Maillet and Manoussi stopped to consider the contradictory nature of this resolution.
Whereas we believe that Canadians want to be governed by a parliament more fully representative of Canada.
Whereas we believe that Canadians want to be governed only by directly elected people; in a fair, transparent and open process in which every Member of Parliament faces the voters.
Whereas the Green Party strongly believes in electoral reform.
Therefore it be resolved that the Green party of Canada advocate electoral reform in terms of the minimum criteria of a Canada governed by a parliament more fully representative of Canada, and a Canada governed only by directly elected people in a fair, transparent and open process.
Therefore is also be resolved that the minimum representative constituencies in parliament be (1) political parties in proportion of the popular vote, (perhaps based on a 3-5% threshold of votes, and perhaps members selected from the vote and rank-ordered from non-elected candidates) and (2) our National Diversity such as to ensure gender balance, major language groups, and aboriginal peoples, in proportion of the most recent national census results (and perhaps selected from the vote and rank-ordered from non-elected candidates regardless of party affiliation to fill imbalances)."
The four start out by recognizing that Canadians continue to favour the ability to elect their representatives directly "in a fair, transparent and open process." Yet they resolve that Canada's electoral system be reformed to elect Members of Parliament proportionally -- a process under which its utterly impossible to elect them directly.
Furthermore, even under mixed-member plurality systems, in which a portion of Parliament would be elected under the existing first-past-the-post system and another portion elected proportionally, the question of precisely how Members of Parliament would be selected remains a critical one.
Interestingly, the four seem to have their answer -- these members should be selected through an affirmative action program.
Of course, the question of who would make the decisions regarding who gets elected to Parliament under such a system is another matter entirely. Suffice to say there is virtually no way such a system could be administered in a fully open and transparent manner.
The second resolution proposed by the group of four addresses the very nature of Green Party policy:
"Resolution 2 - Vision Green ReformattingResolution number two is merely a statement on the importance of the Green Party formulating a wide vareity of non-environmental policies.
Whereas the GPC wishes to obtain seats in the Parliament in the next general election.
Whereas the GPC wishes to be a full spectrum party and not a single-issue party.
Whereas the GPC needs to expand its voter base beyond the existing environmental constituency, and that GPC wishes to appeal and be sensitive, credible and involved in all issues of concern of the voters.
Whereas the document “Vision Green” is heavily oriented in its current format to environmental issues, and can be perceived as almost marginalizing other issues. The current index reads Part 1: the green economy, Part 2: averting climate catastrophe , Part 3: preserving and restoring the environment , Part 4: people, Part 5: the planet needs Canada (and vice versa), Part 6: good government
Whereas effective campaign and marketing success is critically dependent on identifying voter issues and needs, speaking their language, and gaining their trust by addressing their needs within a clear integrity framework.
Whereas the GPC wishes to appeal to voters beyond the green constituency that is already in place.
Therefore it be resolved that the Vision Green document be reformatted to directly address, better balance and better reflect the broader needs of Canadians as a whole, and their wider expectations of elected members of parliament.
As a minimum, initial main subject areas, equally weighted and emphasized, are suggested as the Environment, the Economy, Tax reform, Health care, Education, Crime Prevention, Diversity and Human rights, Aboriginal affairs, Good government, Electoral reform, International affairs, Peace and security and Quality of life (all others)."
This is simply wise politics for a party that would like to one day contend for national power -- even if right now its willing to settle for being a sidekick for the Liberal party.
"Resolution 3 - Issues of ConscienceThe issues of consience resolution is actually quite constructive. It would promise free rein to Green party MPs to vote according to their conscience on a wide vareity of issues.
Whereas our values commit us to Social Justice “acting to secure basic human rights and build a just society”; Nonviolence, in that “every act of violence delays our progress toward a just society; Diversity in that “we honour the diversity of life on our planet. All diversity of the Earth's people has intrinsic value”; Personal and Global Responsibility in that “we must learn to take responsibility for ourselves, our families, our communities and ultimately for our planet”; and Ecological Wisdom in that “when we damage the web of life, we damage ourselves”.
Whereas there is a class of issues relating to issues of conscience, in which moral uncertainty exists, and which may be extremely personal and difficult in terms of competing rights, and potentially divisive in the party, and potentially exclusive of major voting groups.
Whereas within Green party values of respect for diversity, non-violence, compassion, intrinsic value of life, rights to existence, and broader human rights, we will respect the rights of members to make personal moral decisions in identified areas of moral uncertainty, which may be different from other member decisions.
Whereas we are a party of shared values. We are a party with the highest standards of ethical values. We are an inclusive party and respect differences of belief. This is what attracted us to the Green Party. This is what make us unique compared to other parties. We promote an inclusive values-based application to issues, rather than a power-based application.
Therefore it be resolved that being a party of shared values, and respecting the right of party members to exercise such party values, that certain and significant “issues of conscience” such as relating to religion, euthanasia and abortion and others as may be identified by the party, are subject to free votes and free positions among party candidates and members.
Whereas that being a party of shared values and respecting the right of members to express differing opinion in free and open debate and free from reprisal."
However, not all is as rosy as it would seem. The Group of Four has still left themselves a club with which to handle party dissidents:
"Whereas that once important and identified policies resolutions and positions are taken, that are not trivial or morally ambiguous, and adopted through the democratic process, that all are obligated to support such positions in good faith as a condition of party membership."Which makes one wonder how the group of four would address Green party members or MPs dissenting from some of the Group of Four's policy resolutions -- in particular the highly controversial "Palestine" resolution (to be addressed shortly).
"Whereas we acknowledge that all GPC policy, resolutions and party positions may not cover all eventualities or situations and exceptions may arise, such as involving differences between rural and urban ridings.In fact, it would seem that Green party members and MPs would actually have to seek permission from the party leadership in order to dissent from the party line on that particular issue.
Whereas as a duty of GPC integrity and respect to our members, the GPC wishes to respect the right of members to disagree or hold differing opinions, if differences remain consistent with party values, be non-trivial, and within a framework of disclosure and consensus with the GPC.
Therefore it be resolved that the GPC develop a values-based process for the efficient and timely consideration of requests to publicly adopt differing positions based in special, extraordinary and justified circumstances."
That being said, this is an issue that could prove useful to Green party leader Elizabeth May. After all, May's own views on abortion may find herself outside the party line on the topic.
It may also prove useful to Ghanem himself, who hs proven to have sympathy for the 9/11 "truth" movement.
"Resolution 5 - Organizational Ethics in the GPCResolution five may seem like some mundane administrative jargon, but it confirms that the party is beginning to grow to a posiiton at which it's starting to think more about the ordinary, pragmatic day-to-date issues in running a political party rather than merely being a political outlet for the idealism of its members.
Whereas the GPC is a party of high moral values and ethics, notably honesty and respect, for which it is willing to be held accountable.
Whereas the GPC conducts its affairs in a complex matrix of relationships, power and diversity that have ethical context and risk; such as in GPC party affairs and each other, EDA affairs, media interaction, interaction with competing parties, election campaigns, candidate nomination selection activity, fundraising, voter interactions, and policy development and others.
Whereas the GPC wishes to set the highest example of ethics in politics and party affairs.
Whereas GPC wishes to tangibly demonstrate its commitment to ethical conduct, in a manner that respects GPC values, and informs our judgement, decision-making and relationships.
Therefore it be resolved that GPC develop and implement an ethics program based on organizational ethics best practices and the highest ethical standards, which will include ethical guidelines for the GPC leadership and membership relating to the ethical conduct and ethical risk management within the GPC and in our external relationships."
Resolution six follows in a much different vein:
"Resolution 6 – International Affairs Policy FrameworkIn essence, the "Group of Four" is advocating that Canadian Foreign Policy be transformed into a political outlet for their personal idealism.
Whereas the GPC believes that Canada must fully assert our values in international affairs, and meet our obligations to the global community.
Whereas the GPC desires a consistent and values based approach to foreign policy, international affairs, foreign aid and development, and peace and security activities.
Whereas we believe that Canada’s commitment to the global community is a commitment to advocacy, leadership and action in human rights, peace and security, good governance, environmental responsibility and sustainable economic development.
Therefore it be resolved that the GPC is guided in its international policy by the following principles:
1. We commit to a value based and socially responsible approach in all our global relationships.
2. We accept to be accountable for the highest global, social and environmental values, and commit to transparency and public oversight.
3. We assert that the security and prosperity of Canada is contingent on a secure and stable world and we will contribute to global security and stability.
4. In conflict zones, we commit to a three-pillar approach of; (1) diplomacy and human rights – (2) aid and development – (3) peace and security.
5. In conflict zones, we commit to the primacy of “diplomacy and human rights”.
6. We commit to neutrality, dialogue, non-violence, ceasefire and reconciliation activity in “peace and security” operations.
7. We commit to “Aid and Development” to global humanitarian crisis and human development.
8. We believe that foreign “aid and development” requires a coherent approach to good governance, rights and freedoms, poverty reduction, health improvement, education strengthening, gender equity, sustainable economic development, and environmental responsibility."
Little is outlined about the specific role the military would play under a Green party government -- although we can imagine. Many references are made to "the primacy of diplomacy", but little said about what happens when diplomacy fails. Numerous references are made about human rights, but nothing is said about how a Green party government would address states that violate human rights.
These turn out to be important issues to overlook as one turns toward the next resolution:
"Resolution 7 - AfghanistanFirst off, the Green party insists that we stop fighting the Taliban (thereby making it easier for them to return to power), then start negotiating.
Whereas the GPC desires to maintain a consistent values based policy response to international crises of interest to Canada as part of our approach to foreign policy and international affairs.
Whereas Vision Green provides operational and implementation detail of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan.
Whereas the situation in Afghanistan remains extremely volatile and subject to unknown and unforeseen circumstances.
Therefore it be resolved that the GPC evolve its role in Afghanistan according to the following principles;
1. That Canada re-assert a values-based approach to restoring peace, stability and alleviating suffering in Afghanistan, through a revised mission mandate emphasizing “peace making in this conflict zone”. That Canada develop proficiency in “high risk diplomacy” in this mission.
2. That Canada reorient the Canadian military and the overall mission towards neutrality and against offensive combat operations in Afghanistan. That the Canadian military force structure in Afghanistan realigned with the new “peacemaking” role.
3. That Canada shift offensive combat operations to the Afghan national authority but agree to assist with Afghan force and policing training and operational support.
4. That in support of human rights, environmental and economic strengthening, Canada conducts humanitarian aid, governance development and reconstruction projects.
5. That the primary function of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan be diplomacy through the creation of safe spaces for all parties involved, and the facilitation of dialogue with the aim of stopping the violence and beginning the process of reconciliation.
6. That the primary military role be to contribute to diplomatic activity, through initial contact with all parties in conflict, protection of military and civilian diplomatic staff, and protection of safe space activity.
7. That a secondary military role be the protection of all mission components be they defence forces, diplomatic staff, humanitarian aid agencies, governance development and reconstruction activity."
The Group of Four seems to imagine Canadian forces defending areas of neutrality within Afghanistan so their imagined negotiations can proceed. However, their approach suffers from two key misconceptions:
First off, the Taliban is not interested in negotiating in any realistic sense. Secondly, the world knows full well what the Taliban plans to re-institute in Afghanistan upon re-taking power there, and that should be considered non-negotiable to anyone with a legitimate concern for human rights.
The eighth resolution is the infamous "Palestine" resolution:
"Resolution 8 - PalestineIn a certain sense, "Palestine" seems to be less malignant than originally thought.
Whereas the Green Party of Canada unequivocally supports the human rights of all people in the world, equally;
Whereas UN General Assembly Resolution 194, (re-passed 28 times) affirms the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property; and its Charter stipulates that there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war; even by a state acting in self defence;
Whereas article 49 of the Geneva Convention states that the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies;
And whereas all Arab states, in the “Saudi Peace Plan” of March 2002 in Beirut and endorsed by 57 Muslim states, have offered Israel a full and permanent peace, with normal diplomatic relations, in return for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied land to the 1967 borders;
And whereas the Green Party of the United States has demanded that Israel cease its violent actions against the Palestinian people, and proposed an international peacekeeping body to enforce a Middle East ceasefire;
Therefore it be resolved that the Green Party of Canada calls upon Israel to end its forty year occupation of all occupied land without preconditions, and calls upon the resistance movement in Palestine to simultaneously halt all violent action against Israel and for both parties to begin to implement the “Saudi Peace Plan”, without delay."
However, it remains scant on key details that make it seem much less than benign. For example, the resolution asserts the right of Palestinians to "return to their homes and property". It doesn't seem to address the claims of numerous Palestinians to the entirety of the country.
Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that Israel has been at a continuous state of de facto warfare ever since its establishment. There is a great deal of virtue to be found in the argument that Israel should relinquish the West Bank and the other occupied territories. Yet, under the duress of attacks by Islamic and Palestinian terrorist groups, Israel has never truly known peacetime.
The resolution wisely calls upon Palestian groups to cease violent action against Israel, just as it calls upon Israel to cease violent action against Palestians. Yet it seems to overlook that many elements of Islamic culture in the Middle East have begun to honour those who perpetrate violence against Israelis -- even children -- and celebrating them as heroes.
How can one honestly expect Palestinian groups to cease violent action against Israel in a cultural climate where a man who smashes an Israeli child's head in (while her father watches) is hailed as a hero?
Resolution nine is another resolution that could be effected by the Group of Four's "issues of conscience" resolution:
"Resolution 9 – EuthanasiaOnce again, one may wonder how the Group of Four would respond if their own "issues of conscience" resolution was used to resist their "euthanasia" policy?
Whereas on 15 June 2005, Bill C-407, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Right to Die with Dignity) was introduced by Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l’Île, Quebec). Due to the subsequent dissolution of Parliament and the call of a federal election, a vote did not take place and the Bill was not subsequently re-introduced after the election.
Whereas Bill C-407 would have amended sections 14 (Consent to Death), 222 (Homicide), and 241 (Counseling or aiding suicide) of the Criminal Code so that, provided that certain criteria are met, a person who assists another person to die would be neither committing a homicide nor counseling or aiding suicide. The bill would have required that the individual whose death is assisted to meet detailed provisions such as being at least 18 years old; either experiencing “severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief” or terminally ill; made a free and informed wish to die; have designated a person who aids him or her to die.
Whereas the bill would also have required that the person who is assisting the death to meet detailed provisions including; involvement of a medical practitioner; confirmation of the diagnosis from one or two medical practitioners; be entitled by law to provide this assistance; to act as directed by the individual whose death is assisted; and provide the coroner with a copy of the diagnosis from the confirming medical practitioners.
Therefore, be it resolved that the GPC support the re-introduction in Parliament of new Bill similar to Bill C-407."
Only time -- and an unlikely Green party election victory -- could tell.
The next two resolutions deal with aboriginal peoples:
"Resolution 10 - Aboriginal Affairs – Redress for LossesThis, in particular is a resolution that many land-owning Canadians may not like.
Whereas many recommendations of the 1990 the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have not been implemented.
Whereas Provincial, territorial and the Canadian governments have benefited greatly from Aboriginal peoples' loss of lands and resources.
Therefore, be it resolved the provincial and territorial and the Canadian governments issue a sincere apology for suffering and loss, and fully acknowledge a moral and a legal responsibility to participate fully in measures to restore self-reliance and autonomy, including land redistribution, the redesign of government responsibilities, and arrangements for co-management of shared resources."
After all, what could be said about this in Montreal, where the entirety of the downtown area is subject to an (as yet) unresolved aboriginal landclaim? What about British Columbia, where some of the claims actually exceed the sum of the land actually in British Columbia?
Furthermore, there is also the matter of the public outcry that arises whenever a politician talks about the need to restore autonomy and self-reliance to Canada's aboriginal peoples (the latter of the two propositions clearly being the allegedly troublesome one).
"Resolution 11 - Aboriginal Affairs – Nationhood StatusWhile the base principle of this resolution -- the recognition of aboriginal bands as autonomous self-governing peoples and direct partners in the enterprise of Canadian federalism -- is a huge step in a positive direction, there remain numerous problems with this resolution.
Whereas because of their original occupancy of the country, the treaties that recognized their rights, the constitution that affirms those rights, and their continued cohesion as peoples, the GPC believes that aboriginal peoples are distinct political entities and nations within Canada - with their own character and traditions, a right to their own autonomous governments, and a special place in the flexible federalism that defines Canada.
Whereas the GPC believes that our government must make a clear commitment to renewing the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, guided by recognition, respect, sharing and responsibility.
Therefore be it resolved that a new relationship with aboriginal peoples be defined and reflected in new legislation that includes:
1. An Aboriginal Nations Recognition and Government Act, to recognize Aboriginal nations and make interim arrangements to finance their activities.
2· An Aboriginal Treaties Implementation Act, to establish processes and principles for recognized nations to renew their existing treaties or create new ones; and to establish regional treaty commissions to facilitate and support treaty negotiations, and that this be conducted by representatives of the governments concerned.
3· An Aboriginal Lands and Treaties Tribunal Act, to establish an independent body to decide on specific claims, ensure that treaty negotiations are conducted and financed fairly, and protect the interests of affected parties while treaties are being negotiated.
4· An Aboriginal Parliament Act, to establish a parliamentary body to represent Aboriginal peoples within federal governing institutions and advise Parliament on matters affecting Aboriginal people.
5· An Aboriginal National Relations and Services Department Act, to establish a department to implement the new relationship with Aboriginal nations, to administer continuing services for groups not yet self-governing; and replace the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development."
First off, the insistence that aboriginal peoples must be recognized as autonomous and self-reliant conflicts drastically with the notion of funding their governments on an indefinite basis. University of Calgary Political Scientist Tom Flanagan is right when he notes that the best solutions to the dilemmas surrounding aboriginal peoples and their relationship with the Canadian government will inevitably include granting these bands the power to collect taxes within their jurisdiction.
However, the notion of replacing the Department of Indian Affairs with a department that would function on a more cooperative basis would be good for all Canadians, not just aboriginals.
The twelfth resolution is actually quite novel:
"Resolution 12 – Extending the order table through dissolution of ParliamentThis is the kind of legislative reform that should have existed in Canada a long time ago. While many politicians would likely oppose such a reform due to the time it would take away from their reelection campaigns, enacting such a reform would remind politicians and Canadians as a whole that doing the country's business must come before petty partisan or electoral concerns.
Whereas the GPC believes that the passage of legislation should be one of the highest priorities of the affairs of the parliament of Canada.
Whereas the creation of bills and legislation require a substantial investment of time and effort on the part of the public, committees, public servants, elected members, ministers, and others, and at a high cost to taxpayers.
Whereas on dissolution of parliament for an election, existing bills are lost from the order table of parliament (the order of business).
Therefore be it resolved that the GPC advocate for the amendment of parliamentary rules and procedures and the creation of a parliamentary committee, which will review bills existing previous to the dissolution, and recommend bills, with all party support, past third reading, and that transcend partisan politics, “to stand” and be included in the new order table of the new government."
Finally, the 13th resolution deals with the currently malignant environment in which the Canadian Parliament has conducted itself -- an environment that all of our political parties and elected officials have contriubted to:
"Resolution 13 – Decorum In ParliamentOne of the best ways to disperse the typically acrimonious environment of Canadian Parliament is, indeed, for one of Canada's political parties to agree to lead by example. Naturally, any one of Canada's parties would currently claim to be leading by example. For the Green party to come out and actually do so would be a welcome example.
Whereas the GPC do not accept the current manner that politics is practiced in this country; and want to change the way politics is conducted for the better.
Whereas we believe in of integrity in government, characterized by a cooperative, honest, respectful and responsible parliament and we will act accordingly.
Whereas it is observed that the behaviour of members of parliament in the House of Commons is on regular occasions unacceptable in terms of decorum, common courtesy and respect.
Whereas the GPC wishes to set an example of a new standard in Parliament which reflects that highest standards of respect and courtesy and be worthy of the public trust.
Therefore be it resolved that in the GPC develop and publish a code of conduct for our elected members of Parliament, which will set an example to others, and to which we are willing to be held accountable. This code will articulate the standards of dignity and respect we and the public want from our elected officials."
Of course, there's more to the Ottawa Group of Four than this package of policies. But it is interesting to consider what the Green party may or may not become under the leadership or influence of such a clique.
Many Canadians may want to question whether or not Canada can go where the Ottawa Group of Four would have the Green Party lead it, or even if it should.
Murray Dobbin on Canadian Foreign Policy
Dobbin waxes eloquent about mythical Canada
Coming once again via the Real News Network, Murray Dobbin insists that Canada's engagement in Afghanistan somehow imperils Canadian culture.
Dobbin recites all the tired left-wing rhetoric surrounding Afghanistan: that the combat mission was accepted to appease the United States, that Canadian forces are "occupying" Afghanistan, and Canada is becoming too "American".
But Dobbin makes a serious misstep when he insists that the "military is being integrated into what has been a strictly non-military culture."
Dobbin is either a tremendously poor student of Canadian history, or has simply allowed his reading of Canadian history to be distorted beyond recognition by his personal ideological preferences.
Canadian culture has never been "strictly non-military". Historians are in general agreement that notions of Canada as a sovereign state -- as opposed to merely a British colony -- came out of a military engagement: the Second World War. Historians agree that Canadians -- like the citizens of many British colonies -- came out of WWII believing that Canada had earned its sovereignty by playing a critical role in winning the European conflict.
Canadians have always taken pride in our military. Canadians have been known to boast about the "make-do" ingenuity of Canadian service men and women, who perform amazing feats with equipment many others would be considered ill-suited to the task.
We come together as Canadians every 11th of November to honour the sacrifices of our service men and women. Those sacrifices were predominantly made during times of war -- mostly during the First World War, Second World War and Korean War, although various Peacekeeping missions and the Afghan war have also added to the ranks of the remembered dead.
One of Canada's great national symbols, the Snowbirds, is made up of Air Force pilots specially trained to perform aerial stunts. They are world-renowned for their skill and artistry.
Even the Peacekeeping that Dobbin and his ideological stalwarts laud is carried out not by civilians, but by military personell. It was the labours of such military personell that helped Prime Minister Lester Pearson secure his Nobel Peace Prize -- again, a symbol of pride for Canadians.
Dobbin clearly misunderstands the role of the military in Canadian history. There is nothing un-Canadian about the military.
Dobbin also trots out a conspiracy theory suggesting that the engagement in Afghanistan is being fought primarily to secure a proposed pipeline through Afghanistan. The pipeline would carry natural gas from Turkmenistan to foreign markets.
However, Dobbin should be interested to learn that the pipeline in question would not be carrying natural gas to American or European markets, but rather to India and Pakistan. Furthermore, no war effort would have ever been needed to secure that pipeline, considering that the Taliban was in favour of building the pipeline.
Dobbin also accuses Stephen Harper and the Conservatives of being in league with George W Bush in allegedly trying to surround Russia with NATO states friendly to the United States.
But Dobbin should also keep in mind that Georgia and the Ukraine applied to NATO for membership, and that membership has still not yet been granted. It seems illogical for NATO to drag its feet on granting full membership -- as opposed to their current associate membership -- if their goal is to encircle Russia.
Dobbin argues that Harper and the Conservatives are backing American foreign policy despite it being against Canada's interests. But he may want to double-check what Canada's interests really are.
To begin with, Central and Eastern Canada remain energy importers. Thus, Canada has an interest in helping to break Russian dominance over east European and west Asian energy markets.
Furthermore, Canada has a very real interest in helping to corral states that harbour terrorists -- not to mention interests in promoting human rights by ensuring that one of the world's worst abusers of human rights does not return to power in Afghanistan.
In the end, Dobbin engages in some base defeatism. Canada cannot win in Afghanistan, he insists, although he, like his ideological stalwarts, have made a habit of overlooking successes in Afghanistan so that they may focus on the failures and challenges there.
Unfortunately, it isn't at all unlike Murray Dobbin to be narrowly ideological. His Michael Byers-esque turn on Canadian Foreign Policy is really little more than another drop in the bucket.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Rest of Canada? Where's That?
If one were to pay close attention to the ongoing federal election campaign, one would think the Conservative party is overwhelmingly carrying the day in terms of advertising.
They are carrying the day. But not as overwhelmingly as one might think -- at least, not if one were from English Canada.
In English Canada, the Conservatives have released 12 ads. The Liberal party has released one.
In Quebec, the story is entirely different. In fact, the Liberals have released numerous ads there that they have yet to release in the rest of the country.
The earlier batch of Quebec-only ads seem to emphasize Stephane Dion and "his team", as numerous Liberal party MPs and candidates wax eloquently on topics such as employment:
Poverty:
Arts and culture:
And "the word Canada":
In the second batch, the Liberal party tries to portray ordinary Quebecers offering their criticisms of Stephen Harper:
On great leadership:
And hope:
The ads feature the Liberal party sinking to some typical low points -- such as dropping George W Bush and Denis Coderre at least seeming to imply that Stephen Harper is "insane".
But the ads clearly show where Stephane Dion at least seems to think his bread his buttered: Quebec. The lack of any kind of comprehensive advertising Campaign in the rest of Canada is certainly nothing less than a glaring strategic blunder by the Liberals.
Considering their current third-place standing in Quebec (behind the Bloc and Tories, who are neck-and-neck), the Liberals may want to start paying some attention to the rest of Canada before it's too late.
That is, if they can even find it on a map. Right now, one wonders.
They are carrying the day. But not as overwhelmingly as one might think -- at least, not if one were from English Canada.
In English Canada, the Conservatives have released 12 ads. The Liberal party has released one.
In Quebec, the story is entirely different. In fact, the Liberals have released numerous ads there that they have yet to release in the rest of the country.
The earlier batch of Quebec-only ads seem to emphasize Stephane Dion and "his team", as numerous Liberal party MPs and candidates wax eloquently on topics such as employment:
Poverty:
Arts and culture:
And "the word Canada":
In the second batch, the Liberal party tries to portray ordinary Quebecers offering their criticisms of Stephen Harper:
On great leadership:
And hope:
The ads feature the Liberal party sinking to some typical low points -- such as dropping George W Bush and Denis Coderre at least seeming to imply that Stephen Harper is "insane".
But the ads clearly show where Stephane Dion at least seems to think his bread his buttered: Quebec. The lack of any kind of comprehensive advertising Campaign in the rest of Canada is certainly nothing less than a glaring strategic blunder by the Liberals.
Considering their current third-place standing in Quebec (behind the Bloc and Tories, who are neck-and-neck), the Liberals may want to start paying some attention to the rest of Canada before it's too late.
That is, if they can even find it on a map. Right now, one wonders.
Orchard to Dion: Lighten Green Shift Lite
Saskatchewan star Liberal candidate proposes mid-campaign policy changes
As the 2008 federal election progresses, one can't really help but wonder if Stephane Dion is regretting not intervening (again) in the nomination process in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River.
Even after lightening his vaunted Green Shift plan, Stephane Dion is being called upon by David Orchard (his candidate in Desenethe-Missinippi-Churchill River) to lighten it some more.
"I don't want to see farmers or fisherman or northerners penalized for using fuels for which there is no option, they have no alternative," Orchard pronounced.
Orchard insists that he has no shortage of confidence in Dion's leadership, despite his previous interference in Orchard's electoral ambitions. "I would have no trouble working for Stéphane Dion and I'm working hard to help him win power," he insists.
Calling upon Dion to once again change his policy -- this time in the middle of an election campaign -- probably isn't as helpful as Orchard would like to believe.
To help like this, Stephane Dion may need to say "thanks, but no thanks."
As the 2008 federal election progresses, one can't really help but wonder if Stephane Dion is regretting not intervening (again) in the nomination process in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River.
Even after lightening his vaunted Green Shift plan, Stephane Dion is being called upon by David Orchard (his candidate in Desenethe-Missinippi-Churchill River) to lighten it some more.
"I don't want to see farmers or fisherman or northerners penalized for using fuels for which there is no option, they have no alternative," Orchard pronounced.Orchard insists that he has no shortage of confidence in Dion's leadership, despite his previous interference in Orchard's electoral ambitions. "I would have no trouble working for Stéphane Dion and I'm working hard to help him win power," he insists.
Calling upon Dion to once again change his policy -- this time in the middle of an election campaign -- probably isn't as helpful as Orchard would like to believe.
To help like this, Stephane Dion may need to say "thanks, but no thanks."
Free Trade Issues Enter the Counter-Branding Fray
In a new ad released yesterday, the Conservative party took advantage of a trade-related issue brought up by Stephane Dion.
Dion has suggested that the allgedly weak environmental policies of the Conservative government would imperil Canadian trade, as other countries impose punitive tariffs on countries judged to have taken insufficient action fighitng climate change.
"Other countries are considering slapping carbon tariffs on those who don't take action on climate change. As hard as it is to believe, for now, Canada is one of those countries," Dion recently said.
Dion's Green Shift plan promises to impose such "carbon tariffs" on other countries judged to be dragging their feet on climate change.
The ad itself seems to have been put together rather hastily. It features a different narrator than previous Conservative ads, and relies almost overwhelmingly on the analysis of a single expert -- Carlton University's Michael Hart. It features images of numerous Canadian trading partners being stamped with the word "tariff" as it progresses toward its logical conclusion: a map of the United States -- Canada's largest trading partner -- being stamped.
Perhaps it's inevitable that trade-related issues (in particular, Free Trade-related issues) were going to come up in the election campaign. In August, David Orchard, Canada's leading anti-free trader finally secured his opportunity to run for the Liberal party.
Perhaps it was only a matter of time before the Liberal party offered up some kind of Free Trade-related policy -- one that would inevitably require the abrogation of NAFTA -- in order to keep their newest star candidate in the fold.
Not so surprisingly, Dion's trade-related musings closely resemble musings by Barack Obama that he would try to renegotiate NAFTA in order to add environmental agreements. Considering Dion's poor performance on fighting climate change during his last go around, questions over whether or not Dion is, like Obama, merely bluffing remain lefitimate.
As such, the Conservative counter-branding effort in this case ironically tries to drive Dion closer to potentially unpopular policies of the man he would likely most like to emulate, even if Jack Layton is outdoing him on that particular front right now.
This subtext of the ad -- and reminders that many key details about Dion's Green Shift plan have been postponed in Campbellian fashion until after the election -- seem to be meant to work together to encourage voters to question Dion's genuinity and ponder the economic consequences of such a move.
The ad also represents a notable shift in the overall Conservative campaign -- moving away from tactics of ridicule and toward serious debate.
This particular ad is a bold move for the Conservative party. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect it has on the campaign.
Canadian Cynic: Canadians are Stupid
There's clearly something about Canadian Cynic and the word "stupid".
According to Cynic, the Blogging Tories are stupid, Christians are stupid, and anyone who dares stand up to him is stupid too.
In a post at the Sycophantic Groupthink Temple today, however, Cynic takes his little act an unsurprising step forward: Canadians are stupid.
Ironically, this assertion comes as Cynic is addressing a column by Christopher Flavelle in which he asked: darn it, how has Canada gotten so gosh-darn mean?
Certainly, the irony shouldn't be lost on anyone familiar with the distinctly un-Canadian dump that is (as he calls it) Cynic HQ. After all, if anyone in Canada has written the book on "mean", it certainly wasn't the Conservative party of Canada.
After all, there's something inherently mean about expressing amusement about an assassination attempt on a Canadian politician. Encouraging people to go after a political opponent through his children? To the point of stalking them to their school?
Not much more needs to be said about any of this. The irony of the individual who is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Canada's meanest blogger essentially decrying the alleged meanness of Canadian society?
Most certainly lost upon himself (as these things tend to be), but not lost upon the rational observer.
In the end, it's unsurprising that Cynic considers Canadians to be stupid. After all, he certainly thinks his readers are stupid (it helps that they're all too often slavishly willing to oblige him).
After all, Cynic eagerly piled on the tasergate controversy. This would be fair enough if his inherently fascistic schaedenfreude hadn't already been run up the flagpole for the world to see.
For Cynic to expect to be able to fall in line with the progressive movement while they protested the injudicious use of tasers that has, sadly, been spreading across our country like wildfire while having made excuses for the injudicious use of tasers on a man who dared ask too many questions of the man who was once the favoured Presidential candidate of progressives?
This is a person who thinks Canadians are -- in fact, who clearly thinks everyone aside from himself is -- stupid.
And what was it that spurned him to finally just come out and say it? Likely polls that show the object of Cynic's simmering hatred to be headed toward a stronger minority government, if not a majority.
The very object of hatred that Cynic has spent the better part of his day for the past god-only-knows how long emptying both barrels at.
It seems that, once again, Candian Cynic is a good deal less influential than he's deluded himself into believing.
But at least he's finally mustered the courage to come out and tell Canadians what he really thinks of them. Now, if only he could muster the courage to attach his own name to those comments...
According to Cynic, the Blogging Tories are stupid, Christians are stupid, and anyone who dares stand up to him is stupid too.
In a post at the Sycophantic Groupthink Temple today, however, Cynic takes his little act an unsurprising step forward: Canadians are stupid.
Ironically, this assertion comes as Cynic is addressing a column by Christopher Flavelle in which he asked: darn it, how has Canada gotten so gosh-darn mean?
Certainly, the irony shouldn't be lost on anyone familiar with the distinctly un-Canadian dump that is (as he calls it) Cynic HQ. After all, if anyone in Canada has written the book on "mean", it certainly wasn't the Conservative party of Canada.
After all, there's something inherently mean about expressing amusement about an assassination attempt on a Canadian politician. Encouraging people to go after a political opponent through his children? To the point of stalking them to their school?
Not much more needs to be said about any of this. The irony of the individual who is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Canada's meanest blogger essentially decrying the alleged meanness of Canadian society?
Most certainly lost upon himself (as these things tend to be), but not lost upon the rational observer.
In the end, it's unsurprising that Cynic considers Canadians to be stupid. After all, he certainly thinks his readers are stupid (it helps that they're all too often slavishly willing to oblige him).
After all, Cynic eagerly piled on the tasergate controversy. This would be fair enough if his inherently fascistic schaedenfreude hadn't already been run up the flagpole for the world to see.
For Cynic to expect to be able to fall in line with the progressive movement while they protested the injudicious use of tasers that has, sadly, been spreading across our country like wildfire while having made excuses for the injudicious use of tasers on a man who dared ask too many questions of the man who was once the favoured Presidential candidate of progressives?
This is a person who thinks Canadians are -- in fact, who clearly thinks everyone aside from himself is -- stupid.
And what was it that spurned him to finally just come out and say it? Likely polls that show the object of Cynic's simmering hatred to be headed toward a stronger minority government, if not a majority.
The very object of hatred that Cynic has spent the better part of his day for the past god-only-knows how long emptying both barrels at.
It seems that, once again, Candian Cynic is a good deal less influential than he's deluded himself into believing.
But at least he's finally mustered the courage to come out and tell Canadians what he really thinks of them. Now, if only he could muster the courage to attach his own name to those comments...
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Machinations of Left-Wing Reactionaries
Vote-swapping scheme shows left-wing extremists running scared
All over Canada, left-wing extremists are sweating bullets at the prospect of a Conservative majority government.
In an effort to try and head this off, Hamilton, Ontario's Mat Savelli has started an "Anti-Harper Vote Swap" group on Facebook, in which people in 41 battle ground ridings are encouraged to vote strategically to prevent a Conservative victory in that riding.
First off, some may recall that former Canadian AutoWorkers union President Buzz Hargrove had his NDP membership revoked for encouraging Canadians to vote strategically during the 2005/06 federal election. Any NDP members participating in the "Anti-Harper vote swap" will almost certainly be imperiling their party membership.
Secondly, at a mere 1,128 members -- including, uncharacteristically, Saskboy -- it's unlikely that the vote swap will make a significant difference unless its membership grows in the coming weeks.
Most of all, however, the "Anti-Harper vote swap" seems to overlook the inherent cynicism of its own exercise. The "Anti-Harper vote swap" encourages Canadians to vote against their personal allegiances and own interests in order to block another party. In other words, the people participating in the swap aren't voting for anything. Rather, they're simply voting against the Stephen Harper Conservatives.
As a political act, this is inherently pessimistic and cynical. A large question of trust remains: who's to say that a Liberal agreeing to vote for the NDP -- essentially in Savelli's place -- won't instead just go ahead and vote Liberal?
Perhaps for NDP supporters there is very little incentive for being dishonest. But with the Liberal party very much in contention to win the election, there is absolutely no doubt that there is an incentive for Liberal party supporters to secure a vote from an NDP supporter and then renege.
The perverse brilliance of such an act is that the individual getting burned would never know the difference.
The dis- and mistrust bred so easily in the heart of an individual cynical enough to engage in such an enterprise may, in the end, turn out to be enough to sink the entire enterprise. But whether or not the "Anti-Harper vote swap" is successful or not won't be known until election day.
All over Canada, left-wing extremists are sweating bullets at the prospect of a Conservative majority government.
In an effort to try and head this off, Hamilton, Ontario's Mat Savelli has started an "Anti-Harper Vote Swap" group on Facebook, in which people in 41 battle ground ridings are encouraged to vote strategically to prevent a Conservative victory in that riding.
"Let's pretend I'm NDP supporter in the riding of Winnipeg South. Seeing as the Tories only managed to beat the Liberals by less than 150 votes in the 2006 election, the Liberals almost surely have the best chance of winning. I post on this group's wall 'NDP in Winnipeg South looking for Liberal swap' and agree to vote Liberal in exchange for someone else (i.e. a Liberal living in rural Alberta where the Tories are a lock to win) voting NDP in another riding. The group runs on an honour system in the belief that we are all united against Harper."In theory, this is an idea that could work. However, there are a number of issues with it.
First off, some may recall that former Canadian AutoWorkers union President Buzz Hargrove had his NDP membership revoked for encouraging Canadians to vote strategically during the 2005/06 federal election. Any NDP members participating in the "Anti-Harper vote swap" will almost certainly be imperiling their party membership.
Secondly, at a mere 1,128 members -- including, uncharacteristically, Saskboy -- it's unlikely that the vote swap will make a significant difference unless its membership grows in the coming weeks.
Most of all, however, the "Anti-Harper vote swap" seems to overlook the inherent cynicism of its own exercise. The "Anti-Harper vote swap" encourages Canadians to vote against their personal allegiances and own interests in order to block another party. In other words, the people participating in the swap aren't voting for anything. Rather, they're simply voting against the Stephen Harper Conservatives.
As a political act, this is inherently pessimistic and cynical. A large question of trust remains: who's to say that a Liberal agreeing to vote for the NDP -- essentially in Savelli's place -- won't instead just go ahead and vote Liberal?
Perhaps for NDP supporters there is very little incentive for being dishonest. But with the Liberal party very much in contention to win the election, there is absolutely no doubt that there is an incentive for Liberal party supporters to secure a vote from an NDP supporter and then renege.
The perverse brilliance of such an act is that the individual getting burned would never know the difference.
The dis- and mistrust bred so easily in the heart of an individual cynical enough to engage in such an enterprise may, in the end, turn out to be enough to sink the entire enterprise. But whether or not the "Anti-Harper vote swap" is successful or not won't be known until election day.
Me, Too! Me, Too!
Green party admission to leaders' debates has brought Canada's other political crazies out of the woodworks
With Green party leader Elizabeth May set to participate in the televised leaders' debates -- despite her party having never elected a single, solitary MP -- many of Canada's other political crazies want a spot in the big show, too.
"The parties that are in the House are treating it like a private fiefdom, they're trying to pull up the drawbridge behind them and exclude other parties and new ideas," said Christian Heritage party leader Ron Gray.
"A democracy requires an informed electorate," he added. "To preempt the voter's decision by excluding one important voice is anti-democratic."
But in the 2005/06 federal election, only 28,152 voters voted for the anti-abortion, anti-gay social conservative Christian Heritage party. That's good for a 0.19% of the popular vote.
Is the Christian Heritage party really an "important voice"? Not bloody likely.
Marijuana party leader Blair Longley also thinks that, gosh-darn it, it's all just not fair.
"It's so unfair it goes off the scale," Longley sniffed. "We've been complaining forever and ever. Marijuana Party candidates are routinely excluded from debates, all over the place, all the time."
"If you're below the two-per-cent (threshold), you're nothing," Longley noted.
And for good reason, too. It's one thing for the debates to have to moderate a leaders' debate amongst four (now five) different leaders. Add a burnout douchebag who's probably stoned to the mix?
Not a pretty picture.
In the 2005/06 election 9,171 voters cast their ballot in favour of the Marijuana party. One presumes that a good deal of their constituency must have had an epiphany on election day: "if the only political issue I care about is the legalization of marijuana, I am clearly too fucking stupid to vote."
Of course, there is one fringe party in Canada that could actually make a somewhat legitimate claim to a spot in the leaders' debate: the Communist party, who elected Fred Rose in 1943, when the party ran candidates as the Labour Progressive party.
Unfortunately for the Communist party (and fortunately for the rest of us), however, the Communist party will still have to field candidates against the Marxist-Leninist party, splitting what is quite literally the pinko-commie vote.
Of course, neither party would stand a chance of electing an MP anywhere. There are three reasons for this: Communist. Marxist. Leninist.
Commanding a potential 10% of the popular vote, the Green party has certainly grown in status far beyond the meager dreams of these other fringe upstarts. But with the party finally claiming a place at the televised debate -- even with a leader acting as nothing more than a proxy for the Liberal party -- one has to wonder how long it may be before the network consortium relents and lets all these other crazies in, too.
Then again, Parliament (on a good day) already resembles an unruly kindergarten classroom. Why shouldn't the leaders' debate follow suit?
With Green party leader Elizabeth May set to participate in the televised leaders' debates -- despite her party having never elected a single, solitary MP -- many of Canada's other political crazies want a spot in the big show, too.
"The parties that are in the House are treating it like a private fiefdom, they're trying to pull up the drawbridge behind them and exclude other parties and new ideas," said Christian Heritage party leader Ron Gray.
"A democracy requires an informed electorate," he added. "To preempt the voter's decision by excluding one important voice is anti-democratic."
But in the 2005/06 federal election, only 28,152 voters voted for the anti-abortion, anti-gay social conservative Christian Heritage party. That's good for a 0.19% of the popular vote.
Is the Christian Heritage party really an "important voice"? Not bloody likely.
Marijuana party leader Blair Longley also thinks that, gosh-darn it, it's all just not fair.
"It's so unfair it goes off the scale," Longley sniffed. "We've been complaining forever and ever. Marijuana Party candidates are routinely excluded from debates, all over the place, all the time."
"If you're below the two-per-cent (threshold), you're nothing," Longley noted.
And for good reason, too. It's one thing for the debates to have to moderate a leaders' debate amongst four (now five) different leaders. Add a burnout douchebag who's probably stoned to the mix?
Not a pretty picture.
In the 2005/06 election 9,171 voters cast their ballot in favour of the Marijuana party. One presumes that a good deal of their constituency must have had an epiphany on election day: "if the only political issue I care about is the legalization of marijuana, I am clearly too fucking stupid to vote."
Of course, there is one fringe party in Canada that could actually make a somewhat legitimate claim to a spot in the leaders' debate: the Communist party, who elected Fred Rose in 1943, when the party ran candidates as the Labour Progressive party.
Unfortunately for the Communist party (and fortunately for the rest of us), however, the Communist party will still have to field candidates against the Marxist-Leninist party, splitting what is quite literally the pinko-commie vote.
Of course, neither party would stand a chance of electing an MP anywhere. There are three reasons for this: Communist. Marxist. Leninist.
Commanding a potential 10% of the popular vote, the Green party has certainly grown in status far beyond the meager dreams of these other fringe upstarts. But with the party finally claiming a place at the televised debate -- even with a leader acting as nothing more than a proxy for the Liberal party -- one has to wonder how long it may be before the network consortium relents and lets all these other crazies in, too.
Then again, Parliament (on a good day) already resembles an unruly kindergarten classroom. Why shouldn't the leaders' debate follow suit?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
So Fucking What?
Ryan Sparrow screws the proverbial pooch, is shown actual door
"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."
Those are the words that should have been uttered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper today, as he suspended Communications Director Ryan Sparrow.
Sparrow has been suspended for an email he sent to CTV following an appearance by Jim Davis, the father of fallen Corporal Paul Davis, following an appearance on Canada AM, in which he (rightfully) criticized Stephen Harper's promise to end the Canadian Forces engagement in Afghanistan in 2011.
Sparrow responded by emailing CTV and telling them that Davis is a Liberal party member who supported Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership contest.
So the question on many people's minds is: so fucking what?
Not as in "Ryan Sparrow emailed CTV: so fucking what," but: "Jim Davis is a Liberal. So fucking what?"
Davis is entirely right to be concerned that his son's death not be in vain. Davis is entirely right to voice his opinion that, when Canada finally withdraws from Afghanistan, the mission there will have been accomplished. Jim Davis is entirely right to express his opinion.
And it isn't as if he had never confronted Liberals over their policies in Afghanistan. In July 2007, Davis encouraged Liberal leader Stephane Dion to support the extension of Canada's Afghanistan engagement.
Davis has been anything but partisan in his comment on Afghanistan. He has now taken both federal leaders on over their stance regarding the mission.
For Sparrow to try to suggest that Davis was acting as a partisan hack is nothing short of shameful -- especially considering that he himself was acting as nothing more than a partisan hack.
Sparrow's behaviour is not only embarassing for himself or his party. It's also embarassing for his country. Canadians expect better than this out of their politicians.
Davis, for his own part, has remained classy throughout this entire shameful affair. He's voiced his disagreement with Sparrow's suspension, noting that "we all learn from our mistakes and we become better people because of that. The last thing that I would want is somebody to have hardship over my son's death. That's not what this is all about, this is not politics."
Unfortunately, however, Sparrow didn't get that particular memo -- just as online hatemoger Canadian Cynic didn't get the message that it's unacceptable to attack the parents of war casualties for political purposes.
And he still hasn't gotten the memo. (But for those keeping track on Cynic's psychopathic delusions of personal destruction, one may want to take note of the effect such an attack can have on one's personal career -- just something for the hateful sociopath to mull over for a little while.)
Davis never wanted his son's death to be about politics. Unfortuantely, Ryan Sparrow tried to make it about politics and, as such, he should be making a much more permanent exit from his position with the Conservative party than merely a "suspension".
"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."
Stephen Harper should be memorizing that.
"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."
Those are the words that should have been uttered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper today, as he suspended Communications Director Ryan Sparrow.
Sparrow has been suspended for an email he sent to CTV following an appearance by Jim Davis, the father of fallen Corporal Paul Davis, following an appearance on Canada AM, in which he (rightfully) criticized Stephen Harper's promise to end the Canadian Forces engagement in Afghanistan in 2011.
Sparrow responded by emailing CTV and telling them that Davis is a Liberal party member who supported Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership contest.
So the question on many people's minds is: so fucking what?
Not as in "Ryan Sparrow emailed CTV: so fucking what," but: "Jim Davis is a Liberal. So fucking what?"
Davis is entirely right to be concerned that his son's death not be in vain. Davis is entirely right to voice his opinion that, when Canada finally withdraws from Afghanistan, the mission there will have been accomplished. Jim Davis is entirely right to express his opinion.
And it isn't as if he had never confronted Liberals over their policies in Afghanistan. In July 2007, Davis encouraged Liberal leader Stephane Dion to support the extension of Canada's Afghanistan engagement.
Davis has been anything but partisan in his comment on Afghanistan. He has now taken both federal leaders on over their stance regarding the mission.
For Sparrow to try to suggest that Davis was acting as a partisan hack is nothing short of shameful -- especially considering that he himself was acting as nothing more than a partisan hack.
Sparrow's behaviour is not only embarassing for himself or his party. It's also embarassing for his country. Canadians expect better than this out of their politicians.
Davis, for his own part, has remained classy throughout this entire shameful affair. He's voiced his disagreement with Sparrow's suspension, noting that "we all learn from our mistakes and we become better people because of that. The last thing that I would want is somebody to have hardship over my son's death. That's not what this is all about, this is not politics."
Unfortunately, however, Sparrow didn't get that particular memo -- just as online hatemoger Canadian Cynic didn't get the message that it's unacceptable to attack the parents of war casualties for political purposes.
And he still hasn't gotten the memo. (But for those keeping track on Cynic's psychopathic delusions of personal destruction, one may want to take note of the effect such an attack can have on one's personal career -- just something for the hateful sociopath to mull over for a little while.)
Davis never wanted his son's death to be about politics. Unfortuantely, Ryan Sparrow tried to make it about politics and, as such, he should be making a much more permanent exit from his position with the Conservative party than merely a "suspension".
"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."
Stephen Harper should be memorizing that.
Why Do We Fight?
September Tapes offers post-9/11 cautionary tale
In the post-9/11 world, many people have developed a fascinating interest in telling people "why we fight".
Many people treat it as a foregone conclusion: "We fight. This is why." Rarely is the matter even treated as a question.
2004's The September Tapes -- think of it as The Blair Witch Project meets Babel in wartime Afghanistan -- presents Don Larson (George Calil) as a documtary filmmaker in Afghanistan intent on witnessing the capture of Osama Bin Laden by American troops. His Afghan-American guide Wali Zarif (Wali Razaqi) leads Larson deeper and deeper into the dangerous world of Afghanistan's ethnic conflicts.
As he does so, Larson is drawn deeper and deeper into the conflict, eventually sacrificing his role as an observer and non-combatant for that of warrior, as he pursues the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks with a fierce doggedness that quickly escalates into outright obsession.
As the movie progresses, it quickly becomes obvious that Larson has taken the events of 9/11 very personally. It turns out that he actually has ample cause -- something the viewer doesn't learn until the film's conclusion.
But the film offers a cautionary tale about 9/11 and about the war on terror that it has spawned.
The United States and its allies -- including and especially Canada -- cannot allow the war on terror to be about revenge. The United States and its allies cannot allow the war on terror to become about revenge.
It's impossible to argue that the response to 9/11 shouldn't be considered personal. The country attacked on that dark day certainly took the event personally. Frankly, it's hard to blame them.
As Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) notes in 2004's The Punisher, "revenge is not a valid motive. It's an emotional response." Any response to 9/11 based purely on emotion is one that is certain to fail.
Frank Castle is a character incapable of dealing with his own internal (emotional and psychological) problems in the wake of his family's murder. Instead, he focuses his efforts on the destruction of external enemies. When he finally manages to kill the man who ordered his family's murder, he takes to the road in search of other enemies to fight.
Likewise, Don Larson is a man seemingly incapable of dealing with his own (again, emotional and psychological) problems in the wake of 9/11. Instead, he focuses his efforts on witnessing American soldiers bringing the man who masterminded the attacks to justice. When it becomes apparent that this will not happen, he takes up arms and pursues Bin Laden on his own.
The loss of his allies along the way doesn't deter him. In the end, the conclusion of the film is a foregone conclusion. In fact, it's divulged at the start of the film -- Larson disappears, and his tapes are eventually recovered by American soldiers.
Don Larson the man has vanished. He may be dead, or he may be hunting Osama Bin Laden still.
As the world stops to commemorate the seventh anniversary of 9/11, one wonders about the ultimate fate of the country south of the 49th parallel. Has it learned how to deal with its own internal problems (psychological or emotional, or economic or political), or will it continue to hunt for enemies?
Will it focus on the very real enemies that exist -- terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, the states that choose to harbour them and, ultimately, the conditions that breed them -- or will it again expand its crusade to threats that, if they even exist at all, are far from pressing? (One fears that talks about an eventual invasion of Iran are not as far-fetched as they may seem.)
The question is not if we will fight. The question is why. And, yes, it is a question.
As Canada and other countries continue to ally with the United States in the global war on terror, we must come to grips with the fact that the motives for which the United States fights will, in one way or another, impact upon us and be our motives as well.
We must continue to ensure that the United States is not fighting for revenge, but for the betterment of the world as a whole, and in the promotion of global security. If we witness the United States straying from this path again -- as it did when it chose to invade Iraq to confront non-existent weapons of mass destruction -- we must ensure that Canada does not follow them there.
That is why we fight. Not for revenge, as Don Larson eventually does, but for the betterment of all. For justice. For reason.
But never revenge.
Separatism in ICU
Bloc Quebecois wounded by 'friendly fire'
Two days after criticizng the religious beliefs of a Conservative candidate as "out of touch with Quebec values", Gilles Duceppe is facing down a critical identity crisis within his party, as some senior Pequistes are wondering precisely what "Quebec values" really are.
"The leftist, ideological bric-a-brac (state interventionism, egalitarianism, pacifism, environmentalism, anti-Americanism) transforms itself, as if by alchemy, into ‘Quebec values' that we must defend furiously," wrote Jacques Brassard, a former Parti Quebecois minister. "The Bloc has thus become the twin of the NDP, that archaic Canadian socialist party."
"Sovereignty has more or less been put on the back burner. It's not discussed any more. The circumstances aren't suitable. But the fact remains that that's why the Bloc exists," Brassard wrote. "I'm sorry, but this does not suit me. I don't recognize myself in this party."
For his own part, Duceppe naturally disagrees with Brassard's assertions. "In a democracy there are people who belong to a family who do not necessarily agree with what happens in that family," Duceppe replied.
However, with Conservative party support rising in Quebec, Conservative trade minister Michael Fortier naturally rushed to take advantage of the situation, pointing out the Bloc's dismal record in Ottawa.
"Mr Duceppe cannot mention in all honesty a single achievement, a single real gain for Quebecers, which is attributable to the Bloc," Fortier announced. "Any municipal council accomplishes more in one year than the Bloc has in 18 years."
The Bloc's poor record and effective abandonment of the sovereignty issue may be to blame for the party's decreasing support. In the January 2006 federal election, they claimed 42% of the Quebec vote. With the 2008 balloting just over a month away, the party is poised to claim a mere 30%.
Brassard's comments come less than a month after an internal kerfuffle within the Bloc's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, as Francois Legault noted that the separatist cause in Quebec has suffered a significant setback.
All this being said, it would be premature to start writing off separatism as "dead", as Pierre Trudeau once did (to his own and nearly the entire country's chagrin), as University of Montreal political scientist Pierre Martin notes.
"All journalists should take the stories about the death of the Bloc and bury them. This is not going to happen as long as you have anywhere between a third and half of the electorate who claim to be 'sovereigntist' -- there will be a voice for that electorate," Martin said.
Separatism is far from dead. However, it's certainly in intensive care for at least the short term.
Two days after criticizng the religious beliefs of a Conservative candidate as "out of touch with Quebec values", Gilles Duceppe is facing down a critical identity crisis within his party, as some senior Pequistes are wondering precisely what "Quebec values" really are.
"The leftist, ideological bric-a-brac (state interventionism, egalitarianism, pacifism, environmentalism, anti-Americanism) transforms itself, as if by alchemy, into ‘Quebec values' that we must defend furiously," wrote Jacques Brassard, a former Parti Quebecois minister. "The Bloc has thus become the twin of the NDP, that archaic Canadian socialist party.""Sovereignty has more or less been put on the back burner. It's not discussed any more. The circumstances aren't suitable. But the fact remains that that's why the Bloc exists," Brassard wrote. "I'm sorry, but this does not suit me. I don't recognize myself in this party."
For his own part, Duceppe naturally disagrees with Brassard's assertions. "In a democracy there are people who belong to a family who do not necessarily agree with what happens in that family," Duceppe replied.
However, with Conservative party support rising in Quebec, Conservative trade minister Michael Fortier naturally rushed to take advantage of the situation, pointing out the Bloc's dismal record in Ottawa.
"Mr Duceppe cannot mention in all honesty a single achievement, a single real gain for Quebecers, which is attributable to the Bloc," Fortier announced. "Any municipal council accomplishes more in one year than the Bloc has in 18 years."
The Bloc's poor record and effective abandonment of the sovereignty issue may be to blame for the party's decreasing support. In the January 2006 federal election, they claimed 42% of the Quebec vote. With the 2008 balloting just over a month away, the party is poised to claim a mere 30%.
Brassard's comments come less than a month after an internal kerfuffle within the Bloc's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, as Francois Legault noted that the separatist cause in Quebec has suffered a significant setback.All this being said, it would be premature to start writing off separatism as "dead", as Pierre Trudeau once did (to his own and nearly the entire country's chagrin), as University of Montreal political scientist Pierre Martin notes.
"All journalists should take the stories about the death of the Bloc and bury them. This is not going to happen as long as you have anywhere between a third and half of the electorate who claim to be 'sovereigntist' -- there will be a voice for that electorate," Martin said.
Separatism is far from dead. However, it's certainly in intensive care for at least the short term.
Tory Counter-Branding Effort Takes a Turn for the Ridiculous
Anti-family label is just plain silly
Yesterday, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the Liberals and NDP for allegedly being "anti-family", the Conservatives released yet another spot targeting Stephane Dion.
The ad addresses a previous statement by Stephane Dion in which he announced he would cut the Conservative's $1200 per annum childcare tax credit.
The ad insists that the choice to voters is clear "you keep the $1200, or [Dion] gets it."
Dion has denounced the claim as a "lie". Yet Dion did, in fact, say that he would cancel the Tory plan. More specifically, Dion would replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with Ken Dryden's plan for a national daycare program.
"The Dryden plan was much better. We need child care facilities to provide Canadian parents with real choice. It's a matter of social justice, but also of sound economics: child care facilities are a good way to encourage flexibility and mobility of our workforce, at a time when, often, two parents are working outside the home."
Which is obviously precisely what the ad is referring to when it warns that "[Dion] thinks he can spend [the $1200] better than you can."
Thus, there's nothing dishonest about the ad.
However, the ad's place in an effort to counter-brand Stephane Dion as "anti-family" is just plain silly. After all, Dion is a family man himself. It's unlikely that Dion himself would do anything to hurt his own family. Anything that would hurt Canadian families would inevitably hurt his own, in one way or another.
Just as Jack Layton is a family man as well, and has campaigned on numerous pro-family policies.
However, as silly as the Conservative effort to counter-brand Dion as Layton as "anti-family" (and there is a great peril in dragging politics down into the realm of vapid "anti-" labels), Dion's attempt to counter-brand the Conservatives as "liars" is doubly silly.
For one thing, the claims in the Conservative ad pan out to be true. Secondly, the base accusation of lying portrays Dion as a man incapable of debating the real issues -- instead choosing to dodge behind accusations of lies.
Stephen Harper himself insisted that the 2008 federal election would be a nasty one. With moves such as the inherently silly "anti-family" label, he's done more than his fair share to make it a nasty one.
Equally unfortunately, Stephane Dion has proven himself more than willing to oblige him.
9/11 At Election Time
Normally, the pressure has been to keep partisanship to a bare minimum on this day every year.
But with this year's anniversary of 9/11 -- the seventh year since that infamous day -- falling during not one but two North American elections, 9/11 will almost certainly become a topic of some importance today.
Particularly with an American election in which no incumbent can be returned to the White House, the question of 9/11 and how another such attack can be prevented will be a pivotal issue. In 2004, voters knew first hand President George W Bush's views on how to avert terrorist attacks. In 2008, they don't have that luxury in comparing the anti-terrorism plans of John McCain and Barack Obama.
But to truly understand the events of 9/11, and truly understand how another such attack can be prevented, it's important to understand how the event unfolded in the first place.
As such, today The Nexus presents (with brief commentary) the documentary Inside 9/11: Zero Hour:
It's remarkable how ineffective pre-9/11 security was at detecting the 19 terrorists, even when a number of them were selected for additional security. The very rules set by the FAA actually facilitated the hijacking by allowing the hijackers to carry their weapons on board.
It's also disconcerting how, even after the hijacking was known, the eventual disaster was still unable to be prevented.
The FAA's inability to communicate effectively with F-15 fighter jets that had been scrambled to track American Airlines flight 11 and the literal impossibility of fighting a fire at the height in question point to the obvious ill-preparedness of the American transportation infrastructure, military and civil authorities to deal with the events of that day.
One would almost excuse ill-preparedness to deal with events previously considered almost unimaginable. But on the very day of the events in question, novelist John Grisham told CNN that he had proposed events remarkably similar to 9/11 as a national security scenario to Pentagon officials.
The events of 9/11 weren't as unthinkable as we may like to believe.
The detail with which the film portrays the events of 9/11 is shocking, but underscores the reality of the event -- and reminds us why a repeat of that catastrophe must be averted.
Confusion began to set in as the FAA and air traffic controllers literally lost track of which planes were still in the air, and which planes had already reached their target.
Particularly chilling is the deception the hijackers employed with their passengers. Knowing full well that they were all going to die upon reaching their target, one can't help but treat the deception -- and the false hope it promises -- as unnecessarily cruel.
Then again, perhaps it could be said that any hope in the heart of a suicide bomber is false hope indeed.
Part of dealing with any event such as 9/11 requires a response plan -- something evidently lacking on that date in 2001. It pains any rational person to criticize the response of emergency services -- men and women doing their jobs under extremely difficult circumstances.
But there is little question that their jobs were made unacceptably more difficult by the lack of a response plan. When building a 100-plus story building, it isn't unreasonable to expect that civil authorities will plan for a possible evacuation of that building in the event of a catastrophe -- particularly when that building has been the target of a terrorist attack before.
The lack of a realistic plan to deal with fires such as those burning in the WTC becomes immediately apparent. The film notes that the average firefighter takes an hour to climb 25 stories, meaning the firefighters being sent to fight the fires -- each carrying 100 pounds of equipment -- would take four hours to reach the fire.
The fires, meanwhile, were beginning to soften the support beams, which had been stripped of their fire-proofing by the impact of the planes.
The lost four hours could have potentially prevented the collapse of the towers -- if there were a plan in place to help get firefighters to the impact floors in a reasonable amount of time.
Only the determination and dedication of the firefighters in question served to avert further loss of life that day where disaster planning effectively failed.
The film also presents some of the smaller human tales amidst the tragedy, such as that of Usman Farman, a Muslim man who a Jewish man helped escape from the debris cloud following the WTC's collapse.
Zero Hour also imparts on the viewer the culpability of basic human hubris for the loss of life that occurred on 9/11. Individuals less fortunate than Pasqual Buzzelli who were instructed by building security to remain in their offices despite the fires raging so far above died simply because of the apparent inability of WTC security staff to comprehend the inherent mortal hazard of the situation unfolding.
Once again, a complete evacuation should have been part of any disaster response plan. That there was no evacuation is simply a tragic testament to the lack of an effective plan.
The film also briefly addresses the policy shift following the attack -- explained by talking head David Frum -- and the policy and administrative failure in the lead-up to the attack.
"We were shocked at the carnage, but we certainly weren't surprised," explains J Coffer Black, a CIA analyst.
"I don't think anyone who worked on this problem expected anything less than what happened on 9/11," explained Michael Scheuer. "If the policymakers expected anything less, than shame on them."
There's a disturbing irony in the chirping of the firefighters' electronic locators -- devices once used to find a firefighter in the midst of a blaze, instead marking their graves amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center.
Even seven years after the event, the losses on that day stagger the imagination.
The film concludes with a brief summary of the events following 9/11: the invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Kabul, the invasion of Iraq -- basically, the rest of the story thus far. It outlines the continuing challenges of the post-9/11 world.
With elections underway in both the United States and Canada, it will be hard to keep the legacy of 9/11 separate from the political and partisan considerations at the very heart of these contests -- even if one agrees that it should be kept separate.
If the legacy of 9/11 really is to be dragged into the middle of either election -- and for the record, this author prays it won't be -- we will owe it to those lost on that day to postulate wisely on the topic, and ensure that it leads somewhere constructive.
To do anything less would trample their memories.
But with this year's anniversary of 9/11 -- the seventh year since that infamous day -- falling during not one but two North American elections, 9/11 will almost certainly become a topic of some importance today.
Particularly with an American election in which no incumbent can be returned to the White House, the question of 9/11 and how another such attack can be prevented will be a pivotal issue. In 2004, voters knew first hand President George W Bush's views on how to avert terrorist attacks. In 2008, they don't have that luxury in comparing the anti-terrorism plans of John McCain and Barack Obama.
But to truly understand the events of 9/11, and truly understand how another such attack can be prevented, it's important to understand how the event unfolded in the first place.
As such, today The Nexus presents (with brief commentary) the documentary Inside 9/11: Zero Hour:
It's remarkable how ineffective pre-9/11 security was at detecting the 19 terrorists, even when a number of them were selected for additional security. The very rules set by the FAA actually facilitated the hijacking by allowing the hijackers to carry their weapons on board.
It's also disconcerting how, even after the hijacking was known, the eventual disaster was still unable to be prevented.
The FAA's inability to communicate effectively with F-15 fighter jets that had been scrambled to track American Airlines flight 11 and the literal impossibility of fighting a fire at the height in question point to the obvious ill-preparedness of the American transportation infrastructure, military and civil authorities to deal with the events of that day.
One would almost excuse ill-preparedness to deal with events previously considered almost unimaginable. But on the very day of the events in question, novelist John Grisham told CNN that he had proposed events remarkably similar to 9/11 as a national security scenario to Pentagon officials.
The events of 9/11 weren't as unthinkable as we may like to believe.
The detail with which the film portrays the events of 9/11 is shocking, but underscores the reality of the event -- and reminds us why a repeat of that catastrophe must be averted.
Confusion began to set in as the FAA and air traffic controllers literally lost track of which planes were still in the air, and which planes had already reached their target.
Particularly chilling is the deception the hijackers employed with their passengers. Knowing full well that they were all going to die upon reaching their target, one can't help but treat the deception -- and the false hope it promises -- as unnecessarily cruel.
Then again, perhaps it could be said that any hope in the heart of a suicide bomber is false hope indeed.
Part of dealing with any event such as 9/11 requires a response plan -- something evidently lacking on that date in 2001. It pains any rational person to criticize the response of emergency services -- men and women doing their jobs under extremely difficult circumstances.
But there is little question that their jobs were made unacceptably more difficult by the lack of a response plan. When building a 100-plus story building, it isn't unreasonable to expect that civil authorities will plan for a possible evacuation of that building in the event of a catastrophe -- particularly when that building has been the target of a terrorist attack before.
The lack of a realistic plan to deal with fires such as those burning in the WTC becomes immediately apparent. The film notes that the average firefighter takes an hour to climb 25 stories, meaning the firefighters being sent to fight the fires -- each carrying 100 pounds of equipment -- would take four hours to reach the fire.
The fires, meanwhile, were beginning to soften the support beams, which had been stripped of their fire-proofing by the impact of the planes.
The lost four hours could have potentially prevented the collapse of the towers -- if there were a plan in place to help get firefighters to the impact floors in a reasonable amount of time.
Only the determination and dedication of the firefighters in question served to avert further loss of life that day where disaster planning effectively failed.
The film also presents some of the smaller human tales amidst the tragedy, such as that of Usman Farman, a Muslim man who a Jewish man helped escape from the debris cloud following the WTC's collapse.
Zero Hour also imparts on the viewer the culpability of basic human hubris for the loss of life that occurred on 9/11. Individuals less fortunate than Pasqual Buzzelli who were instructed by building security to remain in their offices despite the fires raging so far above died simply because of the apparent inability of WTC security staff to comprehend the inherent mortal hazard of the situation unfolding.
Once again, a complete evacuation should have been part of any disaster response plan. That there was no evacuation is simply a tragic testament to the lack of an effective plan.
The film also briefly addresses the policy shift following the attack -- explained by talking head David Frum -- and the policy and administrative failure in the lead-up to the attack.
"We were shocked at the carnage, but we certainly weren't surprised," explains J Coffer Black, a CIA analyst.
"I don't think anyone who worked on this problem expected anything less than what happened on 9/11," explained Michael Scheuer. "If the policymakers expected anything less, than shame on them."
There's a disturbing irony in the chirping of the firefighters' electronic locators -- devices once used to find a firefighter in the midst of a blaze, instead marking their graves amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center.
Even seven years after the event, the losses on that day stagger the imagination.
The film concludes with a brief summary of the events following 9/11: the invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Kabul, the invasion of Iraq -- basically, the rest of the story thus far. It outlines the continuing challenges of the post-9/11 world.
With elections underway in both the United States and Canada, it will be hard to keep the legacy of 9/11 separate from the political and partisan considerations at the very heart of these contests -- even if one agrees that it should be kept separate.
If the legacy of 9/11 really is to be dragged into the middle of either election -- and for the record, this author prays it won't be -- we will owe it to those lost on that day to postulate wisely on the topic, and ensure that it leads somewhere constructive.
To do anything less would trample their memories.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Ted Byfield on the Challenge of Compromise
Byfield encourages social conservatives to lobby the government
At a recent event Wynyard, Saskatchewan commemorating Joe Borowski's Trial for Life, Ted Byfield addressed the crowd with a speech entitled "How Did We Get into This Predicament?"
The "predicament" in question is somewhat obvious -- Dr Henry Morgentaler's ascension to the Order of Canada was clearly taken as a slight by so many social conservatives especially because individuals such as Borowski, and all the opposition they offered, have meanwhile been discarded to the scrap heap of history. For many social conservatives, the Morgentaler OoC was treated as yet another symbol of the ideological dominance the pro-abortion lobby demands on that particular issue.
Which isn't hard to understand -- many pro-abortion activists flaunted it as such.
The story of Borowski's Ttrial for Life is actually a fairly intriguing one, and could never be done justice in the course of a post about Byfield's comments. There are other times and places for that.
In this particular video, Byfield addresses a question asked concerning what social conservatives can do to reassert their influence on a government that, in the eyes of many social conservatives, has all but abandoned them.
Byfield's response is actually somewhat surprising -- although some individuals are almost perversely unembarrassed to misunderstand them.
Byfield actually opens his answer with some remarks about the importance of compromise in politics:
"I think that the Conservative government has to walk a line, as we all know, between its principles and its practical necessities. It exists through compromise. That is one of the great charms and weaknesses of the democratic system.One should likely assume that Byfield is advising his audience that any political party would have to be open to compromise on their particular issues (in this case, abortion) in order to get elected and remain electable -- certainly, its these very "practical necessities" that are at the core of the Conservative move to scrap Bill C-484, offering instead a legislatively redundant alternative.
No single candidate, no single party, anywhere will ever completely represent what you think the government ought to do.
Therefore everyone you come to vote for is going to have to compromise on some level."
Of course, not only social conservatives have to accept compromises after an election. For all their rhetoric to the contrary, it's highly unlikely that the NDP would put a stop to the Fort MacMurray oilsands -- nor are they likely to satisfy the demands of their most extreme left-wing supporters and start nationalizing industry in Canada.
Such voters would either have to be prepared to accept the inevitable post-election compromise, or consider casting their votes for a different party -- in the NDP example, perhaps the Communist party.
Yet, as Byfield points out, too much compromise can have a negative impact on the prospects of any political party:
"However, the Harper government has to walk a very, very careful path because it assumes it has the votes of what it calls 'social conservatives'. That's you and that's me.Inevitably, a party has to govern at least partially to its base. While governments can take this entirely too far and alienate the rest of the electorate in doing so -- the example of George W Bush is a cogent example -- it can only remain viable so long as it remembers who elected it in the first place.
They will compromise as far as they can with the other side. But they will always be watching what organizations like this say about what they do. If you see them compromising too far, tell them, because they are very, very alert to any possibility of rebellion from the small-c conservative side."
Byfield knows this well, having been front-and-centre during an episode of Canada's political history that underscores this for any politician willing to take an honest look at the federal politics of the 1990s:
"They're aware of one other thing: the old Conservative party ignored the social conservatives, and the consequence of that was the rise of the Reform party. And the consequence of that was many, many years of Liberal government, because the conservative vote split -- part to Reform, part to [Progressive] Conservative.The solution, Byfield insists, is rather simple: lobby the government. Apply pressure. Stand up for what you believe in.
They don't want that to happen again.
So when you see them doing things that they are now doing and you believe goes too far away -- too much of a compromise -- tell them. Write your MP. Get on open line shows when issues like this come up. Call in. Say what you think. Because they will listen. If at any time they get the idea that they've gone too far, they'll pull back again.
My message would be to make sure the Conservative government remains a conservative government. Let them know what you think all the time."
And while the necessary big-tent nature of the modern Conservative party renders it unlikely that social conservatives will ever attain everything on their "wish list" from a Conservative government, the party inevitably has to respect the basic democratic prerogatives of its supporters -- namely, the right to make their views heard.
Of course, there are those who believe social conservatives should not speak -- that they should relent to going quietly into the good night.
Many of these are the same people who tried to prevent the formation of the modern Conservative party because they weren't willing to even consider the notion of discussion -- let alone compromise -- with social conservatives. Likewise, there were plenty of Reform party supporters who rejected the modern Conservative party because they, too, were unwilling to accept any compromise.
Clearly, Ted Byfield's message wasn't really meant for either one of these two camps. Instead, Byfield's message is to those social conservatives who are willing to accept compromise but aren't willing to outright capitulate.
Intriguingly, this is a message that applies equally to left-wingers with a similar predisposition. Whether or not any of them care to hear it from the former publisher of Alberta Report is another matter entirely.
Why Can't Elizabeth May Be Honest With Canadians?
Green leader has interesting definition of "endorsement"
Elizabeth May didn't endorse Stephane Dion. Elizabeth May won't endorse Stephane Dion. Elizabeth May would never endorse Stephane Dion.
At least, that's reality according to Elizabeth May.
But those Canadians who follow politics -- and are blessed with a long-term memory exceeding that of a gnat -- know very differently. Elizabeth May did endorse Stephane Dion.
"I haven't endorsed Mr. Dion. I've consistently said that I am my first choice for prime minister," May recently insisted.
Of course, the truth is very different.
May's endorsement of Dion started shortly after striking her non-aggression pact with the Liberal leader.
"We recognize that a government in which Stephane Dion served as Prime Minister could work well with a Green caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May, committed to action on climate change," she said.
"Yes, Stephane Dion would like to see me in the House of Commons and I think that he should be Prime Minister," May said during a later interview, then adding her qualifier: "Of course, I'm my first choice for prime minister but he'd be very good as second choice."
But here's the thing: Elizabeth May isn't going to be Prime Minister. In fact, her party would be lucky to actually elect a single MP.
In her heart of hearts, Elizabeth May knows this. At the very least, she knows she won't be PM.
May's reasoning in this particular matter is nothing short of pervasively specious. Her "non-endorsement" of Stephane Dion is based on a qualifier that isn't even a remote possibility.
So, with May set to participate in the televised leaders' debate despite her realistically having no business being there, the question on the minds of Canadian voters has to be this:
Why can't Elizabeth May just be honest with Canadian voters?
As previously noted, May's justification for her non-aggression pact with Stephane Dion -- "leader's courtesy" -- was fundamentally dishonest, with no historical precedent applicable to a general election, nor to a riding which her party doesn't currently represent. Nor was the so-called "leader's courtesy" offered or extended to any other party leader.
When May insists she would never act as a proxy for Stephane Dion in the televised debate, how does she honestly expect Canadians to believe her considering the already-established record of electoral collusion between the two parties?
At least now the pressure will be on May to actually demonstrate her -- and her party's -- independence from Dion and the Liberals by not acting as such during the debate.
Elizabeth May didn't endorse Stephane Dion. Elizabeth May won't endorse Stephane Dion. Elizabeth May would never endorse Stephane Dion.
At least, that's reality according to Elizabeth May.
But those Canadians who follow politics -- and are blessed with a long-term memory exceeding that of a gnat -- know very differently. Elizabeth May did endorse Stephane Dion.
"I haven't endorsed Mr. Dion. I've consistently said that I am my first choice for prime minister," May recently insisted.
Of course, the truth is very different.
May's endorsement of Dion started shortly after striking her non-aggression pact with the Liberal leader.
"We recognize that a government in which Stephane Dion served as Prime Minister could work well with a Green caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May, committed to action on climate change," she said.
"Yes, Stephane Dion would like to see me in the House of Commons and I think that he should be Prime Minister," May said during a later interview, then adding her qualifier: "Of course, I'm my first choice for prime minister but he'd be very good as second choice."
But here's the thing: Elizabeth May isn't going to be Prime Minister. In fact, her party would be lucky to actually elect a single MP.
In her heart of hearts, Elizabeth May knows this. At the very least, she knows she won't be PM.
May's reasoning in this particular matter is nothing short of pervasively specious. Her "non-endorsement" of Stephane Dion is based on a qualifier that isn't even a remote possibility.
So, with May set to participate in the televised leaders' debate despite her realistically having no business being there, the question on the minds of Canadian voters has to be this:
Why can't Elizabeth May just be honest with Canadian voters?
As previously noted, May's justification for her non-aggression pact with Stephane Dion -- "leader's courtesy" -- was fundamentally dishonest, with no historical precedent applicable to a general election, nor to a riding which her party doesn't currently represent. Nor was the so-called "leader's courtesy" offered or extended to any other party leader.
When May insists she would never act as a proxy for Stephane Dion in the televised debate, how does she honestly expect Canadians to believe her considering the already-established record of electoral collusion between the two parties?
At least now the pressure will be on May to actually demonstrate her -- and her party's -- independence from Dion and the Liberals by not acting as such during the debate.
The Duceppe Code
Duceppe declares witch hunt in St Bruno-St Hubert
Where's Sir Leigh Teabing when you need him?
Gilles Duceppe raised the alarm about a Conservative candidate in St Bruno-St Hubert, after La Presse of Montreal revealed that Nicole Charbonneau Barron is a member of Opus Dei.
Described by many as an ultra-Conservative Catholic Order, Opus Dei was portrayed -- and villainized -- in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Ever since the publication of the book, and especially since the release of the movie, Opus Dei has effectively become the Catholic Church's answer to Scientology -- villainized by those who despise it and defended ardently by its adherents. A fierce propaganda war has been waged between its opponents and proponents to the point where truth is entirely indistinguishable from spin.
As justification for his envokation of the controversial order, Duceppe claimed that Opus Dei's teachings "do not correspond to Quebec's modern mentality."
"Those people are certainly sharing a kind of ideology that doesn't correspond at all to modern times in Quebec," he announced. "I'm not saying they don't have the right to do so. [But] those people are against a lot of things that are allowed in Quebec."
Of course the right of Barron to hold her religious beliefs didn't dissuade Duceppe from steering his party's election campaign toward base religious intolerance. The general expectation in Canada is that political candidates will be judged not by their gender, ethnicity or religion, but by their policy platform -- or at the very least that of their party.
With his move today, Duceppe has turned away from criticizing the policy platform of the Conservatives and toward encouraging bigotry.
One wonders if perhaps there's some reason why Duceppe so desperately wants to debate something other than policy in this election campaign. With the BQ's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, reduced to a shambles of its former separatist glory and his own party's share of the popular vote precipitously dropping throughout a recent round of by-elections, Duceppe may be coming face to face with the reality that separatism has been rendered a spent force in Quebec -- currently capable of offering little more than empty promises and shameless fear mongering.
No wise man should rule out a future reenergizing of Quebec's sovereigntist movement -- Pierre Trudeau learned that the hard way. But at least in the present, and for the near future, Gilles Duceppe needs something to campaign on other than rendering Canada unto the ash heap of history.
Apparently, the spectre of religious bogeymen is the Holy Grail that Duceppe thinks will secure his party against a potential drubbing at the hands of a seemingly resurgent Conservative party in Quebec. Which just so happens to say a lot more about the BQ and its leader than it does about Nicole Charbonneau Barron.
However, Duceppe may actually be taking even a bigger risk than simply appearing bigoted. If conservatism in Quebec truly is as resurgent as recent polls have suggested it may be, Duceppe may have a lot to lose by taking aim at its traditional handmaiden in Quebec, the Catholic Church.
Few politicians have gotten ahead in Quebec by directly attacking the Church, and given the direct historical links between Catholicism and the embers of nationalist sentiment his party has always sought to fan into separatist flame, Dion may find himself getting burned by the fire he's choosing to play with.
Or, Duceppe could just call up Dr Robert Langdon for a good-old-fashioned Grail quest -- that is, if he wasn't a fictional character.
Where's Sir Leigh Teabing when you need him?
Gilles Duceppe raised the alarm about a Conservative candidate in St Bruno-St Hubert, after La Presse of Montreal revealed that Nicole Charbonneau Barron is a member of Opus Dei.
Described by many as an ultra-Conservative Catholic Order, Opus Dei was portrayed -- and villainized -- in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Ever since the publication of the book, and especially since the release of the movie, Opus Dei has effectively become the Catholic Church's answer to Scientology -- villainized by those who despise it and defended ardently by its adherents. A fierce propaganda war has been waged between its opponents and proponents to the point where truth is entirely indistinguishable from spin.
As justification for his envokation of the controversial order, Duceppe claimed that Opus Dei's teachings "do not correspond to Quebec's modern mentality.""Those people are certainly sharing a kind of ideology that doesn't correspond at all to modern times in Quebec," he announced. "I'm not saying they don't have the right to do so. [But] those people are against a lot of things that are allowed in Quebec."
Of course the right of Barron to hold her religious beliefs didn't dissuade Duceppe from steering his party's election campaign toward base religious intolerance. The general expectation in Canada is that political candidates will be judged not by their gender, ethnicity or religion, but by their policy platform -- or at the very least that of their party.With his move today, Duceppe has turned away from criticizing the policy platform of the Conservatives and toward encouraging bigotry.
One wonders if perhaps there's some reason why Duceppe so desperately wants to debate something other than policy in this election campaign. With the BQ's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, reduced to a shambles of its former separatist glory and his own party's share of the popular vote precipitously dropping throughout a recent round of by-elections, Duceppe may be coming face to face with the reality that separatism has been rendered a spent force in Quebec -- currently capable of offering little more than empty promises and shameless fear mongering.
No wise man should rule out a future reenergizing of Quebec's sovereigntist movement -- Pierre Trudeau learned that the hard way. But at least in the present, and for the near future, Gilles Duceppe needs something to campaign on other than rendering Canada unto the ash heap of history.
Apparently, the spectre of religious bogeymen is the Holy Grail that Duceppe thinks will secure his party against a potential drubbing at the hands of a seemingly resurgent Conservative party in Quebec. Which just so happens to say a lot more about the BQ and its leader than it does about Nicole Charbonneau Barron.
However, Duceppe may actually be taking even a bigger risk than simply appearing bigoted. If conservatism in Quebec truly is as resurgent as recent polls have suggested it may be, Duceppe may have a lot to lose by taking aim at its traditional handmaiden in Quebec, the Catholic Church.
Few politicians have gotten ahead in Quebec by directly attacking the Church, and given the direct historical links between Catholicism and the embers of nationalist sentiment his party has always sought to fan into separatist flame, Dion may find himself getting burned by the fire he's choosing to play with.
Or, Duceppe could just call up Dr Robert Langdon for a good-old-fashioned Grail quest -- that is, if he wasn't a fictional character.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
September 2008 Book Club Selection: Hard Call, John McCain
McCain presents profiles in leadership
With three months remaining in the 2008 American Presidential Election, there's no time like the present to further acquaint oneself with the qualities of the candidates.
When considering which of the two candidates -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama -- would be better suited to the oft-called leadership of the free world, it's useful to have a book such as Hard Call to look to.
Hard Call divides the art of making good decisions into six categories: awareness, foresight, timing, confidence, humility and inspiration.
As McCain explores these elements he profiles a diverse group of figures, from Gerald Ford to Wayne Gretzky, from Anwar Sedat and Menachim Begin to (predictably) Abraham Lincoln.
McCain even takes some time out to critique himself -- reserving the blame for his capture by North Vietnamese for himself alone.
The book chronicles great decisions made during the struggle for civil justice in Liberia, the space race and in various forms of business. Each and every one has some historical significance.
As President, McCain would be called upon to make many decisions with historical ramifications. Hard Call provides its readers with the very internal handbook McCain would use to make them.
Taliban Eager to Exercise Its Vote
Taliban ready to support any party willing to accept its endorsement
General Rick Hillier was fond of saying "The enemy has a vote."
As Canada enters its first wartime election in more than 60 years, the Taliban is eager to be the first enemy of Canada to exercise that unofficial and ill-gotten franchise.
In a statement released yesterday, Qari Muhammad Yussef confirmed Defense Minister Peter MacKay's fear that the Taliban would take the federal election as an opportunity to step up attacks on Canadian troops. "Yes, I know that the election is being held in Canada. That is why our attacks on Canadians are increased."
Yussef insisted that a withdrawal from Afghanistan "good for that party and for their nation and for the Canadian people."
"My suggestion for the next prime minister is to withdraw Canadians from Afghanistan," he added. "When any of these party leaders come to power, the first thing they must do is ask the Canadians to come from Afghanistan to Canada."
Certainly, one can expect that Canada's mainstream political parties will unequivocally reject the Taliban's endorsement. Unfortunately, one can't quite put it past the Green party -- proving itself to be nuttier and nuttier as this 2008 election progresses -- to accept the Taliban's support.
Certainly, they would be contradicting their own stated values in order to do so, but -- as previously said -- fringe political parties tend to embrace fringe politics.
Then, meanwhile, there are Canadians such as the craven individual who wrote this.
Unfortunately, there are Canadians among us who are prepared to cave in to the demands of the Taliban, and are willing to abandon their own values in order to do so.
In one sense, it's hard to blame them -- no proper-thinking Canadian likes the prospect of war, and no proper-thinking Canadian is anything other than saddened to see Canadian soldiers killed or injured. Nor is any proper-thinking Canadian anything other than saddened by the civilian casualties that inevitably come with modern warfare.
But one can safely assume that Canadian soldiers will not be voting with the Taliban in their effort to elect a government that will turn its back on Canada's responsibilities to the Afghan people and to the international community.
There is one other thing to be thankful for.
Fortunately, the Taliban's vote doesn't really count.
General Rick Hillier was fond of saying "The enemy has a vote."
As Canada enters its first wartime election in more than 60 years, the Taliban is eager to be the first enemy of Canada to exercise that unofficial and ill-gotten franchise.
In a statement released yesterday, Qari Muhammad Yussef confirmed Defense Minister Peter MacKay's fear that the Taliban would take the federal election as an opportunity to step up attacks on Canadian troops. "Yes, I know that the election is being held in Canada. That is why our attacks on Canadians are increased."Yussef insisted that a withdrawal from Afghanistan "good for that party and for their nation and for the Canadian people."
"My suggestion for the next prime minister is to withdraw Canadians from Afghanistan," he added. "When any of these party leaders come to power, the first thing they must do is ask the Canadians to come from Afghanistan to Canada."
Certainly, one can expect that Canada's mainstream political parties will unequivocally reject the Taliban's endorsement. Unfortunately, one can't quite put it past the Green party -- proving itself to be nuttier and nuttier as this 2008 election progresses -- to accept the Taliban's support.
Certainly, they would be contradicting their own stated values in order to do so, but -- as previously said -- fringe political parties tend to embrace fringe politics.
Then, meanwhile, there are Canadians such as the craven individual who wrote this.
Unfortunately, there are Canadians among us who are prepared to cave in to the demands of the Taliban, and are willing to abandon their own values in order to do so.
In one sense, it's hard to blame them -- no proper-thinking Canadian likes the prospect of war, and no proper-thinking Canadian is anything other than saddened to see Canadian soldiers killed or injured. Nor is any proper-thinking Canadian anything other than saddened by the civilian casualties that inevitably come with modern warfare.
But one can safely assume that Canadian soldiers will not be voting with the Taliban in their effort to elect a government that will turn its back on Canada's responsibilities to the Afghan people and to the international community.
There is one other thing to be thankful for.
Fortunately, the Taliban's vote doesn't really count.
The Further Disillusionment of Lizzie May
In this video, released by the Green party, Elizabeth May answers some questions about the decision to exclude her from the televised leaders' debates, and about her non-aggression pact with Stephane Dion.
Unfortunately, in the course of the latter, she insults the intelligence of Canadians.
"One must remember that when Stephen Harper first ran for his riding, he was unopposed by a Liberal candidate. I don't think at the time that anyone made the mistake of thinking he was the Liberal candidate because he was unopposed.Unfortunately for May and her party, this insistence is just as intellectually dishonest as her insistence that Blair Wilson joining her party entitled her to a spot in the televised leaders' debate.
There is a tradition in this country of called 'leader's courtesy'. Mr Dion and I agreed to this measure in respect of each other as leaders of different political parties to not challenge each other in each other's ridings."
May certainly is correct in pointing out that there is a "leader's courtesy" tradition in Canada. However, it generally applies to newly-selected party leaders who don't possess a seat in the House of Commons.
When this happens, one of the party's MPs usually resigns their seat so the leader may take their place. When the by-election occurs, the other parties agree not to contest the seat. They do this for two reasons:
First off, because the party in question already has possession of that Parliamentary seat.
Secondly, because they expect the other parties to return that courtesy in the event that they elect a leader without a Parliamentary seat.
In order for May's theorem to hold water under the principle of "leader's courtesy", two very important conditions would have to be present: first, we would have to be talking about a by-election as opposed to a general election. Secondly, the Green Party would already have to possess Central Nova.
Neither condition is present, making her reasoning flagrantly fallacious. It would actually have to be a good deal more sound to actually qualify as "specious".
Moreover, the Liberal party certainly hasn't declined to run a candidate against Stephen Harper out of respect for "leader's courtesy" -- Marlene Lamontaigne is running for the party in Calgary-Southwest. The Green party isn't respecting "leader's courtesy" there either -- they're fielding Kelly Christie as a candidate.
Nor are the Liberals and Greens showing any "leader's courtesy" to NDP leader Jack Layton. The Greens are running Charles Battershill and the Liberals are running Andrew Lang in Toronto-Danforth.
So, one question that could still be raised is this: did the Liberals and Greens even bother to contact Jack Layton and Stephen Harper to offer them "leader's courtesy" in their ridings?
There's no indication that they ever did. And even if they did, it's hard to treat a request that Stephen Harper cancel the nomination of his own Deputy Prime Minister as anything other than untenable.
Of course May is, in principle, right to object to Stephen Harper's potrayal of her as the Liberal candidate in Central Nova:
"I am no more the Liberal candidate in Central Nova than Mr Dion is a Green Party candidate anywhere.Yet if, indeed, Elizabeth May is predisposed toward disagreeing with Stephane Dion on any policy topic, Canadians would be hard-pressed to determine precisely which topics those are -- she has not yet, to date, voiced a disagreement with Stephane Dion on record.
We are separate political parties. Our views on most issues are quite different."
She hasn't even voiced disagreement with Dion over his party's performance on the climate change portfolio -- especially given that the Liberals were the ones who ratified the Kyoto protocol in the first place.
Which is, of course, only another little bit of intellectual dishonesty by Elizabeth May and the Greens.
If Canadians need another reason to reject the Green party, this is as good as any other.
So Then What About Green Shift Lite, Michael?
Ignatieff denounces diesel tax cut despite Liberal Green Shift offering similar deal
Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to cut the excise tax on diesel fuel.
Michael Ignatieff took the opportunity to claim the plan "drives a truck through their environmental credibility."
"This is just a gimmick that will make no real difference for Canadians, while actually undermining the country's ability to switch to cleaner renewable sources of energy," Ignatieff insisted. "When it comes to facing the challenge of the climate change crisis, Mr. Harper is going in the opposite direction from the international community and every responsible leader."
Excluding, ironically, Ignatieff's own.
When Dion's Green Shift plan was criticized as being perilous for farmers and truckers -- people who depend upon low diesel fuel prices in order to help ensure their livelihood -- Dion abruptly introduced additional tax cuts for farmers and truckers to offset the additional cost of diesel that would be imposed by a carbon tax, thus eliminating his own proposed incentive for farmers and truckers to reduce their diesel fuel usage.
It's rather ironic for the Liberals to be raging about the environmental impact of Harper's diesel tax cut considering that the election hadn't even begun before the Liberals started running away from their own policies.
"His approach will do nothing to help Canadians who want to end their reliance on fossil fuels and it will do nothing to help the Canadian economy which is the worst performing economy in the G7," Ignatieff insisted.
Of course, what Ignatieff is leaving out is that the Liberal Green Shift Lite -- complete with exemptions for farmers and truckers -- won't do anything to help Canadians end reliance on fossil fuels, and won't do anything to help the Canadian economy. In fact, the Liberal Green Shift Lite plan will most likely do the exact opposite.
Meanwhile, Stephane Dion insisted that Harper's diesel tax cut as evidence that he doesn't govern for the future -- merely for the next election.
Of course, considering that Dion won't answer questions about his post-Green Shift plans, Dion may want to serve the "shortsighted" accusations.
For someone who has challenged Prime Minister Harper to an "honest debate" concerning his Green Shift plan, Dion and company are having a lot of difficulty keeping their story straight.
Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to cut the excise tax on diesel fuel.
Michael Ignatieff took the opportunity to claim the plan "drives a truck through their environmental credibility."
"This is just a gimmick that will make no real difference for Canadians, while actually undermining the country's ability to switch to cleaner renewable sources of energy," Ignatieff insisted. "When it comes to facing the challenge of the climate change crisis, Mr. Harper is going in the opposite direction from the international community and every responsible leader."
Excluding, ironically, Ignatieff's own.
When Dion's Green Shift plan was criticized as being perilous for farmers and truckers -- people who depend upon low diesel fuel prices in order to help ensure their livelihood -- Dion abruptly introduced additional tax cuts for farmers and truckers to offset the additional cost of diesel that would be imposed by a carbon tax, thus eliminating his own proposed incentive for farmers and truckers to reduce their diesel fuel usage.
It's rather ironic for the Liberals to be raging about the environmental impact of Harper's diesel tax cut considering that the election hadn't even begun before the Liberals started running away from their own policies.
"His approach will do nothing to help Canadians who want to end their reliance on fossil fuels and it will do nothing to help the Canadian economy which is the worst performing economy in the G7," Ignatieff insisted.
Of course, what Ignatieff is leaving out is that the Liberal Green Shift Lite -- complete with exemptions for farmers and truckers -- won't do anything to help Canadians end reliance on fossil fuels, and won't do anything to help the Canadian economy. In fact, the Liberal Green Shift Lite plan will most likely do the exact opposite.
Meanwhile, Stephane Dion insisted that Harper's diesel tax cut as evidence that he doesn't govern for the future -- merely for the next election.
Of course, considering that Dion won't answer questions about his post-Green Shift plans, Dion may want to serve the "shortsighted" accusations.
For someone who has challenged Prime Minister Harper to an "honest debate" concerning his Green Shift plan, Dion and company are having a lot of difficulty keeping their story straight.
Why So Frantic, Heather Mallick?
Mallick comes unhinged at Sarah Palin's ascension to Vice Presidential candidate
In the ongoing American Presidential election, one of the unfortunate epithets flung at Republican Presidential candidate is that of "crazy".
But what is one to make of such epithets when those so prone to flinging it themselves act "crazily"?
Thus unfolds the sad episode of CBC online Columnist Heather Mallick's "analysis" of John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
In the course of her column, Mallick comes across as frantic, vicious and generally unhinged as she vents all of her left-feminist rage at a woman who clearly refuses to be prodded into the cookie-cutter identity laid out for so-called "liberated" women.
Palin isn't the first target of Mallick's seemingly intractable rage. When the Ottawa Senators "Better Halves" accepted the First Place Pregnancy Centre as one of the beneficiaries of their Christmas tree raffle, Mallick had this to say:
"I hate picking on women. We're born at a disadvantage and in our wild flailing to stay afloat, we make such easy targets. But really, do the wives and girlfriends of the Ottawa Senators have to dress up in matching pink team sweaters and call their ad hoc union "The Better Halves?"Her condescension for these particular women, who apparently offend Mallick's left-feminist ideology, she lashed out at them for the inexcusable crime of dating or marrying a hockey player.
It's bad enough that these women have hooked up with bruised artist-athletes with careers of inevitably brief span, sold by hockey corporations as if they were cans of Spam, shipped around the continent without notice, thus dooming their wives' careers from the start."
Apparently, Mallick imagines that hockey players the world over should remain permanently single just so the world's women can appease her disturbingly authoritarian view of feminism.
She admits openly in the article that she doesn't know any of the Senators Better Halves. She certainly doesn't know why any of them chose the companionship of a hockey player, yet having done so transformed them from women into outlets for her contempt -- supporting a charity that doesn't fit neatly into the ideological camp supporting Mallick's pro-abortion agenda was apparently merely the icing on the cake.
So imagine that a woman accepts the Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican party. In doing so she would become the first female Vice Presidential candidate in American history. One would think that a so-called feminist like Mallick would be encouraged by that.
But, no. Apparently not. Instead it seems to be, as the kids say, on:
"I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.Which is a rather curious way for a self-described feminist to open a column about the aforementioned first female Vice Presidential candidate in American history.
So why do it?
It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously."
Apparently, Palin could only appeal to the "white trash vote". In no way could she possibly appeal to women.
In fact, Mallick suggests, Palin isn't even a woman at all:
"But do they not know that women have been trained to resent other women and that they only learn to suppress this by constantly berating themselves and reading columns like this one? I'm a feminist who understands that women can nurse terrible and delicate woman hatred.Apparently, in Mallick's fevered mind, Sarah Palin isn't a woman at all, as if she had somehow simultaneously sprouted a penis the second she accepted the Republican VP nomination, and apparently by simple virtue of not holding a lifetime membership in the Bra Burning Brigade.
Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too."
No. In Mallick's mind, Sarah Palin -- despite everything she accomplished despite being a woman "born at a disadvantage" is nothing more than pure white trash:
"John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly. Damn his eyes, I wish I'd had the wit to come up with it first. It's safer than "white trash" but I'll pluck safety out of the nettle danger. Or something.If that particular passage doesn't seem shrill enough, just take a look at how Mallick follows it up:
Doyle's job includes watching a lot of reality television and he's well-versed in the backstory. White trash — not trailer trash, that's something different — is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity. The semiotics are pure Palin: a sturdy body, clothes that are clinging yet boxy and a voice that could peel the plastic seal off your new microwave."
"Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a fuckin' redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?Just to ratchet off a tirade about how the first female VP candidate in American history so utterly offends Mallick's feminist sensibilities, why not accuse her of dressing herself up like a hussy?
I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don't the Palins? I'm not the one preaching homespun values but I'd destroy that ratboy before I'd let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you."
Hell, don't even stop there. Take square aim at the woman's daughter, too. And let's drag her pregnant teenage daughter's relationship with her boyfriend -- himself also a hockey player -- through the mud while we're at it.
Mallick spends the next few paragraphs of her ill-concieved little frantic tirade to admit that she didn't really watch Palin's speech, and instead watched A Mighty Wind on Bravo.
Then she dropped this particular little nugget:
"I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."Certainly, in Mallick's mind, the pitiful little mud people of the red states -- "white trash" as she herself so succinctly put it -- only vote for Republicans to build up their pathetic existence.
And as for the Republicans and their objections to the tax increases that, yes, Obama has practiced, it couldn't be an honest disagreement over whether or not the taxes in question are necessary (although, with the current state of the American federal budget, it's hard to imagine how they could disagree). No, instead, it must be racism. If not racism, then outright elitism:
"But surely they know Barack Obama is not planning to finish off the ordinary hillbilly when he adjusts tax rates. He's going to raise taxes on the top 2% of Americans and that doesn't include anyone at the convention beyond the Bushes and McCains and random party management. So why cheer Palin when she claims otherwise?No hope?
Is it racism? I'm told that it is, although I find racism so appalling that I have difficulty identifying it. It is more likely the dearly held Republican notion that any American can become violently rich, as rich as those hedge funders in Greenwich, Conn., who buy $40-million mansions unseen and have their topiary shaped in the form of musical notes.
When Palin and Rudy Giuliani sneered at Obama's years of "community organizing" — they said it like "rectal fissure" — the audience ewww-ed with them. Republicans dream of a personal future that involves only household staff, not equals who need to be persuaded to vote.
So I'm trying to imagine the pain of realizing, as they all must at some point, that it is not going to happen for them. It's the green light at the end of the dock. It's the ship that never comes in, gals, as Palin would put it. But she won't because the lie works for her. It helps her scramble, without compassion, above all those other tense no-hoper ladies in the audience."
No hope, precisely, for what? It would be kind of pointless for Palin to run for Vice President if she had no hope for the future -- be it no hope for herself or no hope for the betterment of women in general.
It would be kind of pointless for all those "no hoper ladies" to support a woman for VP if they had no hope for the future. One simply has to wonder if Mallick so much as stopped to think for two seconds about what she was writing, or if she simply allowed her extreme ideological predispositions seize control of her while flailing frantically away at her keyboard?
In the end, it becomes immediately apparent. It isn't so much that Palin "isn't even female really" as she is the wrong kind of woman to be a Vice Presidential candidate:
"American politics isn't short of smart women. Susan Eisenhower, Ike's granddaughter, who just endorsed Obama, made an extraordinary speech at the Democratic convention (and a terrific casual appearance on The Colbert Report as Palin was speaking). The Republican party has already consumed nearly all of its moderate "seed corn," she said aptly. Time to start again.So, in the end, what is it about Sarah Palin that Mallick finds so utterly repulsive?
Eisenhower, a scholar and journalist, has a point. Or am I only saying that because she's part of the thoughtful demographic that I'm trying to reach here? Think, Heather, think like a Republican! The Skeptics, shall I call them, are my base, and I'll pander to them as ardently as the Republican patriarchs tease their white female marginals."
It isn't that hard to figure out. Sarah Palin is a woman. Who is anti-abortion -- perhaps even shockingly so, as she once announced she would oppose an abortion "even if her own daughter had been raped".
Palin also supports absinence-only sex education in schools.
Both these positions have implications that are of obvious concern for feminists, and very well should be.
But perhaps Palin's greatest offense is being a member of Feminists for Life, a feminist group that opposes abortion.
Interestingly enough, Feminists for Life supports the establishment of support networks on College and University campuses for single mothers -- infrastructure such as on-campus daycare and appropriate housing facilities.
Feminists such as Heather Mallick should support and voraciously applaud such a policy position. But couple that with opposition to abortion, and suddenly all bets are off. "Feminists" like Heather Mallick seem to derive from this a bizarre need to strip women such as Sarah Palin of their "feminist cred", so to speak.
The message remains crystal clear: within the feminist movement, there is no room for disagreement on the topic of abortion. Even a hint of the wrong opinion on that particular topic, and not only can that particular woman not be accepted as a feminist, she can't even be accepted as a woman.
It's a bizarre tendency of the most extreme members of the left-wing feminist movement -- that any feminist possessing conservative political beliefs must not only be rejected as a feminist, but also thorougly re-gendered.
One could consider it a rather bizarre form of post-feminist feminist-chauvinism. Perhaps its the cognitive dissonance that makes Heather Mallick seem so utterly unbalanced.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Conservatives Take One For the Team
Tories decline to run candidate in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier
With Quebec seemingly poised to grant the Conservative party a few more seats (depending upon whom you ask), one would think that the Conservatives would be going for broke in La Belle Province.
Apparently not so, as Independent MP Andre Arthur will find the task of being reelected in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier a little easier. The Conservatives have decided not to run a candidate there.
The rationale behind this decision is reportedly deciding not to split the federalist vote in the riding, allowing the BQ to pick up a seat. Even with the sovereigntist movement in Quebec splintering, a federalist candidate like Arthur can use every bit of help he can get.
"I'm like a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning and finds something under the tree," Arthur said. "Who am I to say it's not a good idea to make a gift like that to me."
It probably helps that Arthur is at least sympathetic to the Conservatives. "I think Harper has given us something that we haven't seen in Canada in the last 50 years," he said. "For the first time we've had a government that says what it does and does what it says."
Deciding not to run a candidate against Arthur may also be indirect retaliation against Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, who echoed increasingly typically Liberal calls for left-of-centre voters to vote strategically in order to prevent a Conservative majority.
The message in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier is cystal clear: vote for Andre Arthur to prevent a Bloc MP.
For his own part, Gilles Duceppe has sunk to the lowest common denominator in his quest to deny the Conservative party additional seats, dropping the B-word (Bush) in a campaign stop in Montreal.
"The Conservatives of Stephen Harper have an ideological vision inspired by that of George W Bush," Duceppe insisted, then actually tried to dig deeper in his quest to equate the Conservatives with what he considers to be a vile ideological figure. "The Reform party is there, hiding under the skirts of the Conservative Party, but more and more it is showing itself."
Of course, the Reform party has never tried to break up Canada with a racially divisive ideology as its foundation, unlike some other parties in Canada...
As the campaign gears up, there remain serious questions about whether or not the Bloc can really stop a Conservative majority.
In the meantime, however, the Conservatives have put the federalist cause in Quebec ahead of their own interests. It isn't that surprising -- it's what Stephen Harper has done ever since he took office.
With Quebec seemingly poised to grant the Conservative party a few more seats (depending upon whom you ask), one would think that the Conservatives would be going for broke in La Belle Province.
Apparently not so, as Independent MP Andre Arthur will find the task of being reelected in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier a little easier. The Conservatives have decided not to run a candidate there.
The rationale behind this decision is reportedly deciding not to split the federalist vote in the riding, allowing the BQ to pick up a seat. Even with the sovereigntist movement in Quebec splintering, a federalist candidate like Arthur can use every bit of help he can get.
"I'm like a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning and finds something under the tree," Arthur said. "Who am I to say it's not a good idea to make a gift like that to me."It probably helps that Arthur is at least sympathetic to the Conservatives. "I think Harper has given us something that we haven't seen in Canada in the last 50 years," he said. "For the first time we've had a government that says what it does and does what it says."
Deciding not to run a candidate against Arthur may also be indirect retaliation against Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, who echoed increasingly typically Liberal calls for left-of-centre voters to vote strategically in order to prevent a Conservative majority.
The message in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier is cystal clear: vote for Andre Arthur to prevent a Bloc MP.
For his own part, Gilles Duceppe has sunk to the lowest common denominator in his quest to deny the Conservative party additional seats, dropping the B-word (Bush) in a campaign stop in Montreal.
"The Conservatives of Stephen Harper have an ideological vision inspired by that of George W Bush," Duceppe insisted, then actually tried to dig deeper in his quest to equate the Conservatives with what he considers to be a vile ideological figure. "The Reform party is there, hiding under the skirts of the Conservative Party, but more and more it is showing itself."Of course, the Reform party has never tried to break up Canada with a racially divisive ideology as its foundation, unlike some other parties in Canada...
As the campaign gears up, there remain serious questions about whether or not the Bloc can really stop a Conservative majority.
In the meantime, however, the Conservatives have put the federalist cause in Quebec ahead of their own interests. It isn't that surprising -- it's what Stephen Harper has done ever since he took office.
The Disillusionment of Lizzie May
Green party chief denied spot in televized debates
When Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe meet to debate the direction the country should take on October 1 & 2, they will do it in the absence of Green party leader Elizabeth May.
Today the network consortium that organizes the televised debates handed down their decision.
"The [network] consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green party in all or part of the leaders' debates," said spokesman Jason MacDonald. "However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates. In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all."
Now Canadians will get an opportunity to witness first-hand the character of May and the party she leads: she can accept that, never having elected a Member of Parliament, she has no business taking part in the leaders' debates, or make good on a a previous threat to sue.
Of course, there is no law in the land that can force Canada's television networks to put Elizabeth May on television alongside leaders of actual official political parties.
It's unsurprising that Canada's television networks have declined to give in to the Greens' bluff.
One can only hope that maybe -- just maybe -- Elections Canada will allow May and the Greens to claim their legal bills as an election expense. Heh.
When Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe meet to debate the direction the country should take on October 1 & 2, they will do it in the absence of Green party leader Elizabeth May.
Today the network consortium that organizes the televised debates handed down their decision.
"The [network] consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green party in all or part of the leaders' debates," said spokesman Jason MacDonald. "However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates. In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all."
Now Canadians will get an opportunity to witness first-hand the character of May and the party she leads: she can accept that, never having elected a Member of Parliament, she has no business taking part in the leaders' debates, or make good on a a previous threat to sue.
Of course, there is no law in the land that can force Canada's television networks to put Elizabeth May on television alongside leaders of actual official political parties.
It's unsurprising that Canada's television networks have declined to give in to the Greens' bluff.
One can only hope that maybe -- just maybe -- Elections Canada will allow May and the Greens to claim their legal bills as an election expense. Heh.
Conservatives Continue Ad Blitz - Part Two
Tories step up attack in counter-branding effort
Along with three enthusiasm-themed ads (discussed earlier today), the Conservative party released three negative ads directed at the policies of Liberal rival Stephane Dion.
In almost comical fashion, the Conservatives are seeking to portray Dion as a gamble for Canada. The first ad features a "Scratch n' lose" lottery ticket, portraying Dion's policies as a "triple threat" to Canadians.
In the first ad, the Conservatives press Dion over musing about hiking the GST, eliminating the Conservative $1200 per year childcare plan and the carbon tax.
On all three propositions, the Conservatives insist, Canadians lose.
In the second ad -- this time featuring a one-armed bandit -- the Conservatives raise the prospect of higher gas prices, grocery bills and increased cost of virtually all consumer goods under Stephane Dion.
As the unseen gambler continues to play the machine, each pull comes up Stephane Dion -- and each pull comes up as a loss.
In the third ad, the Conservatives use the imagrey of a craps table to address Dion's various flip-flops regarding carbon taxation -- noting that Dion was against it as a Liberal leadership candidate, suddenly for it as Liberal leader, and unwilling to commit to specific policy points -- or even release them for public consideration.
As the unseen shooter throws four dice, they continually come up spelling "DION", featuring a clip of Dion making contradictory policy statements just before the dealer continually pulls them away.
On the final throw, the dice instead come up spelling "RISK".
The ads in question are a slick counter-branding effort, likely prepared months in advance and just waiting until the Liberals released their first pro-Green Shift ad.
Not only do the ads counter Liberal party policy proposals with reasons for some sobering second thought, but they also continue to counter what is becoming a common assesment of conservatives -- that they lack a sense of humour.
The ads are also presciently themed. With the kinds of changes Stephane Dion wants to make to the Canadian tax structure, there is no question that Canadians voting for Stephane Dion are taking a real gamble. These Conservative ads should prove to be rather effective, as they're merely reminding Canadians of things they already know.
Along with three enthusiasm-themed ads (discussed earlier today), the Conservative party released three negative ads directed at the policies of Liberal rival Stephane Dion.
In almost comical fashion, the Conservatives are seeking to portray Dion as a gamble for Canada. The first ad features a "Scratch n' lose" lottery ticket, portraying Dion's policies as a "triple threat" to Canadians.
In the first ad, the Conservatives press Dion over musing about hiking the GST, eliminating the Conservative $1200 per year childcare plan and the carbon tax.
On all three propositions, the Conservatives insist, Canadians lose.
In the second ad -- this time featuring a one-armed bandit -- the Conservatives raise the prospect of higher gas prices, grocery bills and increased cost of virtually all consumer goods under Stephane Dion.
As the unseen gambler continues to play the machine, each pull comes up Stephane Dion -- and each pull comes up as a loss.
In the third ad, the Conservatives use the imagrey of a craps table to address Dion's various flip-flops regarding carbon taxation -- noting that Dion was against it as a Liberal leadership candidate, suddenly for it as Liberal leader, and unwilling to commit to specific policy points -- or even release them for public consideration.
As the unseen shooter throws four dice, they continually come up spelling "DION", featuring a clip of Dion making contradictory policy statements just before the dealer continually pulls them away.
On the final throw, the dice instead come up spelling "RISK".
The ads in question are a slick counter-branding effort, likely prepared months in advance and just waiting until the Liberals released their first pro-Green Shift ad.
Not only do the ads counter Liberal party policy proposals with reasons for some sobering second thought, but they also continue to counter what is becoming a common assesment of conservatives -- that they lack a sense of humour.
The ads are also presciently themed. With the kinds of changes Stephane Dion wants to make to the Canadian tax structure, there is no question that Canadians voting for Stephane Dion are taking a real gamble. These Conservative ads should prove to be rather effective, as they're merely reminding Canadians of things they already know.
Conservative Party Continues Ad Blitz - Part One
Conservative party continues its branding effort
Today, the Conservative party released a staggering six new campaign ads.
The ads fall distinctly into two categories: enthusiasm-baed spots, aimed at encouraging people to feel good about the prospects of voting Conservative, and negative ads, designed to make people think twice about voting for Stephane Dion and his Liberal party.
(Negative ads are considered distinct from attack ads because they address policy points as opposed to the personality points of a candidate.)
For the purpose of analyzing their role in the now-ongoing election, the two categories of ads will be considered separately.
This particular ad takes a page out of the old John Diefenbaker playbook and promises continued efforts to deal with arctic sovereignty.
In 1958, John Diefenbaker campaigned on the issue of arctic poverty and transformed his minority government into one of the most dominant majorities seen in Canadian history (he also followed it with a minority government that survived for less than a year before being defeated by Lester Pearson and the Liberals).
With this particular ad, Harper is trying to re-brand himself and his party as the party that cares about arctic issues. While Harper's campaigning on the issue of arctic sovereignty was a welcome prospect in the last election, Michael Byers and the NDP seized the initiative on arctic issues in the days leading up to the campaign, counter-branding the government as missing the big picture.
Of course, with the United States, a newly more aggressive Russia and other countries trying to stake claim to the Northwest Passage, arctic sovereignty will be an important issue in this election.
With both the Liberals and NDP fielding candidates percieved as foreign policy heavyweights (legitimately in the case of Michael Ignatieff and not-so-legitimately in the case of the aforementioned Michael Byers), the Conservatives needed to stake out foreign policy early in the election.
In this particular ad, Harper simply talks about the need to have "real capabilities" to "contribute to global security [and] humanitarian development".
"This country has to stand for something," Harper insists.
Yet, as a branding effort, this spot may be less effective than the Tories may have hoped. After all, it's one thing to insist that Canada should stand for something. It's entirely another to actually know what that "something" is.
The third enthusiasm-themed ad seems to be a re-branding attempt following an NDP ad portraying the Conservative government's tax cuts as being bad for Canadians.
Harper once again points to "global economic uncertainty" (something that is quickly emerging as a theme of the Conservative campaign), and insists that, while the government has cut taxes, it has ensured that new spending will benefit "ordinary families".
To be able to attempt to brand oneself while simultaneously counter-branding the opposition is an advantage that inevitably comes with having more money to spend than the opposition.
Today, the Conservative party released a staggering six new campaign ads.
The ads fall distinctly into two categories: enthusiasm-baed spots, aimed at encouraging people to feel good about the prospects of voting Conservative, and negative ads, designed to make people think twice about voting for Stephane Dion and his Liberal party.
(Negative ads are considered distinct from attack ads because they address policy points as opposed to the personality points of a candidate.)
For the purpose of analyzing their role in the now-ongoing election, the two categories of ads will be considered separately.
This particular ad takes a page out of the old John Diefenbaker playbook and promises continued efforts to deal with arctic sovereignty.
In 1958, John Diefenbaker campaigned on the issue of arctic poverty and transformed his minority government into one of the most dominant majorities seen in Canadian history (he also followed it with a minority government that survived for less than a year before being defeated by Lester Pearson and the Liberals).
With this particular ad, Harper is trying to re-brand himself and his party as the party that cares about arctic issues. While Harper's campaigning on the issue of arctic sovereignty was a welcome prospect in the last election, Michael Byers and the NDP seized the initiative on arctic issues in the days leading up to the campaign, counter-branding the government as missing the big picture.
Of course, with the United States, a newly more aggressive Russia and other countries trying to stake claim to the Northwest Passage, arctic sovereignty will be an important issue in this election.
With both the Liberals and NDP fielding candidates percieved as foreign policy heavyweights (legitimately in the case of Michael Ignatieff and not-so-legitimately in the case of the aforementioned Michael Byers), the Conservatives needed to stake out foreign policy early in the election.
In this particular ad, Harper simply talks about the need to have "real capabilities" to "contribute to global security [and] humanitarian development".
"This country has to stand for something," Harper insists.
Yet, as a branding effort, this spot may be less effective than the Tories may have hoped. After all, it's one thing to insist that Canada should stand for something. It's entirely another to actually know what that "something" is.
The third enthusiasm-themed ad seems to be a re-branding attempt following an NDP ad portraying the Conservative government's tax cuts as being bad for Canadians.
Harper once again points to "global economic uncertainty" (something that is quickly emerging as a theme of the Conservative campaign), and insists that, while the government has cut taxes, it has ensured that new spending will benefit "ordinary families".
To be able to attempt to brand oneself while simultaneously counter-branding the opposition is an advantage that inevitably comes with having more money to spend than the opposition.
Liberals Continue Branding Effort in Election
Branding is crucial for the Liberal party
For "Jack Layton and the NDP" (as he and his colleagues are often so eager to put it), "change" is the Obama-esque theme of their election campaign.
But that's territory they're going to have to fight for, as the Liberal party is promising sweeping changes to the country's tax structure that could very well change the country at a fundamental level.
The first Liberal campaign spot, released yesterday, doesn't quite go so far in promising their Green Shift plan as that kind of fundamental change, but certainly implies as much in the subtext.
The ad is, like the opening batch of Conservative spots, an enthusiasm-themed ad. Promising to "make the environment and economy work together" and "make polluters pay", the spot in question plays to a growing impression of Stephane Dion as a man of vision.
How far that vision extends, and whether or not Canadians favour it are different matters entirely.
Regardless, the ad seems to explain why the producers of the infamous Liberal attack ads of 2005/06 was available to go to work on the NDP's advertising -- instead of the stark, somewhat frightening tone of past Liberal ads (particularly those under Paul Martin's leadership reign), this ad speaks to a positive, optimistic space in Canadian politics.
The imagery in the ad is almost exclusively light and cheerful (with the obvious exception of smog-clouded smokestacks when the ad promises to "make polluters pay").
This may also mark the first time in a number of federal campaigns in which the Liberals have declined to go negative first -- this time, allowing the NDP to get their hands dirty first (unless one counts the "not a leader" and "oil splotch" ads released by the Conservatives).
One thing this ad certainly represents is the Liberals getting back to traditional business. Branding has always been an important element of any Liberal campaign, and with the NDP set to largely ignore the Liberals in favour of attacking the Conservatives, the Liberals may not need to stage a counter-branding campaign against the Conservatives at all.
By not moving to counter-brand against the Conservatives first, however, the Liberals have clearly put the ball in the Tories' court. What happens next in terms of campaign advertising will remain very much up to Stephen Harper.
(Unfortuantely, the embeddable player programmed by the Liberal party webmasters and obtained from their website is a little screwed up. Then again, this is the party that waited until 10 minutes before Stephane Dion's University of Alberta speech was scheduled to start to set up their Audio/Visual equipment.
Thanks again, organizational prowess of the Liberal party! -Ed)
Jack Layton: Agent of American Imperialism
Layton getting awfully cozy with oft-despised Americans
To adopt the old parlance from sports to politics, "everyone wants to be like Barack".
It doesn't have quite the same snap as "everyone wants to be like Mike", but when assessing the state of left-wing politics in at least North America today, it holds true.
Just like anyone who ever even touched a basketball wanted to emulate the then-best-known athlete in the world, anyone who's ever embraced progressive politics wants desperately to emulate the man who is currently the best-known politician in the world today.
Certainly, Jack Layton wants to be like Barack. One need look no further than the theme of the 2008 NDP campaign: change.
It certainly doesn't hurt that Jack Layton attended the 2008 Democratic National Convention, either. For a party all too often content to accuse their opponents of importing American policies and American values, it seems that Jack Layton is utterly unafraid to get good and cozy with the "empire" to the south -- particularly with a Presidential candidate whose rightward shift promises little global reprieve from the "imperialist" policies the NDP so often denounces as abhorrent.
Of course, this particular paradox is nothing new for the NDP. Consider commentary offered by journalist Ian King about NDP House leader Libby Davies.
The episode in question involves Davies taking CBC veteran reporter Terry Milewski to Seattle to attend some anti-war protests there. Afterward, Davies brought anti-war protester Ann Wright back across the border.
As King notes, "There is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of the American “anti-war” movement, with all its attached hangups over Vietnam and line-by-line reuse of symbols and slogans from the time."
Add that to the fact that the anti-war movement in the United States -- preoccupied first and foremost with the Iraq conflict -- are ill-suited to address the state of affairs in Canada in regards to the Afghanistan conflict, which has been sanctioned by the United Nations, putting the lie to insistence that the war is "illegal", as opposed to the Iraq war which enjoys no such sanction and so arguably is illegal.
Not to mention that the Vietnam-era rhetoric being employed by Iraqi war resisters in Canada is also ill-suited to their obligation to participate in a war they volunteered to fight in (for good or ill).
Likewise, there is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of Obama-esque rhetoric into Canada, no matter how much the NDP wants to, or the Liberal party wishes they could.
Certainly, there's nothing un-Canadian about looking to political movements in other countries for inspiration, but therein lies the rub.
If it isn't un-Canadian for Jack Layton and the New Democrats (as Layton emphasizes it) to look south of the border for inspiration, then it isn't un-Canadian for the Conservative party to do likewise.
While the current state of affairs in the United States should serve as a cautionary tale to the Conservative party to remain very careful about which inspirations to act on and which to reject, for the NDP or their partisans to accuse the Conservatives of being un-Canadian for doing so isn't only engaging in some inherently silly rhetoric, it's also being incredibly dishonest.
Of course Jack Layton isn't really an agent of American Imperialism. To insist so is just plain silly. But, like stupid, silly is as silly does.
If Jack Layton wants to continue indulging himself in silly rhetoric that panders to cross-border partisan parochialism, he may want to remember this:
He could always reap that particular whirlwind.
To adopt the old parlance from sports to politics, "everyone wants to be like Barack".
It doesn't have quite the same snap as "everyone wants to be like Mike", but when assessing the state of left-wing politics in at least North America today, it holds true.
Just like anyone who ever even touched a basketball wanted to emulate the then-best-known athlete in the world, anyone who's ever embraced progressive politics wants desperately to emulate the man who is currently the best-known politician in the world today.
Certainly, Jack Layton wants to be like Barack. One need look no further than the theme of the 2008 NDP campaign: change.
It certainly doesn't hurt that Jack Layton attended the 2008 Democratic National Convention, either. For a party all too often content to accuse their opponents of importing American policies and American values, it seems that Jack Layton is utterly unafraid to get good and cozy with the "empire" to the south -- particularly with a Presidential candidate whose rightward shift promises little global reprieve from the "imperialist" policies the NDP so often denounces as abhorrent.
Of course, this particular paradox is nothing new for the NDP. Consider commentary offered by journalist Ian King about NDP House leader Libby Davies.
The episode in question involves Davies taking CBC veteran reporter Terry Milewski to Seattle to attend some anti-war protests there. Afterward, Davies brought anti-war protester Ann Wright back across the border.
As King notes, "There is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of the American “anti-war” movement, with all its attached hangups over Vietnam and line-by-line reuse of symbols and slogans from the time."
Add that to the fact that the anti-war movement in the United States -- preoccupied first and foremost with the Iraq conflict -- are ill-suited to address the state of affairs in Canada in regards to the Afghanistan conflict, which has been sanctioned by the United Nations, putting the lie to insistence that the war is "illegal", as opposed to the Iraq war which enjoys no such sanction and so arguably is illegal.
Not to mention that the Vietnam-era rhetoric being employed by Iraqi war resisters in Canada is also ill-suited to their obligation to participate in a war they volunteered to fight in (for good or ill).
Likewise, there is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of Obama-esque rhetoric into Canada, no matter how much the NDP wants to, or the Liberal party wishes they could.
Certainly, there's nothing un-Canadian about looking to political movements in other countries for inspiration, but therein lies the rub.
If it isn't un-Canadian for Jack Layton and the New Democrats (as Layton emphasizes it) to look south of the border for inspiration, then it isn't un-Canadian for the Conservative party to do likewise.
While the current state of affairs in the United States should serve as a cautionary tale to the Conservative party to remain very careful about which inspirations to act on and which to reject, for the NDP or their partisans to accuse the Conservatives of being un-Canadian for doing so isn't only engaging in some inherently silly rhetoric, it's also being incredibly dishonest.
Of course Jack Layton isn't really an agent of American Imperialism. To insist so is just plain silly. But, like stupid, silly is as silly does.
If Jack Layton wants to continue indulging himself in silly rhetoric that panders to cross-border partisan parochialism, he may want to remember this:
He could always reap that particular whirlwind.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Luckily, He Didn't Say "Jewish Bankers"
Anti-Israel Green candidate will stay on ballot
In the immediate aftermath of Green party leader Elizabeth May's decision to allow the candidacy of Qais Ghanem to stand, one question remains on the mind of those observing the Green party during this 2008 federal election:
Why, exactly, was John Shavluk's nomination scrubbed?
We've heard the official explanation: Shavluk's apparently anti-semitic remarks were "not consistent with Green party philosophy".
Meanwhile, Ghanem -- a physicist and immigrant from Yemen -- who along with Sylvie Lemieux, Paul Maillet and Akbar Manoussi (collectively, they are known as the "Ottawa group of four"), to sponsor a resolution entitled simply "Palestine". The resolution "calls upon Israel to end its forty-year occupation of all Arab lands without preconditions."
Ghanem has caught flack within the Green party for using a Green party message board to post messages that were "one-sidedly anti-Israel".
For his own part, Ghanem insists that I do not have to record the opposite point of view to every quotation I dig up, for the sake of so-called 'balance,'. The Israeli point of view is voiced non-stop by the North American media which is controlled by a small oligarchy."
Of course, it would be hard to pretend that when Ghanem refers to a "small oligarchy", he isn't referring to media owners such as the Asper family, who own and control Canwest Global.
So long as he doesn't refer to "a small Jewish oligarchy", it would seem, he's treading on safe territory.
Apparently, Ghanem can counter-factually claim that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected despite the fact that Iran has barred nuclear inspectors from its facilities.
So long as Ghanem restrains himself from posting bizarre references to Jewish bankers online, it seems, he's safe, even if such sentiments in his comments seem only thinly veiled.
There is, of course, one other element in play: Ghanem didn't mention 9/11 in the course of his comments.
Of course, he has voiced some rather remarkable views regarding 9/11 on his campaign website:
(Interestingly, he can't quite seem to come to grips with the Taliban's harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.)
Meanwhile, Kevin Potvin wrote an editorial wherein he cheered Bin Laden's escape ("Go Osama go!"), and encouraged Vancouver-area 9/11 "truth"ers to meet with him to discuss the matter. His nomination was rejected.
John Shavluk posted a comment implicating the Americans in a terrorist attack on their own soil upon "[their] shoddily built world bank headquarters", and his nomination was turfed as well.
Meanwhile, Qais Ghanem writes a blog post endorsing the 9/11 "truth" movement and advances resolutions that deny Israel's right to exist, and somehow he's still "within [Green] party policy."
While there's clearly a strong 9/11 "truth" movement within the Green party, it may seem that Elizabeth May really isn't trying to excise that particular demon at all.
From any mainstream party, this would be shocking. Fortunately, this is the Green party we're talking about here. One thing about being a fringe party is that eventually you have to embrace fringe politics, in one way or another.
In the immediate aftermath of Green party leader Elizabeth May's decision to allow the candidacy of Qais Ghanem to stand, one question remains on the mind of those observing the Green party during this 2008 federal election:
Why, exactly, was John Shavluk's nomination scrubbed?
We've heard the official explanation: Shavluk's apparently anti-semitic remarks were "not consistent with Green party philosophy".
Meanwhile, Ghanem -- a physicist and immigrant from Yemen -- who along with Sylvie Lemieux, Paul Maillet and Akbar Manoussi (collectively, they are known as the "Ottawa group of four"), to sponsor a resolution entitled simply "Palestine". The resolution "calls upon Israel to end its forty-year occupation of all Arab lands without preconditions."Ghanem has caught flack within the Green party for using a Green party message board to post messages that were "one-sidedly anti-Israel".
For his own part, Ghanem insists that I do not have to record the opposite point of view to every quotation I dig up, for the sake of so-called 'balance,'. The Israeli point of view is voiced non-stop by the North American media which is controlled by a small oligarchy."
Of course, it would be hard to pretend that when Ghanem refers to a "small oligarchy", he isn't referring to media owners such as the Asper family, who own and control Canwest Global.
So long as he doesn't refer to "a small Jewish oligarchy", it would seem, he's treading on safe territory.
Apparently, Ghanem can counter-factually claim that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected despite the fact that Iran has barred nuclear inspectors from its facilities.
So long as Ghanem restrains himself from posting bizarre references to Jewish bankers online, it seems, he's safe, even if such sentiments in his comments seem only thinly veiled.
There is, of course, one other element in play: Ghanem didn't mention 9/11 in the course of his comments.
Of course, he has voiced some rather remarkable views regarding 9/11 on his campaign website:
"2001-Sept-11 The Big Event!This is in the course of a post entitled "What are we doing in Afghanistan?"
Hijackers were Saudis with box cutters, NONE were Afghans or Iraqis.
2001-Sept-12: (ONE day later) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz declared that Iraq should be attacked!
Here is a list of questions that need answers:
Why was the FBI investigation of hijackers shut down?
Why were military response stand down orders issued?
Why were distracting war games set up on 9/11 of all days?
Why did building 7, not attacked at all, collapse like controlled demolition?"
(Interestingly, he can't quite seem to come to grips with the Taliban's harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.)
Meanwhile, Kevin Potvin wrote an editorial wherein he cheered Bin Laden's escape ("Go Osama go!"), and encouraged Vancouver-area 9/11 "truth"ers to meet with him to discuss the matter. His nomination was rejected.
John Shavluk posted a comment implicating the Americans in a terrorist attack on their own soil upon "[their] shoddily built world bank headquarters", and his nomination was turfed as well.
Meanwhile, Qais Ghanem writes a blog post endorsing the 9/11 "truth" movement and advances resolutions that deny Israel's right to exist, and somehow he's still "within [Green] party policy."
While there's clearly a strong 9/11 "truth" movement within the Green party, it may seem that Elizabeth May really isn't trying to excise that particular demon at all.
From any mainstream party, this would be shocking. Fortunately, this is the Green party we're talking about here. One thing about being a fringe party is that eventually you have to embrace fringe politics, in one way or another.
Pressure's On Jack Layton
Potential leadership challenger Michael Byers waiting in the wings
In 2006, NDP leader Jack Layton led his party from a meagre 18 seat caucus to prey upon Liberal weakness and return 29 Members of Parliament.
The eventual by-election victory of Thomas Mulcair in Outremont -- a Liberal stronghold riding formerly held by Pierre Trudeau brought the NDP up to a respectable total of 30 seats.
With the 2008 federal election now underway, however, it seems the pressure on Layton could be as intense as ever. If he fails to make further gains or (worse yet) loses seats, it seems the NDP's candidate in Vancouver-Centre, Michael Byers, may decide to make a run for the NDP leadership.
According to the Georgia Strait's Charlie Smith, the entrance of BC Liberal MLA Lorne Mayencourt as a federal Conservative candidate may have put Byers in the driver's seat in Vancouver-Centre.
Mayencourt, currently representing the provincial riding of Vancouver-Berard, may siphon enough conservative Liberals discontented with the carbon tax to potentially unseat Hedy Fry.
According to Smith, if Mayencourt manages to attract as much as 20 percent of the ridings voters -- based on appeal to pro-free enterprise gays and lesbians and the law-and-order vote -- and Green candidate Adrianne Carr (formerly a provincial Green party leader) can attract 15-20% of the vote in the riding, either Byers or Fry could claim a victory with just over 30% of the vote.
Smith predicts that Byers could do even better than that, winning 35% of the vote if Jack Layton runs a good, solid campaign. Even if Layton doesn't run a good campaign -- and there's no reason to expect he won't -- Byers is still a definite contender in the contest.
Byers seems to understand this, as well. Byers didn't even wait for the campaign to begin before taking the fight to Hedy Fry.
Certainly, a successful campaign by Layton would benefit Byers at least in the short term. However, such a successful campaign could only put off any leadership amitions Byers may have.
However, should the NDP campaign flounder federally, Jack Layton will almost certainly find himself subject to a leadership review. Should disgruntled New Democrats decide to ouster Layton as leader, a Byers victory in Vancouver-Centre -- toppling the giant killer who once slew Prime Minister Kim Campbell -- would make him a tough opponent to beat.
Not that the NDP is guaranteed to be well-served by Byers' leadership. He has a tendency to make narrow ideological foreign policy statements that fail to stand up to scrutiny.
But if Byers wants to follow Michael Ignatieff's lead into federal politics, he may as well do it in style. And while it may be unbecoming for Byers to be keeping his fingers crossed for the failure of his party leader, one can't help but wonder if that isn't exactly what's on his wish list for the 2008 federal election.
In 2006, NDP leader Jack Layton led his party from a meagre 18 seat caucus to prey upon Liberal weakness and return 29 Members of Parliament.
The eventual by-election victory of Thomas Mulcair in Outremont -- a Liberal stronghold riding formerly held by Pierre Trudeau brought the NDP up to a respectable total of 30 seats.
With the 2008 federal election now underway, however, it seems the pressure on Layton could be as intense as ever. If he fails to make further gains or (worse yet) loses seats, it seems the NDP's candidate in Vancouver-Centre, Michael Byers, may decide to make a run for the NDP leadership.According to the Georgia Strait's Charlie Smith, the entrance of BC Liberal MLA Lorne Mayencourt as a federal Conservative candidate may have put Byers in the driver's seat in Vancouver-Centre.
Mayencourt, currently representing the provincial riding of Vancouver-Berard, may siphon enough conservative Liberals discontented with the carbon tax to potentially unseat Hedy Fry.
According to Smith, if Mayencourt manages to attract as much as 20 percent of the ridings voters -- based on appeal to pro-free enterprise gays and lesbians and the law-and-order vote -- and Green candidate Adrianne Carr (formerly a provincial Green party leader) can attract 15-20% of the vote in the riding, either Byers or Fry could claim a victory with just over 30% of the vote.
Smith predicts that Byers could do even better than that, winning 35% of the vote if Jack Layton runs a good, solid campaign. Even if Layton doesn't run a good campaign -- and there's no reason to expect he won't -- Byers is still a definite contender in the contest.
Byers seems to understand this, as well. Byers didn't even wait for the campaign to begin before taking the fight to Hedy Fry.Certainly, a successful campaign by Layton would benefit Byers at least in the short term. However, such a successful campaign could only put off any leadership amitions Byers may have.
However, should the NDP campaign flounder federally, Jack Layton will almost certainly find himself subject to a leadership review. Should disgruntled New Democrats decide to ouster Layton as leader, a Byers victory in Vancouver-Centre -- toppling the giant killer who once slew Prime Minister Kim Campbell -- would make him a tough opponent to beat.
Not that the NDP is guaranteed to be well-served by Byers' leadership. He has a tendency to make narrow ideological foreign policy statements that fail to stand up to scrutiny.
But if Byers wants to follow Michael Ignatieff's lead into federal politics, he may as well do it in style. And while it may be unbecoming for Byers to be keeping his fingers crossed for the failure of his party leader, one can't help but wonder if that isn't exactly what's on his wish list for the 2008 federal election.
David Skillicom: Republicans Least, Most Deceptive
Queen's U prof finds John McCain to be a straight talker
As human history progresses, computers are doing more and more incredible things.
One day, some fear, computers may destroy us all. But until Judgement Day arrives, computers will remain our faithful servants, bound to do all kinds of nifty things for us.
Like analyze political speeches. Queen's University computer science professor David Skillicom has announced that, using a computer, he's analyzed the speeches from the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention, and essentially discovered that, essentially, Republicans are among the most and least deceptive of the speakers.
By analyzing the language of each speech, Skillicom has produced a list of the speakers, and ranked them from the least deceptive -- those that employed the least "spin" in their speech -- to the most. He ranked the speakers as follows:
1 (least). John McCain - Republican
2. Mike Huckabee - Republican
3. Joe Biden - Democrat
4. Joe Lieberman - Independent
5. Sarah Palin - Republican
6. Michelle Obama - Democrat
7. Barack Obama - Democrat
8. George W Bush - Republican
9. Bill Clinton - Democrat
10. Hillary Clinton - Democrat
11. Fred Thompson - Republican
12. Rudolph Giuliani - Republican
13 (most). Mitt Romney - Republican
As one can see from this list, four of the five least deceptive speakers at the conventions were either Republicans, or independents supporting Republicans (Joe Lieberman, who is supporting John McCain).
Meanwhile, three of the most deceptive speakers were Republicans. The other two were Bill and Hillary Clinton.
If one can put any significant amount of stock into Skillicom's new tool, this could revolutionize political analysis. In fact, politics will probably never be quite the same again.
Of course, there remain significant limits to what a computer can do. And until the day that they grow to the point where they can wipe us off the face of the Earth, the necessity for human intuition and judgement will always remain.
As human history progresses, computers are doing more and more incredible things.
One day, some fear, computers may destroy us all. But until Judgement Day arrives, computers will remain our faithful servants, bound to do all kinds of nifty things for us.
Like analyze political speeches. Queen's University computer science professor David Skillicom has announced that, using a computer, he's analyzed the speeches from the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention, and essentially discovered that, essentially, Republicans are among the most and least deceptive of the speakers.
By analyzing the language of each speech, Skillicom has produced a list of the speakers, and ranked them from the least deceptive -- those that employed the least "spin" in their speech -- to the most. He ranked the speakers as follows:
1 (least). John McCain - Republican
2. Mike Huckabee - Republican
3. Joe Biden - Democrat
4. Joe Lieberman - Independent
5. Sarah Palin - Republican
6. Michelle Obama - Democrat
7. Barack Obama - Democrat
8. George W Bush - Republican
9. Bill Clinton - Democrat
10. Hillary Clinton - Democrat
11. Fred Thompson - Republican
12. Rudolph Giuliani - Republican
13 (most). Mitt Romney - Republican
As one can see from this list, four of the five least deceptive speakers at the conventions were either Republicans, or independents supporting Republicans (Joe Lieberman, who is supporting John McCain).
Meanwhile, three of the most deceptive speakers were Republicans. The other two were Bill and Hillary Clinton.
If one can put any significant amount of stock into Skillicom's new tool, this could revolutionize political analysis. In fact, politics will probably never be quite the same again.
Of course, there remain significant limits to what a computer can do. And until the day that they grow to the point where they can wipe us off the face of the Earth, the necessity for human intuition and judgement will always remain.
Harper to Opposition: "Let's Get it On!"
It's official -- federal election set for Oct 14
"Between now and Oct. 14, Canadians will choose a government to look out for their interests at a time of global economic trouble," Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today, shortly after asking Governor General Michaelle Jean to dissolve parliament.
The move came amidst questions over whether or not such an election call would be illegal according to Harper's own fixed date election law.
In calling this election, Harper has pulled the trigger on what he's predicted will be a "nasty" election.
"To be really honest, I anticipate a very nasty, kind of personal-attack campaign," Harper mused. "That's just what I'm anticipating; that's what the opposition's done in the past. I think that whether Canadians agree with what we're doing or not, I don't think they're going to believe the kind of personal attacks and scare tactics that we've seen in the past."
For his own part, Liberal leader Stephane Dion has already started the partisan ideological wrangling typical of his party at election time.
"Stephen Harper formed the most conservative government in our history," Dion insisted.
Which, unfortunately for Dion, is historically untrue. In terms of conservatism, Harper's government could never hold a candle to the government of William Lyon Mackenzie King, among others.
Certainly, Harper's government has been the most Conservative seen in more than fifty years, but that's really only in contrast to what many would consider the runaway statism of previous governments -- including previous Conservative (Progressive Conservative) governments.
Jack Layton, fresh off his visit to the Democratic National Convention, has taken a page out of Barack Obama's playbook and promised to be the candidate for change.
"I'll act on the priorities of your kitchen table not just the boardroom table," he promised.
Last (and least) Elizabeth May portrayed her party as an alternative to the three national parties that have actually managed to -- you know -- actually elect Members of Parliament.
Her race against Deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay will be one of the key battlegrounds in the election. Ironically, she'll be depending on heavy support from partians of one of the mainstream parties, as the Liberals will not run a candidate against her.
Many Canadians likely find themselves somewhere between disappointed and angry to be facing an election right now.
However, there is one bright side to this election. Not only will Canadians elect their leaders before the Presidential race is settled, one can safely assume that Michael Moore will be keeping his mouth busy with American politics for the duration of the Canadian election.
Thank god for small favours, one supposes.
"Between now and Oct. 14, Canadians will choose a government to look out for their interests at a time of global economic trouble," Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today, shortly after asking Governor General Michaelle Jean to dissolve parliament.
The move came amidst questions over whether or not such an election call would be illegal according to Harper's own fixed date election law.
In calling this election, Harper has pulled the trigger on what he's predicted will be a "nasty" election.
"To be really honest, I anticipate a very nasty, kind of personal-attack campaign," Harper mused. "That's just what I'm anticipating; that's what the opposition's done in the past. I think that whether Canadians agree with what we're doing or not, I don't think they're going to believe the kind of personal attacks and scare tactics that we've seen in the past."
For his own part, Liberal leader Stephane Dion has already started the partisan ideological wrangling typical of his party at election time.
"Stephen Harper formed the most conservative government in our history," Dion insisted.
Which, unfortunately for Dion, is historically untrue. In terms of conservatism, Harper's government could never hold a candle to the government of William Lyon Mackenzie King, among others.
Certainly, Harper's government has been the most Conservative seen in more than fifty years, but that's really only in contrast to what many would consider the runaway statism of previous governments -- including previous Conservative (Progressive Conservative) governments.
Jack Layton, fresh off his visit to the Democratic National Convention, has taken a page out of Barack Obama's playbook and promised to be the candidate for change.
"I'll act on the priorities of your kitchen table not just the boardroom table," he promised.
Last (and least) Elizabeth May portrayed her party as an alternative to the three national parties that have actually managed to -- you know -- actually elect Members of Parliament.
Her race against Deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay will be one of the key battlegrounds in the election. Ironically, she'll be depending on heavy support from partians of one of the mainstream parties, as the Liberals will not run a candidate against her.
Many Canadians likely find themselves somewhere between disappointed and angry to be facing an election right now.
However, there is one bright side to this election. Not only will Canadians elect their leaders before the Presidential race is settled, one can safely assume that Michael Moore will be keeping his mouth busy with American politics for the duration of the Canadian election.
Thank god for small favours, one supposes.