The Riddle of Theological Environmentalism

In a recent post at Pharyngula, PZ Myers is excited by a recent Nature Video Channel video featuring Sir David Attenborough in which he blames the Bible for fomenting an attitude that validates environmental destruction.

"The influence of the book of Genesis which says that the lord God said 'go forth and multiply' to Adam and Eve and that the natural world is there for you to dominate," Attenborough explains. "'You have dominion over the animals and plants of the world,' and that basic notion that the world is there for us and if it doesn't actually serve our purposes it's dispensible, that has produced devestation of vast areas of the Earth's surface."

"Of course it's a great oversimplification," Attenborough admits. "But that's why Darwinism and the fact of evolution is of great importance, because it is that attitude which has led to the devestation of so much of the Earth."

Naturally Myers, who has never heard a criticism of religion that he didn't enjoy, is quite enthused about Attenborough's comments.

But as Attenborough himself admits, his comments are a great oversimplification of the matter. After all, one of the most important elements of religion is that of interpretation.

As it turns out, a great many Christians interpret the Book of Genesis very differently. While some very much do seem to subscribe to the Coulter-esque "take it, rape it, it's yours" school of thought, there are many Christians who believe that their religious faith obligates them to care for the Earth.

Such is the attitude toward the environment taken by organizations such as Care for Creation, a religious environmental group that brings together Christians, Muslims and Jews to meet the group's goal of better caring for the environment.

This is also the motivation behind the recent publication of the the Green Bible, a version of the Bible in which scriptural verses referring to God's love of his creation and God's commandment that the Earth be cared for are highlighted in Green.

Approximately 1000 pages of the book -- printed with soy-based ink on recycled paper with a cotton cover -- are duly highlighted.

Contrary to Sir Attenborough's insistence that the book of Genesis, in particular, is responsible for validating environmental destruction, a significant portion of Genesis is highlighted in green.

While someone who wants badly enough to find justification for careless exploitation of the environment may find it in Genesis, those who pay close attention will find commandments toward caring for the environment as well.

Ironically, the book of Revelations also features numerous passages that promote care for the environment. This is ironic because many Christians who have rejected the Green Bible have questioned the need to care for a world that, according to particular interpretations of the Bible, will only be destroyed anyway.

Even if the eventual destruction of the Earth isn't treated as a rationale for rejecting a biblical focus on environmental protection there is still the matter of priorities. Some conservative Christians have argued that saving souls is more important than saving the Earth -- although they clearly overlook the need for a healthy planet for the next generation (also representing the next generation of souls, depending on the nuances of one's own religious views).

In Canada, the theological environmentalist movement has found some influential leaders. In particular Preston Manning has been instrumental in promoting the Bible as a book that encourages environmental conservation.

This matter isn't nearly so simple as Sir Attenborough describes it. For those intent on believing that the Bible justifies environemtnal destruction, they will find it. But for those who want to believe that the Bible encourages proper stewardship of the environment, they will find that as well. Often, they will support for these differing view points in the same parts of the Bible.

This is why theological environmentalism is a riddle. But like any great riddle, it is one that must be solved in order for the wisdom it entails to be enjoyed.

Unfortunately, the search for this solution won't be abbetted by individuals like PZ Myers who would rather content themselves to chortle triumphantly.

Memo to Charles McVety: Fuckin' Relax

Canadian Christian Coalition leader overreacts to atheist bus ads

In the wake of an advertising campaign launched in Britain in which buses are carrying a pro-atheist message, atheists here in Canada have launched a similar campaign of their own.

In Toronto, the Freethought Association of Canada is set to release its own wave of "There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" adverts on City of Toronto buses.

The Canadian Christian Coalition's Charles McVety (who leads the organization, along with a slew of other Christian-oriented groups) doesn't like it.

"They're attack ads," McVety complained, "saying we worry and saying that we are not happy. That is an offensive statement."

McVety's complaints are reminiscent of complaints by Britain's Stephen Green, who complained that the British ads violated advertising standards.

Fortunately, just as Green's reaction to the ads wasn't representative of the British response to them, nor is McVety's reaction to the Canadian campaign.

"If it evokes a discussion around religion and discussions around issues of faith, that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's done respectfully," noted Neil MacCarthy, the Archiocese of Toronto.

In Britain, Theos, a Christian think tank actually donated a (very) modest sum of money to the British campaign.

There's a good reason why the response to these ads should not be, and fortunately has not been, as uniformly hostile as those of Charles McVety and Stephen Green: the ads themselves are extremely non-threatening.

The ads state that there is probably no God. They don't say anything for certain. If the ads asserted that the Bible is crap, as PZ Myers recently did, that would be one thing. That would actually qualify as an "attack ad" as McVety has tried to label these ads (although that alone wouldn't be enough reason to try to bar them from being run).

And while one may wonder about the irony of the Freethought Association of Canada running ads that at least seem to tell people what to think about God (that God "probably" doesn't exist), and running ads that so blatantly copy the British campaign, there's very little offensive about these ads.

Neil MacCarthy is right. These ads will serve a valuable purpose if they convince people to think about whether or not they believe God exists and, more importantly, why.

Awww, Muffin...

Jack Layton wants to shit in Michael Ignatieff's shoes

According to NDP leader Jack Layton, there's a new coalition on Parliament Hill, and he doesn't like it.

"We have a new coalition now on Parliament Hill -- it's a coalition between Mr Harper and Mr Ignatieff," Layton complained.

"Mr Ignatieff has made his choice, he has decided not to support the coalition and the positive change that it would have brought," Layton complained. "He has formed a relationship with Mr. Harper and this could last for a very long time."

Layton's comments came shortly after Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff pledged "conditional" support for the budget.

However, Ignatieff is calling for the government to issue periodical reports on the progress of the budget's implementation.

"Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians," Ignatieff announced.

Which is actually an extremely novel idea for reform. If one treats any confidence vote as essentially a contract between the government and Parliament in which Parliament gives its approval for the government's fiscal agenda under the expectation that it be implimented, then such periodic reports give Parliament a valuable tool for actually enforcing that agreement.

This isn't merely something that should be applied to the current budget -- it should be applied to all future budgets in this country.

But Michael Ignatieff may want to be a good deal more careful about some other things. With Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe formally declaring the coalition to be dead today, Ignatieff won't have that stick to threaten Stephen Harper with any longer.

"We are putting this government on probation," Ignatieff said. "Should Mr. Harper fail to satisfy the expectations of Canadians, we will be ready to defeat him and lead in his place."

But having already disappointed his coalition partners, Ignatieff may not find them quite so obliging should he turn around and decide to defeat the government.

"This is the first really important decision in public life that Mr Ignatieff has had to make... and what he decided to do was to stick with [Stephane] Dion's unfortunate voting policy of propping up Mr Harper," Layton complained. "When the Liberals vote for Mr Harper, with or without a fig leaf of an amendment, they will be casting their 45th straight vote to keep Stephen Harper in office. You can't do that and pretend to be the alternative to Mr Harper."

But consisdering the attitude of most Canadians to the proposed coalition, Layton can't deny that Ignatieff has merely woken up to reality and decided to not hand the Conservative party a majority in the next election.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

James Laxer - "Jack Layton is Now the Real Leader of the Opposition"

Pearce Richards - "Jack Layton: Do As I Say, Not As I Do"

Jason Clements - "What Happened to Democracy?"

Ugly is as Ugly Does

PZ Myers makes excuses in the wake of a poor debating performance

PZ Myers is absolutely correct when he describes his debate with Kirk Durston at the University of Alberta last night as "ugly".

But considering that Myers himself was the contributor of a great deal of that ugliness to that debate, one should think that he doth protest too bloody much.

Today in a post on his blog, Pharyngula, Myers essentially makes excuses for his poor performance in the debate last night -- and for the record, while he clearly out-shone Durston on the topic of science, his refusal to debate the actual topic of debate can't be looked at as anything other than a default.

In particular, Myers takes exception to Durston's previously-mentioned suggestion that states in which a core value was atheism was responsible for more state-perpetrated mass murders than states in which any religion was a core value.

(Durston described a core value as any value from which a state's other values are derived. Certainly, this is nothing if not an extremely cumbersome definition, but it does work.)

In order to justify that claim, Durston relies on the work of Rudolph Rummel, a political scientist at the University of Hawaii.

Myers essentially claims that if Rummel himself doesn't state that idea in his thesis, then his work can't be used to support it -- tantamount to suggesting that Albert Einstein's theory of relativity couldn't be used to build atomic bombs because Einstein disagreed with them.

And certainly, Myers is right when he notes that Durston's "atheist core value society" argument is nowhere to be found in Rummel's work -- or is at lest very difficult to find. What Rummel's work does provide, however, is the source material that Durston used to draw that conclusion.

In a table of democides -- which Rummel defines as combining genocide with mass murder -- Rummel ranks the states with the largest body counts throughout history, ranking them from deka-murderers to centi-kilomurderers. This table is pictured to the right.

An examination of the top five -- the dekamurderers -- alone confirms the basis for Durston's argument. Three of the five countries he lists as the top murderers in history -- The People's Republic of China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cambodia and North Korea -- are in the top five.

This may confirm the basis for Durston's argument, but it doesn't justify the argument itself. For one thing, to describe Nazi Germany as a state in which atheism was a core principle would be flagrantly false. The Nazi party promoted a state religion that was based on a collection of source material, ranging from far eastern spiritualism to bizarre occultism.

Moreover, it would be remiss to overlook the religious -- notably Christian -- overtones of European colonialism. Colonialism was treated by many leaders as a mission from god to deliver Christianity around the globe, and claim what they insisted God had created for them.

Think of the priest in The Four Feathers blessing British soldiers going off to fight the insurrection in Sudan telling them that "God has blessed the British race" with its empire.

But Myers, who accused Durston of peddling "bad history" during the debate, moves on to peddle more bad history himself in the course of his debate post-mortem blog entry.

First off, he claims that atheism was not a core principle of Marxism. This is flagrantly false. Karl Marx denounced religion as an "opiate of the masses" -- a false consciousness-inducing ideology that would have to be cast away in order for the allegedly inevitable revolution of the proletariat to come.

It was actually Vladimir Lenin who rejected the need for institutionalized atheism in his 1905 essay, "Socialism and Religion". While this would seem to invalidate the assertion that atheism was a core principle of the Soviet Union, one would have to remember what took place under Joseph Stalin's regime.

Stalin took advantage of pressure being applied on the Soviet government by organizations such as the League of the Militant Godless -- whose slogan was "the fight for godlessness is a fight for socialism" -- to justify changing the Soviet Constitution in 1936. He entrenched the anti-religious cause within the Constitution of the USSR.

This was done so Stalin could nationalize Church lands. Although Stalin made concessions to the Russian Orthodox Church during the second world war -- the Church was instrumental in re-casting the struggle against the Nazis as the Great Patriotic War -- the state continued to spread anti-religious propaganda through the Soviet Department of External Church relations and the KGB.

Even the more relatively moderate regime of Nikita Kruschev mandated the registration of religious groups with the Soviet government.

Entrenching atheism within the Soviet Constitution established it as a core value of that state. Myers is as wrong as he could possibly be to try to pretend otherwise.

Myers also lobbed an accusation at Durston that he was "poisoning the well" by even bringing this up in the first place. This is arguably a valid point. Then again, individuals like Christopher Hitchens have been arguing that religion is responsible for the most killings of any social force in human history -- the point that Durston was actually trying to refute.

If Durston was indeed poisoning the well, he shouldn't be excused for dumping more poison into an already-poisoned well. But by the same token, he didn't poison it first.

Myers also mischaracterizes one of Durston's key arguments. Myers insists that Durston claimed the Flavian testimony of Jesus is evidence of Jesus Christ's divinity. In fact, Durston claimed that the rapid spread of Christianity in the period immediately following Christ's death -- not more than a hundred years later, as Myers claimed -- is evidence that many people believed Jesus had risen from the grave. The Flavian testimony is believed by many to confirm this.

Myers did excel at his scientific arguments. His rebuttal to the argument that Intelligent Design is necessary to explain the complexity within nature was admirably elegant: that simplicity and efficiency, not complexity, are the hallmarks of good design.

But listening to Myers debate -- and his reliance on the "donkey's laugh" -- makes it plainly obvious where some of his admirers get their rhetorical "skills" from.

The debate was ugly. Mostly because neither individual came to the table with any thing terribly ground-breaking to say, and only one of them (Durston) bothered to actually debate the topic they had both agreed to.

Myers' hands were every bit as dirty as his opponent's in making the debate between himself and Kirk Durston an ugly affair.

Update:

It seems like Myers may be uncomfortable with his own conduct during the debate. Coming in additional commentary thrown in at the end of his blog post:

"It was Durston's first words that were insulting and illogical — a shot at calling atheists evil. I suppose if I'd opened by announcing that Christians were all stupid, we would have had equivalency…but I did not.

And yes, we talked past each other the whole time. The debate topic was far too broad, I thought we were going to argue about the evidence for design, but Durston wiggled away and talked about anything but."

Anyone who was actually at the debate can say for a fact that this is untrue.

In fact, Myers opened his remarks by saying (roughly paraphrased) "do leprecauns exist? This is the same thing. This is crap."

Apparently, in Myers' mind, expressing his sheer contempt for the beliefs of others doesn't qualify as calling them stupid, as long as he doesn't say so in those explicit words.

Furthermore, if Myers was unsatisfied with the topic of the debate, he should have done exactly what Kenneth Hynek said he should have -- he should have declined the debate.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Lawrence A Moran - "Kirk Durston vs PZ Myers"

Kenneth Hynek - "PZ Myers Should Have Skipped the Debate"

Let's Talk About Bad History

In a debate over whether or not God exists at the University of Alberta tonight, PZ Myers and his debate opponent, Kirk Durston, explored one of the more insipid questions used to answer the question over which ever is superior:

The question of which has been responsible for more deaths: religion or atheism.

By drawing upon the body counts amassed by the five most bloodthirsty atheist societies -- which, for the purposes of debate, was defined as societies in which atheism was a central and encompassing tenet -- Durston concluded that between Cambodia, China, North Korea and the Soviet Union atheism has allegedly killed more people than anything else.

Myers objected to the argument under the basis that Durston was classifying all atheists as mass murderers -- but conveniently fails to overlook that fellow famed atheist Christopher Hitchens applies the same argument to religion, by Myers' standards suggesting that all religious people are mass murderers.

He then went on to insist that Adolph Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Accordingly, history's most despised mass murderer -- despite the fact that Joseph Stalin actually killed many more people -- was religious.

Unfortunately for Myers, his assertion is flagrantly false.

Those who paid close attention to history know know that Myers' assertions -- the one thing he excelled at during the debate, with the exception of boring people with a lecture about Hox genes -- know that this is bad history.

Hitler may have been raised Catholic. But in truth, Hitler lived the last decade of his life as a bizarre occultist.



It's well known that Hitler and the other senior members of the Nazi party believed that Aryans were the master race. What is less well known is that they believed Aryans were descendents of Atlantis, who lost their godlike powers due to mixed breeding with the members of "lesser" races.



And while Myers is entirely correct to note that Germany was -- and remains -- a predominately Lutheran and Roman Catholic country, and correctly notes that the Roman Catholic Church holds some complicity in the events of the Holocaust due to its lack of intervention, his argument falls short on one important point.

There is a stark difference between complicity and complete and sole responsibility.

(Interestingly, Pope Benedict seems to be set to welcome Richard Williamson, a Catholic Bishop who denied the Holocaust, back into the Church.)

But Myers should double-check his history before the next time he accuses a debate opponent of peddling bad history.

It's Because They Lie. All. The. Time.

The pro-abortion lobby just won't be honest, no matter what

As far as online meltdowns go, the one currently being experienced by Unrepentant Old Hippie's JJ is certainly one for the ages.

As it stands at the current moment, JJ just can't seem to keep her story straight. If one were to believe what she'd like people to believe, one would think that JJ is in favour of the abolition of all abortion laws, anywhere. She's claimed as much.

But for those paying close enough attention to JJ and her furious flag-waving in favour of the pro-abortion movement (she refers to it as "pro-choice", yet stridently opposes protecting a doctor's right to choose to refuse to perform an abortion they deem unethical) will notice that JJ isn't being quite as forthcoming with her agenda as she'd like people to believe.

Recent slips on her part have revealed precisely how much of that agenda she's tried to keep hidden.

The most recent big slip on JJ's part is her pledged support for the freedom of choice act, a piece of American legislation that would protect a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and protect her right to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability in cases of medical necessity.

This would naturally seem to contradict JJ's publicly-stated "the only good abortion law is no abortion law" position. After all, passing FOCA would be putting in place an abortion law -- even though one of JJ's equally-intellectually dishonest cohorts somehow thinks passing an abortion law somehow moves the United States in the direction of no abortion law -- however this makes sense is probably understood by Mike alone.

JJ insists that it's all about the context, insisting that she's only in favour of FOCA because it would be "an improvement" on the status quo in the United States:

"Of course I support FOCA, in the context of what is happening to abortion access in the US right now. (I shouldn't have to add that qualifier since it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but there it is for the cerebrally-deprived.) FOCA is protective legislation that would put a stop to all the nitpicking legal challenges and stupid ballot initiatives currently being used to attack abortion rights.

I never said FOCA wasn't flawed legislation, and Mike is correct when he says FOCA is wrong in some ways. But in the context of the status quo in the USA, it's an improvement. Thus my support for it. OBVIOUSLY the situation in Canada (no law) is far superior."

Certainly, JJ would probably like to have people believe this.

But then there's the matter of JJ's support for not only passing an abortion law in Canada, but one that would entrench abortion rights in the highest law in the land, to the direct detriment of the rights of doctors.

It's clear that JJ is anything but opposed to the idea of an abortion law. She just wants one where her beloved pro-abortion lobby is holding all of the cards.

One really can't help but wonder: why is it really that JJ is in favour of legislation like FOCA in the United States, but not in Canada? Why is it that, for Canada, she would oppose legislation that would protect a woman's right to choose to have an abortion? Why is it that JJ and Mike would denounce FOCA as a bad bill because it regulates something that, according to their insistence, couldn't harm a woman's right to choose (seeing as how they insist that medically unnecessary late-term abortions don't happen in Canada)?

There's something missing in all of this: the same thing that has been missing all along. The truth.

They say they're opposed to abortion laws, then back ideas that would entrench abortion rights in the highest law of the land. They say they're opposed to abortion laws, then support them in foreign countries.

Either they just can't be consistent with their position, or just won't be honest about what their agenda really is.

Did You Double Check That With Michael, John? Or Even With Reality?

Liberal double-talk on the budget palpable

For the past 20 years in Canada, the Liberal party has made an art form of trying to have it both ways.

Accuse the opposition Reform party of plotting to devestate health care with deep cuts while slashing billions of dollars from health care.

Accuse the governing Conservative party of campaigning based on fear while airing some of the most vile fear-based campaign ads in the history of fear-based campaigning.

Now, the Liberals are adding another chapter to this sorry tale: insisting that they oppose middle class tax cuts, despite the fact that their leader previously endorsed them.

Speaking in advance of tomorrow's federal budget, Liberal finance critic John McCallum had some interesting things to say.

"If the permanent tax cuts were very large, we would be very concerned, partly because it would saddle future generations with a big debt and a permanent deficit," McCallum mused.

Despite Ignatieff's previous support for permanent middle class tax cuts -- as brilliantly explosed by National Post Full Comment's Kelly McParland -- McCallum insists that they are ill-advised.

McCallum insisted that the cuts would be ineffective to stimulate the economy because people will be more likely to save the tax cut than spend it.

But here's the problem: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff himself recently pledged his support for middle class tax cuts. As far as stimulating the economy with tax cuts goes, the bigger the cuts are, the better. A large tax cut is much more likely to be spent than a small tax cut.

Sadly, the logic of this seems to be all but lost on an opposition that, despite the reported inclusion of some things they would otherwise support in this budget -- $2 billion for social housing, $1 billion for workers and $1.5 billion for job retraining -- has committed themselves to rejecting the budget sight unseen.

"If [the budget] doesn't cut it, our leader has made it perfectly clear that we vote against it -- and he is prepared to lead," McCallum crowed.

And all Michael Ignatieff needs to do is double-back on his own position and lie to the Canadian people in order to do it.

It's hard to excuse the base dishonesty of the Liberal position on matters economic these days. The Liberal party knows full well that Canada would be budgeting a deficit in the coming year regardless of who was in power. Despite this they accuse the Conservative party of blowing a surplus that they themselves planned to blow anyway -- again, a fact masterfully exposed by McParland.

Michael Ignatieff has previously insisted that he isn't trying to take a shortcut back to power.

Unfortunately, the truth is very different. He and his finance critic are trying to follow a road back to power that is all but paved with little white lies.

A Matter of Confidence

Don Newman offers a very unambitious -- and ill-conceived -- program of Parliamentary reform

Writing in a column on CBC.ca, Don Newman reflects on the recent Parliamentary crisis and draws a not-terribly-unreasonable conclusion:

We should rewrite Canada's Parliamentary rules to make minority governments more stable.

Likely few Canadians would object to a tweaking of the rules to make the defeat of a minority government a little less imminent. Few Canadians want to vote in an election just to have to rush back to vote in another.

But Newman's proposed solution may actually be much more troublesome in the long run than the comparable instability of minority governments under the current system. Newman proposes that the rules place some rather excessive limits on what may or may not be considered a confidence vote:

"One suggestion would be for fewer confidence votes. The Russian-roulette style of parties, either in opposition or in government, trying to create votes of confidence around bills or issues that are not really tests of confidence should be prohibited.

Confidence votes should be limited to the budget, spending estimates, declarations of war, treaties and the speech from the throne, the overview of the government's agenda.

If opposition parties want to gang up and amend a government bill on, say, climate change, so be it, provided the amendments do not call for significant new spending. (Controlling the public purse would remain a government responsibility.)

As well, once in each parliamentary sitting — and until now most parliaments have had two sittings between elections — there should be an opportunity for each of the opposition parties to move a non-confidence motion in the government to test the will of the House.

In the current situation, that would result in a maximum of three opposition-based non-confidence motions every two years, a reduction in the opportunities the three opposition parties currently have.

The real test, of course, is what happens when a government loses a vote of confidence. Then it should fall to the governor general to try to find a new government, which would continue in power until the next fixed election date — or until it was defeated on a confidence measure."

It may make some sense on what can or cannot be considered a confidence vote.

But Newman overlooks the fact that there are matters that are not restricted to finances, warfare, treaties, and the throne speec that very much entail matters of confidence.

Any matter on which the opposition believes the government is risking the fundamental well-being of the country can and should be considered matters of confidence. That means that issues including (but not limited to) environmental protection and national unity could be considered confidence issues.

Clearly, the opposition parties would have to declare their intention to treat such votes as matters of confidence, and should be required to present their case to the Governor General before the vote takes place.

Of course, this is a proposition that would actually mean very little if the office of Governor General could not itself be reformed. Making opposition parties argue their case for a confidence vote before an unelected (read: appointed) official wouldn't work any wonders for the democratic integrity of such a reform.

Canada would have to institute a system for electing the Governor General before any such reform could even be close to being considered democratic.

An interesting possible model for reforming the act of the non-confidence vote itself could be found in Germany, where a constructive vote of confidence is required in order to actually defeat the government. The opposition coalitions in Germany -- German politics, with is combination of directly elected and proportionally-elected parliamentarians, inherently directs German political parties toward forming coalitions -- cannot defeat the government without being able to establish an alternative government.

There are at least three problems with such a proposition. First off, the democratic models used in other countries can rarely be applied perfectly to other countries. Second, it would strip opposition parties of the ability to defeat the government in order to trigger an election; this is something that opposition parties will often want to do. Third, the alternative government would need to be expected to be able to hold the confidence of Parliament.

As it regards Canada's recent crisis, however, one is reminded of the central role of the Bloc Quebecois in forming and propping that coalition up. The Liberal-NDP coalition could not reasonably be expected to hold the confidence of Parliament on any matter related to national unity. Not so long as it relied on the formalized support of a separatist party.

The question of whether or not a government could be expected to hold the confidence of the house also applies to any coalition government proposal. As it regards the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, there is no question that it cannot be justified on these grounds. Without the support of a separatist party -- support that undermines it on a key tenet of confidence -- this government could not hold the confidence of the House. Without that support they hold fewer seats than the would-be opposition Tories.

Then there is always the most important aspect of the matter: proposing reforms to Canada's political system is easy. Actually making them work is a great deal more difficult.

Yeah, Let's Talk About "Originality"

Just when you think they've hit the pinnacle of stupidity, they surprise you

Coming in the midst of a debate over whether or not scientific theories can have strengths and weaknesses, the Canadian blogosphere's leading intellectual coward has found an interesting way to back out of it.

First, suggest that only "grownups" should be allowed to participate in scientific debate. (Which would be interesting, considering the childish level of discourse that perdominates over at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Group Think.)

Then, post a video that implies some rather interesting allegations.

The accusations come via a scene from Good Will Hunting in which Ben Affleck's character, Chuckie Sullivan, is confronted by a rather preppy-ish grad student trying to lord his mastery of history over him.

This provokes a quick intervention by Will (Matt Damon), in which he challenges the grad student. Having recognized what the student was trying to pass off as his own insights from their original authors, Hunting verbally wipes the floor with the cretin, accusing him of both plagiarizing and simply being unoriginal.

Which are interesting accusations coming from someone like Canadian Cynic.

After all, browsing Canadian Cynic's blog, nothing in particular stands out as original. There's a reason for this.

The Groupthink Temple isn't really known for producing ideas. Rather, it's known for lurking on the blogs of ideological opponents and trying to write anything and everything on those blogs as "stupid". Cynic doesn't really care if he has to fabricate or simply ignore context in order to accomplish this goal.

It's interesting to hear an accusation of plagiarism -- the appropration of other people's ideas -- from an individual who has no ideas of his own.

Especially considering that the intellectual influences of this blog are fully cited, and given full credit for their ideas.

Maybe the same would be the same of Canadian Cynic: if he actually had any ideas of his own, instead of flagrantly ripping them off from individuals such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.

Then again, it's hard to begrudge Cynic for the depths of his dishonesty. In the end, at least it will make for an interesting libel case.

Hollow Triumphalism Interrupted

The numbers don't support the portrayal of the Tories as economic goats

With Canada on the brink of at least two years of budget deficits, opponents of the governing Conservative party couldn't be happier.

The message coming from most of Canada's opposition is very simple: oh, if only the Liberals were still in power. Then we wouldn't be facing down a deficit.

The theorem is basically divided into two parts: through spending increases and tax cuts, the Conservatives spent Canadians right down to the brink of a deficit. Even if the hit to government revenues were too big, the maintained Liberal surpluses would at least render the deficits smaller, and more managable.

But those actually paying attention to the numbers know this isn't true.

As done previously here at the Nexus, National Post Full Comment editor Kelly McParland compares the current budget numbers to those forecasted by the Liberal party, and reaches a not-so-shocking conclusion: they aren't that different.

First, there's the matter of the "wasted surplus". As it turns out, then-Finance Minister Ralph Goodale was planning a program of tax cuts and increased spending worth a total of $39 billion to implement if the Liberal party managed to win the 2006 federal election.

The Liberal party had forecasted annual surpluses of $1.6 billion to $3.4 billion.

According to the fiscal plans made by the Liberal party under economic models that forecasted continuing surpluses, the deficit under the Liberals would have been at most $2 billion smaller. This is also before the addition of any additional costs due to the national daycare program the Liberals had planned to put in place.

The possibility is very real that this surplus would have been larger under the Liberal party. The possibility is also much more likely that Canada would have sustained a structural deficit under the Liberal party.

This shouldn't be terribly shocking. The Liberal and Conservative parties used the same economic projections to plan their spending. In terms of raw numbers, Ralph Goodale and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty made the same plans.

As such, an important question looms: do both the Liberal and Conservative parties have to "wear" the deficit considering the similarity of their spending plans? Or is there something else to blame for this deficit?

This is a false choice. The answer is a little bit of both.

No matter what they may insist now, few people, if any, predicted the sheer scale of the economic crisis that has led to this deficit. Considering that the government has jumped from budgeting a $2 billion surplus to budgeting a $36 billion deficit (with a $30 billion deficit next year), external influences are responsible for the majority of the surplus.

The Conservatives, however, very much do have to answer for their share of the deficit. They ran on the premise of being more fiscally responsible than the Liberal party, and they delivered something very different. Then again, the Liberal party also campaigned on being more fiscally responsible than their competitors, and their spending plans also speak for themselves.

Given the current levels of spending by the Canadian government, there should be little question that this deficit was inevitable regardless of whomever was in power. This economic crisis was one born in a foreign country, albeit one with ever-closer economic ties with Canada.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to deny that Canada has become much more vulnerable to economic crises born in countries that irresponsibly under-regulate their economies -- in particular, their financial markets. Then again, considering that the United States is Canada's number one trading partner, perhaps the impact would have been just as inevitable in NAFTA's absence.

This is a matter for much more experienced economists to debate.

The bigger picture is that of the comparison between Canada's current economic and fiscal situation and the one the country would be in if the Liberal party was in power. The pictures are scarcely any different.

Not that those eager to pin this matter squarely on the Conservative party are in any rush to admit this. Which only underscores the opportunism and hollow triumphalism of the argument that the Conservatives, and the Conservatives alone, are to blame for the deficit.




Other bloggers writing on this topic:

The Phantom Observer - "We're All Guilty of 'Budget Bias'"

Will Canada's Palestinian Community Please Stand Up?

Hamas' targeting of Fatah sparks international... silence

When Israel opened its military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza strip, the international reaction was nothing if not predictable.

Foreign leaders declined to touch the matter with a 50-foot pole, while anyone with even the slightest bone to pick with Israel took to the streets in protest.

But now that Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza strip, Hamas has reportedly taken the aftermath of the conflict as an opportunity to settle some scores with their political rival, Fatah.

Reportedly, up to 40 members of Fatah have been arrested, tortured and killed by Hamas militants, who accused those individuals of collaborating with Israel.

One would expect that those concerned about the human rights violations that allegedly took place during Israeli offensive are rushing to the streets again, this time to protest human rights violations by Hamas.

Think again.

Predictably, there is no outrage over Hamas' actions. But this lack of outrage has some serious implications for the credibility of many protest organizations.

As an example, consider the case of Independent Jewish Voices, an organization of (allegedly) anti-Zionist Jews. "We see it as a major war crime, an atrocity, a massacre, a genocide," IJV coordinator Diana Ralph insisted.

In the same interview, Ralph seems to overlook the criminal actions of Hamas. "We know that Israel has actually announced that one major wing of this assault is a propaganda war," she insisted. "They’re refusing to allow journalists into Gaza, they’re trying to portray Israel as the victim here with lots of press about the Qassam rockets landing on people in Sderot and other places nearby, poo-pooing the disproportionate damage. It’s pretty clear."

Yet if one were to accept Ralph's arguments that Israel's actions in Gaza were war crimes, there would be no question that those in Fatah who have allegedly collaborated with Israel are accessories to those crimes.

As such, the proper course of action would be for those individuals to be arrested and arraigned for war crimes, not be executed in hospitals or schools by Hamas militants.

Yet in the wake of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, there seems to be very little objection to Hamas' actions from those who protested Israel's actions so rigorously.

This is nothing new. In 2007, one year after Israel's offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon, there was nary a peep when Lebanese forces fought it out with Palestinian militants with a refugee camp square in the middle.

Instead of using ground troops to minimize casualties amongst the refugees, Lebanese forces surrounded the camp with tanks and artillery and bombarded the militants -- much like Israel's objectionable use of tanks and air strikes against Hamas militants hiding out amongst civilian centres.

There were no mass protests then, there seem to be no mass protests now.

Will Canada's Palestinian community please stand up?

Please?




Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Walker Morrow - "Hamas Moves on Fatah 'Collaborators'"

Ezra Levant - "Stop the massacre in Gaza"

Obama's Cool And Canadian Politicians Are Dicks

The Outrage Is When You Know

When they refuse to debate is when you know they know

There's something very special about pro-abortion lobbyists who insist there is no debate regarding abortion.

That shouldn't be mistaken for special in a good way. It's the other kind of special.

It takes a very "special" kind of person to deny to existence of something that, whether they like or not -- and it's clear that they don't -- is happening right before their very eyes.

If denying the existence of that debate isn't one thing, insisting that it can't even be allowed to happen -- despite the fact that it is -- is another.

Naturally, the pro-abortion lobby will over all kinds of excuses about why they can't be bothered to debate their pet issue with people who, god forbid, dare to disagree with them.

They insist it's because the anti-abortion lobby can't argue rationally. And to their discredit, many members of the anti-abortion don't argue rationally.

But if that were the case, one would have to think that the pro-abortion lobby would consider itself obligated when confronted with a rational argument.

Think again.

A recent episode invovling (who else), the Unrepentant Old Hippie, JJ, casts light on the real reason they won't engage in a rational debate: it would mean that they would have to defend their ideas honestly.

It started simply enough: with a question over whether or not medically unnecessary late-term abortions should be banned, something that was dismissed as unnecessary. Dr Henry Morgentaler himself had refused to perform late-term abortions that were medically unnecessary because he judged them to be unethical. Suggestions that a doctor's right to refuse to perform an abortion they deemed to be unethical be legally protected was similarily rejected -- if not ignored entirely.

But then there was the matter of JJ's own double-speak on the issue.

When known anti-Semite Robert McClelland suggested abortion rights be enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, JJ gushed over the idea.

When confronted on the subject, however, JJ took a rather characteristic way out. she lied:

"I’ve never “advocated” for any such thing - I once responded positively to an idea tabled by another blogger in the comments here, which is hardly “advocacy”. I’ve never even done a post about it. That’s advocacy? Uh, no."

But then again, one only has to take a close second look at the comment itself:

"Robert - Right on! That’s one debate I hope we can have very soon, with the outcome of having reproductive rights protected in a way that’s untouchable."

JJ responded affmirmatively to the idea of entrenching "women's reproductive rights" -- a euphemism for abortion rights -- "protected in a way that's untouchable".

Either JJ is simply lying about the position she's taken or she doesn't understand how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually works. If a woman's right to an abortion were protected in the Charter, a doctor's right to decline would have to be protected there as well.

One has to remember that this is coming from an individual who opposes protecting a doctor's right to choose to refuse to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical. That protection is unnecessary, they insist, because "no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions".

Yet if JJ and Robert McClelland were successful in their bid to entrench abortion rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, doctors could not refuse without risk of legal reprisal. If they were successful to this end -- a proposal that JJ insists that she doesn't advocate, and yet responded to the same proposition with a resounding "right on" -- a woman denied a medically unnecessary late-term abortion could sue in a civil court, or complain to a human rights commission.

So what was JJ's response to being confronted with the calculated inconsistency in her own stances? Recriminate:

"You really are a textbook case of bad-faith debate. If you ever want to be taken seriously as a blogger, you need to cut that out. There’s lots to debate without making shit up.

Now fuck off, I’ve had enough of your bullshit."

But JJ fails to explain: what, precisely, was made up?

She wrote the words. Robert McClelland proposed an idea that would make doctors who refused to perform abortions they considered unethical -- including Dr Henry Morgentaler himself -- vulnerable to legal reprisal.

And she responded with "right on!"

A person could quote her until the cows come home. So why can't she just be honest about it?

There is a reason. It's because the most extreme elements of the pro-abortion lobby has conducted their side of the debate under protracted conditions of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. Not to mention precisely the bad-faith arguments that they love to accuse others of making.

For example, consider this, a blogpost wherein JJ concludes that if one single medical professional -- in this case, a nurse -- abuses protection offered by freedom-of-conscience legislation, then such legislation is a bad thing because it was abused.

Yet if one were to accept the same line of argument, then all it would take to prove that a ban on medically unnecessary late-term abortions is necessary is one single medically unnecessary late-term abortion. All it would take to dispel the argument that abortion doctors adhere to Henry Morgentaler's admirable ethical standard is one single doctor who doesn't.

Of course they'll never be honest about this. And if ever confronted with the inconsistencies, dishonesties and hypocrisies in their own arguments, they'll never take responsibility for them. Instead, they'll take the intellectual coward's way out.

Which comes back to the real reason why people like JJ don't want any kind of an abortion debate to happen -- because if it did, they would have to face the reality that it may not end favourably for them, because some of their arguments are not defensible.

That's why they won't debate. Hell, they won't even be honest about why they won't debate.

Jane Junn, Russel Peters and the Ridiculousness of Race

In an interesting video via Fora TV, Rutgers University associate professor of political science Jane Junn makes it pretty apparent that more and more Americans are discovering Canada's own Russel Peters.

In the course of a speech about race and politics Junn notes that the fastest growing demographic in the United States is those Americans who describe themselves as multiracial.

Junn gushes about Russel Peters' comedic genius while quoting one of his jokes about the mixing of race.

"He says 'what if you mix together a Jamaican and an Italian what do you get'?" she recites. "A pastafarian."

"What about a woman from Iceland and a man from Cuba you get Ice Cubes," she continues. "And a woman from the Phillipines and a man from Holland you get a Hollapino."

Peters doesn't stop with hilarious send-ups of the kind of jokes that six-year-olds tend to tell their parents.

Performing for the Def Jam Comedy Jam, for example, Peters quips about brown being the new black. This would provide an interesting new way to look at Barack Obama's election as President: if a black president is fascinating to you, just imagine a Muslim president!

It shouldn't be imagined that race is set to disappear from the United States -- or from countries such as Canada -- overnight, or even within the next hundred years. Or ever.

But the rapidly-growing category of multiracial Americans has obvious implications for both racism and race. The United States has clearly come a long way from the days when interracial mating, dating and marrying was considered miscegenation and was illegal.

In the near future race may not only be considered to be irrelevant, but it may eventually even come to be seen for what it is: absolutely ridiculous.

That is the genius of Peters' comedy. As a member of a visible minority himself, he certainly recieves a special dispensation -- consider it something of a "never, ever go to jail" card -- as it pertains to race.

He embraces this license to indulge in racial humour and ultimately uses it to make the very notion of race -- or at least the social need to label people on account of race -- seem more and more ridiculous. After all, if our societies really have a deeply-rooted need to label people according to race, the time is not far off when we would need to come up with jumbled labels such as the type that Peters proposes.

This was certainly an ingenious stroke shared by the writers of the movie Domino, an action-verite film that featured a scene in which one of the black characters goes on Jerry Springer and proposes new labels such as "blacktino" and "chinegro".

The hostile reaction Lateesha Rodrigues faces from an audience member serves as a reminder that society may not be ready to abandon it's old socially-entrenched labels just yet.

But the inevitability that such lables do not apply to increasing numbers of people makes their obselescence inevitable. This shouldn't be mistaken to mean that racism will cease to exist. Racism will likely adapt to racially-mixed norms, although some people will certainly cling to modern notions of racism just like some people cling to their old computers and television sets. (You mean like that ancient RCA you're watching TMZ on right now? -ed)

As modern notions of race become less and less relevant, modern racism will likely become retro. Maybe it'll even die like disco -- which, whether anyone cares to admit it or not, has never died entirely.

Like many great comics, Russel Peters may well be ahead of his time, and Jane Junn knows it.

Not a Bad Start

Obama delivers on day one, but the hard work remains ahead of him

Of all the speeches a politician ever has to give, the one given on the day one becomes leader of their country is the one to get right.

Barack Obama certainly did that today.

Before an estimated crowd of four million people, Barack Obama took the oath of the office of President of the United States and gave a rousing, ambigious inaugural address -- one that was truly worthy of the historic occasion.

"The challenges we face are real," Obama announced. "They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America -- they will be met."

It's no surprise that Obama understands the work that needs to be done. Now, all that's left is for him to actually do it.

Obama certainly feels confident that the United States has the tools at its disposal to navigate the difficult waters ahead. "We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth," he said. "Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

Yet as Obama gets set to remake the United States, a question remains about what he would have the United States make itself into.

According to New School for Social Research Philosophy professor Simon Critchley, many Americans may have cause to wonder about this. Because Obama has created such a populist narrative around his candidacy and around his Presidency many Americans may have superimposed values onto Obama that he doesn't necessarily represent.

Certainly, this is the warning that Naomi Klein issued to progressives about Obama before he was even elected. Certainly, he may be more progressive than his predecessor, but he may not be nearly progressive enough for many of those who have entrusted him with their agenda.

Whether or not Obama is truly the progressive messiah that many have imagined will remain to be seen.

Obama also continued his clear attempt to build a pervasive political mythology around himself, taking the oath of office on the same bible Abraham Lincoln used in 1861. Certainly, it's fitting that the first black President take the oath of office using the same bible as the man who ultimately ended the atrocity of slavery, but the calculated symbolism is simply too much to overlook.

Considering Lincoln's central position in the American civil religion, there is little question that Obama and his team intended to use a Lincoln totem in order to solidify his place within that civil religion.

At the very least, the Democrats have finally decisively finished the act of snatching the legacy of Abraham Lincoln away from the Republican party forever. It probably helped them that this legacy is one they surrendered long ago.

Barack Obama is off to a fine start as President. But this is only day one.

Only the future can tell how well Obama will truly stand up to the office of President of the United States of America.

Cry Fucking Harder, Bill

Former Weather Underground terrorist denied entry to Canada

In a blog post on National Post Full Comment, Stephen Taylor brings us the tale of Bill Ayers -- the former Weather Underground terrorist now famed for his associations with now-US President Barack Obama -- being denied entry into Canada.

“It seems very arbitrary,” Ayers complained. “The border agent said I had a conviction for a felony from 1969. I have several arrests for misdemeanours, but not for felonies.”

Not that he hasn't committed felonies. By his own admission, he's done that.

"I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers told the New York Times (on 9/11, no less!). "I feel we didn't do enough."

It may come as a shock to Bill Ayers that known terrorists are not allowed it Canada. It shouldn't.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Kevin's Woodshed - "Bordering on the Insane"

The Reaction - "Canada Denies Entry to Ayers"

Barack Obama: America's Fifth First Black President

Patrick Brazeau's $260,000 Question

Government asks Congress of Aboriginal Peoples for its money back

Ever since Patrick Brazeau's appointment to the Senate, questions have lingered over his handling of sexual harassment allegations during his time as the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Now, Brazeau will have to face another question about the CAP's operations during his time as National Chief.

In 2007, Health Canada began an audit of the CAP to determine what happened to $472,900 the government gave the organization in order to improve health care for off-reserve aboriginals. Of particular interest in the project was diabetes and early childhood development.

The CAP apparently dispursed more than a quarter of a million dollars without proper documentation, including the awarding of work without contracts, and unexplained expenditure of funds.

"The audit findings identified concerns with CAP's internal financial controls including approximately $260,000 of ineligible expenses in consulting fees, travel and meeting costs and per diems for CAP employees during 2005-06," a Health Canada spokesperson wrote in a news release.

A significant portion of the funds was even allegedly spent on board meetings for which no minutes were recorded.

The government has halted all funding to CAP until it submits a plan to repay Health Canada.

If the previous concerns about Brazeau's handling of sexual harassment weren't enough to cast serious doubts on Brazeau these recent developments have certainly done the job.

With the new concerns about possible corruption within the CAP this development raises, there's no tenable way that Stephen Harper can go ahead with Brazeau's appointment. The apparent misappropriation of government funds by the CAP has scandal written all over it.

One must also consider important questions about whether or not Stephen Harper knew about the audit -- as mentioned previously, initiated in 2007 -- before appointing Brazeau to the Senate. Examining any individual's dealings with government agencies would strike most Canadians as a reasonably routine part of any vetting process. And while Harper likely couldn't have predicted the outcome of this audit, the risk he likely took in making this appointment should have many Canadians wondering about his judgement.

Brazeau has some important questions about precisely what happened to the $260,000 in question. Until he does, Stephen Harper should suspend his appointment. Failing that, Brazeau himself should voluntarily step aside.

On "Change"...

Heather Mallick is down with change... at least when it's other people changing

In an opinion article published on the CBC website, Heather Mallick is being herself again.

Not as outrageously as before. Her infamous "Sarah Palin has a secret penis/why Republican men need viagra" column should be fresh in the minds of many Canadians, as should the controversy surrounding it.

On Saturday, ahead of Barack Obama's inauguration, Mallick has taken an interesting attitude toward change.

Change? Who, me?

In the column, Mallick takes issue with Obama's official inauguration poster:

"Barack Obama is making me nervous. "Be the change," his official inauguration poster urges. Until recently I would have done anything the man suggested. But could he be more specific?

This presidential inauguration is a good time for my chronic paranoia to flower. (How did George W. Bush put it, "Fool me once, shame on-shame on you. Fool me-you can't get fooled again.")

What change? Does it make me uncool to wonder if I shouldn't make the change rather than be it?"

Which really seems to imply a particular character issue of Mallick's when it pertains to change.

The slogan on the poster is a shortened version of "be the change you want to see". This adage basically suggests to people that if they want to change the world, they should first change themselves, making themselves reflective of that change. The strong Buddhist undertones of this maxim tend to be spiritually and intellectually soothing.

The message of the poster could be interpreted any number of ways.

A particularly compelling interpretation could harken back to Obama's own campaign slogan "yes we can". Heavily populist in nature, the slogan was refreshing because it symbolized faith not in Obama to change the United States, but in the ability of the citizens of the United States to change their country under Obama's leadership.

It was a drastic departure from the "yes he can" message that would normally typify American politics.

Now, on the eve of his inauguration, Obama is expanding the message. In order for the people of the United States to change their country, they must first change themselves, both individually and collectively. Once again, Obama seeks to empower the people rather than glorify himself.

Hopefully, he even believes it.

But for Mallick, change isn't something she wants to be -- it's something she wants to make.

Namely, she wants to make other people change:

"I don't want to be illusioned about Obama. I want to get it right, from the start, and not be let down.

Obama invited to his inauguration a man (Pastor Rick Warren) who has openly preached that gays are lesser beings, unfit to marry and raise children.

When I initially decided to overlook this politically pragmatic invite, I felt like a bully, which is the worst thing a person can be. It's easy for me to let Obama off the hook on Warren, but then I'm not gay.

That is why I don't like this skilled rendition of Obama gazing into a distance, which is clearly implied to be packed with future glory, and being told to Be the Change.

What change, I ask again? It sounds like the same old thing."

To a great many people (including this writer), the inclusion of Pastor Rick Warren at Obama's inauguration seems extremely unfortunate.

But then again, a great many people (sadly) hold beliefs such as this. To banish them from the public eye or from public functions doesn't do anyone much of a service. Instead, they'll merely foment their views in isolation and alienation.

There is, of course, the possibility that they may change their views. That would be welcome to a great many people (including this writer). But to demand they change their views lest they be unwelcome to come to the party is not what a monist like Obama would do. After all, monism is the belief that there are certain universal moral principles that everyone can agree upon provided that they can be convinced, and it's hard to convince someone who you won't let in the front door.

For Obama to achieve the kind of collaborative, inclusive change that we wants to implement, he needds to open a dialogue with a great many people that he and his supporters would otherwise disagree with.

But it seems that Mallick herself isn't feeling very collaborative or inclusive:

"We liberal-minded people, hundreds of millions of us, have triumphed. We were proved right about George W. Bush.

We said that he embraced stupidity; it is wonderful to see intellect valued again in public office.

We said he panicked after Sept 11, 2001, and gave terrorists the most valuable gift imaginable — America's self-inflicted blows to its own military and system of justice.

We said that private affluence couldn't be sustained when it accompanied public squalor and now the economic collapse is destroying both spheres. (Obama can't fix this but he'll have to try.)

We said the invasion of Iraq was not justified. (Obama will have to find a way out of the morass.)

We said torture was wrong and the rest of the world would come to hate America and its allies for it. (Now Obama's torture-deploring cabinet nominees will need to find a way to restore a great nation's good name.)

So I should be high on happiness right now, no? The second Gilded Age is dead. People are thinking hard about the health of the planet.

In my own little universe, I finally have the birch tree in my garden I've longed for since childhood. I have eyesight, a pile of new books to read and am hearing rumours about a new 9-inch computer screen for reading big fat newspapers on my lap. That screen might save the industry I work in.

I'm finally teaching the university class I want to teach to the students I want to teach it to. I can spend the year watching Malia and Sasha Obama and their rivers of laughter and curiosity as they explore the White House and the world it opens up.

Hark at me, trying to pump up enthusiasm in my own personal head. Yes, we were right. The thing is, though, I'd almost rather have been proved wrong.

I feel no triumph whatsoever and the triumphalism of the inauguration poster leaves me wary. It's redolent of wartime. I don't feel giddy. I just feel tired."

Mallick's message is very clear:

We (the left wing) won. Now all the stupid people (everyone else) can fuck off.

But if Mallick ever believed that such an exclusionary and parochial result was going to come out of Obama's election, then she wasn't paying attention. If she believed this, she hasn't paid attention to a single word spoken or written by Barack Obama.

Those familiar with Mallick have every reason to suspect she'll never change. That's why she'll never truly be part of the change that Barack Obama wants to implement.

Pakistan: Obama's Biggest Challenge

Pakistan poses a dilemma for Barack Obama's Afghanistan focus

As Barack Obama prepares to take office tomorrow, he must be aware that there is a great deal of work ahead of him.

A significant portion of that work will be related to his new focus on Afghanistan and, by extension, matters pertaining to Pakistan.

Taliban fighters and other insurgents have used a largely-uncontrolled border between the two countries to operate out of bases in Pakistan. Obama has already announced that he would allow American forces to pursue insurgent fighters into Pakistan. But there are far more important matters related to Pakistan to be dealt with.

Clearly, part of Obama's approach to Pakistan will have to deal with nuclear weapons.

Of all the (officially) democratic countries in the world right now, Pakistan may be most vulnerable to takeover by Islamic militants. Allowing such individuals to get their hands on nuclear weapons is by any account a nightmare scenario, especially considering reports that Al Qaeda has attempted to acquire submarines within the past six years.

Neil Joeck of Livermore Laboratories has suggested that Obama may institute a policy requiring the reduction of American nuclear weapons to 1,000 units. But in order to deal with the threat that Pakistan's nuclear weapons stockpile, Obama would have to negotiate a peace treaty between Pakistan and India that deals decisively not only with mutual nuclear disarmament, but also building a sturdy and just peace between the two countries.

According to Joeck, Pakistan maintains their nuclear stockpiles as a deterrent not only against India mounting a nuclear attack against Pakistan, but also in order to deter a conventional attack.

Considering that Pakistan has moved troops out of its north western region in response to recent tensions between the two countries, the war in Afghanistan would reap an obvious dividend from peace between the two countries.

A clear obstacle to such a peace accord is the matter of Kashmir. Tariq Amin-Kahn notes that there are few means by which a just peace could be achieved between India and Pakistan without resolving that controversy to the satisfaction of both countries.

Pakistan could not accept Indian hegemony in Kashmir.

One obvious short-term solution is for India and Pakistan to negotiate an agreement of mutual demobilization from Kashmir.

Amin-Kahn and The Real News' Paul Jay seem to look to Obama to negotiate such an agreement between India and Pakistan. But as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, Canada is actually much better positioned to help barter such a deal.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and National Defence Minister Peter MacKay have ruminated about negotiating a deal involving the sharing of terrorism-related military intelligence between the two countries. Negotiating a mutual demobilization from Kashmir would be an ambitious but worthwhile project for Canada's diplomats to pursue.

The idea should not be for Canadian diplomats to replace an effort by American diplomats to negotiate such a settlement, but rather to work as a partner with Barack Obama in an initiative modelled after the mission diplomacy that has successfully negotiated agreements such as the landmine ban.

The work involved would be arduous, but in the end rewarding. That is more than enough reason for the Canadian government to be a leading partner in helping Barack Obama tackle his biggest challenge.

And Now, Finally, Some Answers

Some Nexus readers may recall a pair of "bring it" challenges issued by Unrepentant Old Hippie JJ.

Readers may also remember that, despite at least on one occasion agreeing to answer the questions posed to her as a response to her "bring it" challenge, JJ has yet to respond.

That is, at least, until now.

Responding to one of the questions asked -- the question over whether or not doctors in Canada should have their right to perform an abortion they judge to be unethical protected -- JJ has finally seen fit to answer:

"And I've answered it on multiple occasions, Patrick, but once more for the road: doctors are not *forced* to do any procedure they don't want to. In one of several previous answers (At what point here did JJ forget that she refused to answer the question on one occasion, and just plain didn't on another? -ed) to this same question from you, I cited the example of my own pro-life GP, who rather than specialize in gynecology (because it would involve doing abortions) chose to specialize in pediatrics. That's the path most doctors would choose.

That may not be the answer you want, but it's not going to change no matter how many times you ask me the same question."

This would seem like a satisfactory argument.

Except that, as it turns out, JJ herself isn't really in favour of things staying this way.

Take, for example, the following comment from known anti-semite Robert McClelland over at JJ's own blog:

"We should have the debate but it shouldn’t be the debate the fetus fetishists want. The debate we should be having is whether or not to enshrine women’s reproductive rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

To be fair, this wasn't really JJ's idea. But then again:

"Robert - Right on! That’s one debate I hope we can have very soon, with the outcome of having reproductive rights protected in a way that’s untouchable."

The problem with this, of course, is that entrenching abortion "rights" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would actually enable women to litigate against doctors who refuse to perform abortions.

As the pro-abortion lobby will insist at length, Dr Henry Morgentaler himself had admirable ethical reservations about late-term abortions, and refused to perform them.

Yet if Robert McClelland had his way, women would have an unquestionable right to abortions -- likely under any circumstances. Thus, doctors such as Henry Morgentaler could actually face legal action in civil court or before a human rights commission.

In other words, JJ is opposed to legislation protecting a doctor's right to choose to refuse to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical. Even as she is doing this, she's advocating for a course of action that would erase a physician's right to choose. If this had been done prior to Dr Morgentaler's retirement, Morgentaler himself would almost certainly be subjected to legal action for refusing to perform an unethical late-term abortion.

If she and her pro-abortion cohorts were successful to this end, not only would legislative protection for doctors become necessary, but it would also be unattainable. The only way for the government to protect doctors the pro-abortion lobby would be trying to punish for their sense of ethics would be to either entrench that protection in the Charter, or invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Invoking the notwithstanding clause on any issue even remotely related to abortion is almost certainly something the pro-abortion lobby would never tolerate.

It's hard to overlook the obvious overtones of a pro-abortion hidden agenda here. The pro-abortion lobby would insist that their advocacy is merely in favour of choice. Yet while they insist that protection for a doctor's right to choose is unnecessary, they on the other hand call for a course of action that would permanently and "untouchably" deny doctors their right to choose.

It's just another example of the two-faced nature of the pro-abortion lobby: pretending to be moderate in public, then plotting their extreme agenda when they think no one's looking.

Breathing Smoke, Playing With Fire

Ignatieff opposes, supports, tax cuts for middle class

Taking the helm of the Liberal party -- even if only by default -- during a time of economic and political crisis, there's no question that Michael Ignatieff has a very tenuous path to walk.

On one hand, Ignatieff must find a way to dispel Canadian concerns about the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition government -- one in which the government would be mortgaged to the separatist Bloc Quebecois. On the other hand, Ignatieff has to appease the supporters of that coalition arrangement, and keep them convinced that maybe, just maybe, he'll go ahead and defeat Stephen Harper and the Conservative government.

As National Post Full Comment editor Kelly McParkland notes today, this has backed Ignatieff into a very tenuous position -- one that may leave many Canadians wondering just how far Ignatieff can really be trusted.

As Parkland notes, Ignatieff recently voiced opposition to the middle-class tax cuts proposed by Stephen Harper.

"This is not the moment for broad-based tax cuts because we think it will lead us into structural deficit and our children will be paying the price for Stephen Harper's mistakes for years to come," Ignatieff insisted.

Yet this is very different from Ignatieff's position of just over a week ago, in which he announced that, as Prime Minister, he would address the economic crisis with, wait for it... middle-class tax cuts.

"I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast," Ignatieff announced.

According to the Chronicle Herald, Ignatieff added that he would prefer that those tax cuts be permanent.

Ignatieff noted in his interview with John Ivison that "[Mr Harper] seems to have a better sense of what constitutes confidence in the House of Commons. I welcome that development and want to see proof of it."

Yet Ignatieff himself needs to come to a better understanding that when it comes to economic issues, he cannot have it both ways.

He's either opposed to permanent tax cuts for the middle class, or he's against them.

It he decides to come down against them and defeat the government despite his earlier expressions to the contrary, there is no question that Ignatieff will pay.

He'll either try to go ahead with the proposed coalition government, be quickly defeated in Parliament and be faced with an election in which polls have indicated Canadians will deliver a landslide majority to the Conservative party. Or he'll go to an election, be faced with his flip-flop, and suffer dearly at the polls -- perhaps even worse than Stephane Dion's recent defeat.

Kelly McParkland describes Ignatieff's position as "breathing smoke". Should he sufficiently embolden himself to try and act on his sudden opposition to middle class tax cuts, he'll most certainly be playing with fire.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

James Laxer - "Ignatieff's Dilemma: Coping with the Conservative Budget"

Dust My Broom - "Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: I Was For Tax Cuts Before I Was Against Them"

Far and Wide - "The 'Wear It' Narrative"

Obama Completes the Messiah's Journey

Barack Obama solidifies his place in American Civil religion by retracing Lincoln's footsteps

With just two days before his Inauguration as the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama has arrived in Washington.

Considering the messiah narrative surrounding Obama -- a narrative wrought with racial overtones -- it may only be fitting that Obama arrived in Washington via a six-city train trip that followed the same route Abraham Lincoln used to travel to Washington in 1861.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with American politics knows, Lincoln is revered in the United States for ending the civil war and for ending slavery.

However, as Molly Worthen notes, Lincoln's significance to American political culture goes deeper than this simple reverence. In fact, Lincoln is a central figure in what Worthen describes as the American civil religion -- a term coined by Jean-Jacques Rosseau to describe political narratives that embued with the sacred character normally reserved for religion.

According to Worthen, a civil religion inherently is not a theistic religion, but draws many of its roots from a theistic religion.

In the case of the United States, according to Worthen, the American civil religion finds its origin in the notion of American exceptionalism that seems to find its ultimate origin in a 1630 sermon given by original Massachussets Governor Reverend John Winthrop.

Winthrop, a Puritan, was leading his colonists to America in order to build a "shining city on a hill" -- God's model society that they can then export back to Britain. However, as they became disillusioned with the Purtian movement in Britain, who compromised their beliefs in exchange for political power, Winthrop and his American Puritans decided to focus on spreading their religious ideology throughout the United States, including westward.

The Puritans, the most educated and literate of the American colonists, had a decided advantage in disseminating their ideology.

Spreading westward, however, compromised the Purtians' religious beliefs not in the name of political power, but in the name of survival. Faced with more and more rugged and dangerous terrain and the other perils of westward expansion the Puritans eventually came to focus their efforts on simply surviving.

In time this focus on survivalism mixed with various religious revivals -- which Americans of the day oddly enough believed originated in Canada -- to create uniquely American brands of Christianity: namely, Baptism and Methodism, the leading evangelical religions in the United States today.

Interestingly enough, as the United States approached the time of the Revolution at the formation of the United States, evangelicals worked closely with secular humanists to ensure the separation of church and state. For secular humanists, the reason why they desired this is fairly obvious. For evangelicals, however, the matter was not quite so transparent. Evangelical religions demanded a voluntary conversion. The idea of state coercion into their religions was anathema to the evangelical leaders of the time.

The American Civil War and slavery led to a splintering of the American civil religion. After the war, many of the freed slaves viewed the war as an act of liberation. Reconciliationists from the northern states regarded the civil war as a redemptive act, in which the sins of the American state -- slavery -- were erased via a baptism in blood and fire.

In the south, however -- which many southern religious leaders had described as "God's model society" before the war -- the narrative that emerged was very different. They saw the civil war as a "noble defeat", and organizations such as the Ku Klus Klan were born in the belief that they needed to protect white women from sexual advances from freed slaves, and redeem the blood spilled in the war.

Lincoln's assassination in 1865 ensured his place of martyrdom in the American civil religion. His Gettysburg address and Inaugural address have been canonized in the minds of the American populace, right along with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

With Obama's election, however, this generation may be witnessing an integration of the emancipatory and reconciliationist narratives of the American civil religion. The ascension of the first black president in American history could be argued by many to finally redeem not only the crime of slavery, but also the overt racial oppression of African Americans for more than a hundred years after the Civil War, and more pervasive forms of racial oppression for many decades after that, reflective of inequalities that continue to exist today.

Whether or not Obama will actually deliver on the promises percieved by the emancipatory narrative -- a perception based on the demands that many African Americans place elected African American leaders, acknowledged by Obama himself in Dreams From my Father -- only time can tell.

But considering the effort the Democrats have put into building a pervasive political mythology around Obama -- including Ted Kennedy's health-defying speech at the Democratic National Convention -- there's no question that Obama's journey to Washington was an extremely calculated move.

As calculated as the journey was, however, it may actually fit. Obama may well be able to fill Lincoln's mythical shoes -- but only time, and his performance in office, will tell.

"No, Not the Supreme Court!"

Al Franken asks governor to preempt litigation and name him Senator

In the latest twist in the Franken/Coleman debacle continually unfolding in Minnesota, it seems that Al Franken really doesn't want to have to go to court in order to become the Junior Senator from Minnesota.

According to a brief filed in a Minnesota district court today, Al Franken wants Republican Norm Coleman's challenge of the results of the Minnesota recount to be referred not to the Minnesota Supreme Court, but rather by the US Senate.

In other words, Franken would (unsurprisingly) rather see all the errors and irregularities in the recount examined by the Democrat-controlled Senate rather than a court of law.

Franken's even go so far as to sent a letter to Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty asking him to sign Franken's certificate of election -- something that is actually unlawful, as Minnesota's election law requires all court challenges of an election result to be complete before a winner can be officially certified.

Tim Pawlenty is a Republican. Accordingly, one can certainly expect that Democrat partisans will accuse him of partisan wrangling in this affair. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, however is a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labour Party. He's also refused to sign an election certificate at this time.

Yet with partisan Democrats going out of their way to try and marginalize any criticism of the way the Minnesota recount has proceeded, anyone paying close attention to the overall situation cannot ignore one overarching question:

Why is it that Al Franken wants errors and irregularities in the recount result examined not by a (presumably) impartial Supreme Court, but by the Democrat-controlled US Senate?

One could not help but imagine the absurdity of the scene: Joe Biden presiding over a Senate hearing in which his party has both deep partisan interests and control over the proceedings.

There's probably a reason why Franken doesn't want these errors and irregularities to be tried before a court: likely because, despite what various Democrat partisans would have people believe, there may well be more to these allegations than they would like to admit.

Ultimately, it's the same reason why Norm Coleman didn't want this recount in the first place: because he might lose.

It's hard to fault Franken for his own self-interest, even if the means by which he's pursuing those interests risks giving American democracy another black eye. If anything, it's merely confirmation that Franken's transformation from an extradorinary entertainer to a run-of-the-mill politician.

Once Franken announced he was running for Senator, no one should have been shocked about that.

Sadly, in the wake of this new pinnacle in his own partisan excess, it may prove to be hard for Franken to take it to right-wing ideologues like Ann Counter the way he used to.

Al Franken, once a masterful critic of Republican sophists has become little more than a sophist himself.

Ontario Reform Party: Not-So-Giant Killers?

Ontario Reform party targeting John Tory in by-election

After the Ontario Provincial election of 2007, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory has been weighing his political options for more than a year.

In that election, Tory lost in his riding of Don Valley West. Now, more than a year later, Tory has decided to seek election in a by-election in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, a contest in which Premier Dalton McGuinty has (wisely) opted to delay in order for other parties to nominate candidates.

The Ontario Liberals -- who in 2005 contested the last by-election Tory won -- have yet to announce whether or not they'll contest this riding.

The Reform party of Ontario, however, has announced they'll be running a candidate against Tory. They just haven't announced who.

"We were going to run a candidate wherever John Tory was going run," announced Reform party leader Brad Harness.

That being said, one shouldn't underestimate the Reform party's desire to defeat Tory. Harness has referred to Tory as an "urbanite", and as a member of "the Canadian establishment, the moneyed establishment".

Certainly, there may be more to Harness' focus on defeating John Tory than simply that.

The Reform party of Ontario attempts to fuse Preston Manning's focus on populism with former Ontario Premier Mike Harris' fiscal conservatism. The official party doctrine appears to be a combination between Manning's "new Canada" and Harris' "common sense revolution".

Targeting John Tory is, similarly, a combination of two pages out of Preston Manning's old political playbook.

When the federal Reform party contested their first election in 1984, Manning himself attempted to defeat Clark in his riding of Yellowhead. Among the memorable events of that election was a horseback posse formed to confront Clark about his policies at the dedication of a railway museum in the riding -- a dedication that Clark wound up skipping.

The media stunt was staged complete with wanted posters accusing Clark of failing to represent the interests of his constituents.

The other strategy Harness is emulating here is in allowing a candidate nominated from within the riding to contest the by-election against Tory. Preston Manning did this when he declined to run in a 1989 by-election in Beaver River. Instead Deborah Grey -- the Reform party's first ever MP -- ran in that election and won.

It's hard to believe that Brad Harness didn't closely consider these two examples before making the decision to attempt to defeat Tory in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock.

The idea is clearly to try to establish himself as an anti-establishment figure, taking on the province's established political leaders while also establishing himself as a leader with deep faith in the grassroots of his party.

But considering the chilly reception the federal Reform party received in Ontario, it will be far more difficult for Harness to establish such credentials for himself in Ontario than it was for Preston Manning and the federal Reformers to do so in Alberta.

To make Harness' strategy further dubious is the fact that John Tory isn't nearly the political giant in Ontario that Joe Clark had established himself as in Alberta -- at least at the time. There's a difference between taking on a federal Minister and former Prime Minister and taking on a Progressive Conservative leader who can't even win his own seat.

In other words, John Tory isn't so giant, and the Ontario Reform party may not be able to 'kill' him.

Putin's Hands in the Honeypot?

Kasparov: Putin may be planning to stir the Middle Eastern pot

In a column published in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Gary Kasparov issues a stern warning about the machinations of "petrodictators" -- authoritarian regimes that rely on oil revenue to sustain themselves.

As usual, Kasparov's target is Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. "Russia and its fellow petrodictatorships are in dire need of a way to ratchet up global tensions to inflate the sagging price of oil," Kasparov writes. "Petrodictators, after all, need petrodollars to stay in power. The war in Gaza and the otherwise inexplicable skirmish with Ukraine over natural gas have helped the Kremlin in this regard, but $50 a barrel isn't going to be nearly enough. It will have to reach at least $100 and it will have to happen soon."

Kasparov writes that the current financial crisis has hit Russia extremely hard. With the memory of 1999's Ruble collapse fresh in the minds of most Russians, a mixture of fear of a recurrence is mixing with state controls on dissent -- complete with "anti-extremism" laws -- to create what could be a very unstable and dangerous political situation in Russia.

"Russians are ready to take to the streets," Kasparov writes. He also notes that if they do they'll likely be met by the paramilitary police forces controlled by Russia's interior ministry.

Kasparov worries that Putin may be attempting to engineer tension between Iran and Israel. "Open hostilities between Iran and Israel would lift the price of oil back to a level that would allow Mr Putin and his gang to keep funding the crackdown," Kasparov writes. "Israel's anxiety over Iran's nuclear-weapon ambitions is the most vulnerable link in a very weak chain."

Iran and Israel have never needed Russia to engineer tension between the two states. In fact, Iran's support of terrorism and Islamic militancy in the Middle East is very much at the heart of the current Israeli operations in Gaza. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has provided Islamic militant groups with funds and weapons, and even helped supervise Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel in 2006.

Under such circumstances, it may only be a matter of time before Israel decides to deal decisively with Iran.

While Iran was busy helping Hezbollah incite a war in Lebanon, Russia was busy in the region, too -- discussing the sales of military helicopters and armoured personnel carriers to Hamas.

Russia has also been involved with the Iranian nuclear program, helping the Iranians build a nuclear reactor that could, in future, be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

This is certainly at odds with the stance of the United States and the European Union -- the countries that had imagined Russia would be a good post-Cold War ally -- on this issue.

Russia's track record in dealing with rogue states should not be considered encouraging. Yet many western leaders foolishly continue to look to Russia to take the lead in dealing with these states.

"There persists a very damaging myth in the West, spouted by politicians and the press, that says Russia's assistance is needed with Iran and other rogue states," Kasparov explains. "In fact, the Kremlin has been stirring this pot for years and has a vested interest in further increasing turmoil in the region. The Hamas/Hezbollah rockets, based on the Russian Katyusha and Grad, are not delivered via DHL from Allah. It doesn't require the guile of a KGB man like Mr. Putin to imagine a way to accelerate Iran's nuclear program, which has been aided by Russian technology and protected by the Kremlin from meaningful international action."

"It is time to bury the failed model of dealing with the world's antidemocratic and bloodthirsty regimes," Kasparov writes. "The real change we must effect in 2009 is toward a new global emphasis on the value of human life. Anything less confirms to the enemies of democratic civilization that everything is negotiable. For Mr Putin that means democracy; for Hamas it means Israel's existence. The Free World must take those chips off the table."

Kasparov also notes a significant difference between Israel and Hamas.

"Israel has the capability to annihilate Gaza to secure the safety of its people, but it chooses not to do so because the Israelis value human life," Kasparov continues. "Does anyone doubt for a moment what Hamas would do if it had the power to wipe out every one of the five-and-a-half million Jews in Israel? Hamas should not be considered less a villain simply because it does not as yet possess the means to fulfill its genocidal agenda."

Yet the indecisive agenda pursued by many western leaders undermines their own ability to insist they respect human life and revere human rights.

"The leaders of Europe and the U.S. are hoping that the tyrants and autocrats of the world will just disappear," Kasparov writes. "But dinosaurs like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez and Iran's ayatollahs are not going to fade away by natural causes. They survive because the leaders of the Free World are afraid to take a stand."

In fact, the shameful and well-established -- places such as Rwanda -- method of waiting for genocides to be effectively over and then picking up the pieces afterward is only further proof of this.

"Years from now, when Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe is either dead or deposed, his legacy will lead to another genocide trial in The Hague. Why don't Western powers, many of whom are condemning Israel's action in Gaza, take action now to stop the extermination in Zimbabwe instead of waiting a decade for a trial?" Kasparov asks. "Criticizing Israel is easy while rescuing Zimbabwe is hard. Choosing the path of least resistance is moral cowardice. It does not avoid difficult decisions, it only postpones them."

While Kasparov is right to urge action these issues -- and would be right to urge action on many others, such as Darfur -- on this particular note Kasparov has made a key logical fallacy.

With the United States engaged in Iraq and NATO as a whole engaged in Afghanistan, western leaders haven't consistently chosen the path of least resistance. The easy thing to do in Afghanistan, for example, would have been to drive the Taliban out of Kabul then let them fight it our with the Northern Alliance over who would control the country.

Choosing to rebuild Afghanistan was not the path of least resistance. In making this decision, western leaders knew full well they were choosing a very difficult path.

Russia has proven to be a valuable ally to NATO in Afghanistan. Then again, there is no question that Russia considers solving the Afghan dilemma to be crucial to their national security.

But some may argue that the litmus test of a state's foreign policy intentions isn't what they do when their national security is at stake, but rather what they do when their national security isn't at stake.

Russia's interests in the Middle East could be considered fairly modest by the standards of oil-importing countries. As an oil-exporting country, however, Russia has a tremendous economic interest in the Middle East.

There's little question that tension in the Middle East -- and the accompanying high oil prices -- is very much in Russia's economic interest. Having few national security-related interests in the region allows them to dabble there at the west's expense.

Gary Kasparov is right about the overall point of his column: it's time for western leaders to stop giving Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev a free ride.

You Know You're In Trouble When...

You're a left-wing prof whose students are sick of you

Even if the conclusions he sometimes draws are extremely dubious, one can very well assume that Michael Byers' position at the University of British Columbia is fairly safe.

But even if he wasn't worn out his welcome with the faculty or administration at UBC, apparently Byers has worn out his welcome with the editorial staff of the University newspaper, the Ubyessy:

"Last week, UBC political science professor, failed NDP Candidate, and media gadfly Michael Byers went on a hunger strike as part of the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay. When we heard the news, virtually every member of The Ubyssey editorial staff winced. And not just because it was a self-serving media stunt that reeked of martyrdom and did little to serve the actual cause of homelessness. Since he arrived on campus in 2004, we’ve seen, heard, and written more about Byers than is merited given his accomplishments—how­ever impressive they might be. He’s written many a book, comes off as incredibly thoughtful in interviews, and people who take his classes generally have nice things to say. That’s the case with a lot of academics though—and we don’t see many thrusting themselves into the public spotlight with the gusto Byers does.

But Byers isn’t an academic at this point; he’s a politician. He ran for the NDP last election, he plans to run again for them in the next election and he’s ready to criticize the Harper government about anything at the drop of a dime. Except he—and reporters who use him for his good quotes and pretty face—still refer to him as an “in­ternational law expert,” even when he’s talking about the Olympics, the economic crisis, or any other subject that has nothing to do with international law. An academic imparts his learned knowledge on an issue, and a politicians promotes himself and his particular views. With Byers, the line is certainly blurred. At this point, whenever he publicly promotes a cause, it’s difficult to tell: is he promoting an important issue, or is he promoting Michael Byers and the NDP?
We know that even though his actual job is a UBC professor, UBC students aren’t exactly his first priority. After all, this past semester plenty of graduate students signed up for his class on global politics, but when they got to their first class, he told them that due to the upcoming election the class would be cancelled. He then proceeded to tell them why he was running, why students should vote for him, and, by the way, if anyone wanted to volunteer for him, that would be super awesome. Not exactly a humble display from the socially conscious professor.

All of which has led us to conclude the following: we’re tired of Byers; tired of talking about him, tired of hearing about him, and tired of his pseudo-self promotion. Michael Byers, we’re taking a cue from Stephen Colbert: you’re on notice."

Ouch.

One would have to think that this isn't exactly the kind of treatment Byers would want from the Ubyessy.

But it's interesting to note the distinction the newspaper has made in this particular case: Byers is no longer an academic, according to the Ubyessy editors. He's now a politician.

Certainly, Byers is not alone in this regard. University of Calgary professor Tom Flanagan has taken leaves of absence to work as a strategist for the Conservative party -- including during the 2008 federal election alluded to in this editorial. Flanagan, like Byers, hasn't been shy about his political views either.

The Ubyessy editorial raises an interesting question: should seeking a political career preclude an individual from continuing to work as an academic?

Some may be tempted to say "yes" to this question. But those who would do so need to consider the obvious implications of such an answer. Many academics take leaves of absence from their universities or think tanks in order to run in elections. If they were to be precluded from doing so the ranks of potential political candidates would shrink dramatically.

It would also deprive our political system of vast quantities of expertise on a variety of topics, including Byers' purported area of expertise, international law.

Certainly, this doesn't make Byers any less insufferable. Nor does it make Tom Flanagan any less insufferable to those who disagree with him.

But the Ubyessy editors would be very amiss if they were to suggest that academics should be denied the opportunity to run for politican office, even if it means they might become -- gasp! -- politicians.

Fortunately, they don't really try to argue that particular point.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

The Canada-Afghanistan Blog - "Check and Mate"

The Case For -- And Against -- The Coalition

The following is a letter submitted by Nexus of Assholery colleague Jared Milne outlining a brief summary of the comments raised both in favour of and against the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition government:

"An open letter to my fellow Canadians:

Une lettre ouverte à mes confrères canadiens :

This letter is not meant to criticize or condemn any single political party or political movement. It is meant to urge Canadians to think about the opposing point of view in the current parliamentary crisis, to build understanding by summarizing the arguments both in favour of and against the coalition government. At the present time, we as Canadians have been set against one another, when we must come together from all regions, all languages and all races to resolve the terrible problems that confront us. I am equally dismayed and disappointed by all our current federal political leaders and the missteps they have all made, which have all deepened a crisis and harmed our national unity, putting their personal pride and petty goals before the national interest.

Cette lettre n’a pas comme intention de critiquer ou de condamner un seul parti ou mouvement politique. Son propos est d’inspirer une réflexion chez les Canadiens au sujet de l’autre point de vue concernant la crise parlementaire à Ottawa, et de renforcer la compréhension en notant les arguments en faveur d’un gouvernement de coalition, et les arguments contre ce dernier. À ce moment, comme Canadiens nous sommes divisés contre l’un l’autre, quand nous devons venir ensemble, de toutes les régions, toutes les langues, et toutes les races pour résoudre les problèmes terribles qui nous affrontent. Je suis également déçu et consterné par tous nos chefs politiques fédéraux courantes et les fautes qu’ils ont tous commis, qui ont tous aggravé une crise et endommagé notre unité nationale, en mettant leur fierté personnelle et leurs buts mesquins devant l’intérêt national.

Consider first what provoked this political crisis-Stephen Harper’s proposal to end public subsidies to political parties based on their electoral performance in his recent economic update. How can Harper justify an action that the opposition parties were sure to oppose, when the election results made it quite clear that Canadians wanted the parties to all cooperate with one another? Was he simply short-sighted, or deliberately trying to goad his opponents? Either response is extremely irresponsible, particularly when the $30 million that would be “saved” from such a move is a tiny fraction of the overall federal budget. Also, in comparing the actual vote counts for the 2006 and 2008 federal elections, Harper actually lost 168,737 fewer votes-hardly a ringing endorsement and a clear signal that Canadians wanted all the parties to cooperate, not play partisan games with one another.

Premièrement, considérez qu’est-ce qui a déclenché cette crise politique, le propos de Stephen Harper d’abolir les subventions publiques aux partis politiques basées sur leurs performances électorales, dans son compte rendu économique récent. Comment est-ce que Harper peut justifier une action que les partis d’opposition étaient certains à opposer, quand les résultats électoraux ont rendu très claires les désirs des Canadiens que les partis politiques coopèrent ensemble? Était-il simplement myope, ou essayaient-il volontairement de provoquer ses adversaires? Quoi que ça soit, il était très irresponsable, particulièrement quand on rappelle que le 30 million $ qui serait « économisé » par cette action est en fait seulement une partie très minuscule du budget fédéral en somme. En plus, en comparant les taux de vote pour les élections de 2006 et 2008, Harper a en fait perdu 168,737 votes, ce qui n’est pas un endos particulièrement impressionnant, et une indication claire que les Canadiens voulaient que tous les partis politiques coopèrent ensemble, plutôt que de jouer des jeux partisans.

The move is also suspicious by itself. If Harper is opposed to taxpayer subsidies for political parties, then why did he seek to abolish only one type of subsidy, which just happens to be the one his opposition is most reliant on? Why doesn’t Harper eliminate the reimbursement of electoral expenses, the tax subsidies given for political donations, or other forms of subsidy that all, in one way or another, come out of taxpayers’ pockets? It should be remembered, after all, that we have had public subsidies in one form or another in Canada since 1974, and that Harper’s fellow conservative John McCain had no problem accepting such subsidies in the American presidential election, subsidies that were essential to ensure a fair shake on both sides of the contest.

Par elle-même, l’action est aussi soupçonneuse. Si Harper s’oppose aux subventions publiques pour les partis politiques, pourquoi est-ce qu’il cherche à abolir seulement une type de subvention, ironiquement la subvention sur laquelle son opposition est la plus dépendante dessus? Pourquoi est-ce que Harper n’élimine pas le remboursement pour les dépenses électorales, les subventions financières données de ceux qui font des dons financières aux partis politiques, ou d’autres subventions qui viennent tous de nos impôts? On doit rappeler, notamment, que John McCain, le confrère idéologique de Harper, était prêt à accepter des subventions publiques durant l’élection présidentielle américaine, des subventions qui étaient essentiels pour assurer une élection juste aux deux combattants dans l’élection.

Some may argue that they do not want to see their tax dollars going to support political parties they oppose, but this argument cuts both ways. Many progressives do not like seeing their tax dollars going to support such things as the war in Afghanistan, our military buildup, tax incentives for corporations, the prison system, and other causes that right-wing conservatives are more inclined to support, and yet their tax money goes to support these institutions and causes anyway. Similarly, many single mothers, working poor, and others who would be more inclined to support the NDP’s left-wing policies, cannot afford to make the same kinds of regular donations that wealthier businesspeople, who might benefit more from the Conservatives’ pro-business policies, can make to their parties of choice.

Certaines personnes pourraient répondre qu’ils ne veulent pas voir leurs impôts allant à appuyer des partis politiques qu’ils opposent, mais cet argument peut être retourné. Il y a bien des progressifs qui n’aiment pas voir leur impôts allant à subventionner la guerre en Afghanistan, notre développement militaire, les encouragements fiscaux pour les compagnies, le régime des prisons, et bien d’autres causes appuyés par les partisans de l’aile droite, mais leur argent supportent ces causes et institutions tout de même. En même temps, les familles monoparentales, les pauvres ouvrières, et d’autres personnes qui seraient plus enclins à appuyer les politiques gauchistes de l’NPD, n’ont pas les mêmes moyens à faire des dons politiques réguliers que les gens d’affaires plus riches, qui pourraient profiter plus des politiques affairistes des Conservateurs, peuvent faire à leurs propres partis.

Finally, it should be remembered that in 2004, after the exposure of Adscam, Stephen Harper wrote a letter to the Governor General, co-signed by Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, advising the Governor General of her “constitutional options” and informing her of the consultations being made by the opposition parties. Harper was, in effect, proposing the exact same thing with the Bloc and the NDP that the Liberals are proposing now. Would Conservative supporters be as angry about a coalition government if their party had been the one to head it?

Enfin, on doit rappeler qu’en 2004, après que la scandale des commandites à été exposée, Stephen Harper a écrit une lettre au Gouverneure générale, signée par lui, Jack Layton et Gilles Duceppe, conseillant la Gouverneur générale de ses « options constitutionnelles » et l’informant des consultations fait par les partis de l’opposition. En effet, Harper proposait précisément la même chose avec le Bloc et le NPD que les Libéraux proposent maintenant. Est-ce que les partisans conservateurs seraient aussi fâchés au sujet d’un gouvernement de coalition si leur parti seraient à sa tête?

Some may see these arguments as sufficient reason for a coalition government. However, the coalition government as proposed by the Liberals under Stéphane Dion brings very serious problems of its own, not the least of which are the national unity ramifications. How can Dion, whose criticisms of the sovereignist movement were what brought him into federal politics, justify working with the Bloc Québécois now? It creates an extremely negative perception in the rest of the country, particularly among those who may not realize that not all Bloc supporters are sovereignists. Any coalition with a political party whose stated goal is the separation of one of Canada’s provinces will provoke a negative reaction in the rest of the country by itself…and who is to say what demands the Bloc will make in exchange for its support? Don’t forget, too, that Dion claimed during the election he would never form a coalition, and that Layton attacked him for not knowing how to handle the economy.

Certaines personnes pourraient voir ces arguments comme raison suffisante pour un gouvernement de coalition. Toutefois, le gouvernement de coalition comme proposé par les Libéraux sous Stéphane Dion apporteraient ses propres problèmes très sérieuses, particulièrement parmi ceux qui ne réalisent pas que pas tous ceux qui appuient le Bloc sont souverainistes. Une coalition avec un parti politique qui a comme but la sécession d’une des provinces canadiennes va par elle-même provoquer une réaction négative au reste du pays…et qui sait quelles demandes le Bloc va faire en échange pour son appui? N’oubliez pas aussi que durant l’élection fédérale Dion prétendait qu’il ne formerait jamais une coalition, et que Layton l’a attaqué pour ne pas savoir comment gérer l’économie.

Arguably even worse for Canadian unity is the backlash this has already provoked in Western Canada. While not everyone in Alberta or the West in general supports Harper, the Conservative party has its strongest base of support in this part of the country, and is seen by many as the West finally having a strong voice in government after years of alienation. The coalition is seen by these Westerners as an illegitimate way of taking power away from the rightfully elected government, and as a slap in the face to their part of the country. While it was never intended this way, Albertans in particular would see this as an attempt to shut them out of the democratic process after overwhelmingly supporting the current prime minister. All this has done is refuel Western alienation and provoke a backlash against other parts of the country, and against the federal Liberal and NDP parties in general.

Peut-être encore pire pour l’unité canadienne est la réaction très négative déjà provoquée dans l’Ouest canadien. Bien que pas tout le monde dans l’Alberta ou l’Ouest en général appuie Harper, le Parti conservateur reçoit son appui le plus fort de ces régions du pays, et son élection est vu par beaucoup dans l’Ouest comme leur région gagnant enfin une voix forte dans le gouvernement, après des années d’aliénation. La coalition est vue par ces habitants de l’Ouest comme une manière illégitime d’enlever le pouvoir du gouvernement élu légitimement, et un gifle dans le visage à leur région du pays. Bien que ce n’était jamais l’intention, les Albertains en particulier voient la coalition comme un effort de les éliminer du processus démocratique après avoir fortement appuyé le premier ministre courant. C’est alors que la coalition a seulement renforcé l’aliénation de l’Ouest et provoqué une réaction négative envers les autres régions du pays, et particulièrement contre les Libéraux fédéraux et le NPD fédéral en particulier.

The question has been raised too about the constitutional workings of government, and it’s been argued that the coalition is in fact perfectly legal and in keeping with parliamentary tradition. Indeed it is, but another part of our parliamentary tradition is the idea of constitutional convention-that set of unwritten rules and expectations that dictate how political actors use their powers in practice. It is why the federal government no longer uses its powers to reserve or disallow provincial legislation, why the federal government can set national standards for social policy with legislation such as the Canada Health Act, and why the Trudeau government was forced to negotiate with the provinces in the constitutional patriation of the early 1980s.

La question du fonctionnement constitutionnel parlementaire à été levé, et certains ont prétendu que la coalition est en fait parfaitement légal et légitime dans la tradition parlementaire. Tel est le cas, mais un autre aspect de notre tradition parlementaire est l’idée des conventions constitutionnelles, ces règles et attentes qui dictent comment les acteurs politiques utilisent leurs pouvoirs en pratique. C’est pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral n’utilise plus ses pouvoirs pour abolir les lois provinciales, pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral peut établir des standards nationaux pour la politique sociale comme la Loi sur la santé canadienne, et pourquoi le gouvernement Trudeau devait négocier avec les provinces dans le rapatriement constitutionnel des années 1980.

It appears to me that the modern convention that has arisen is, that if a government loses the confidence of the House, an election must be called immediately. This is what happened after the Paul Martin minority collapsed in 2005, when Harper felt that he could win the resulting election. Now, it seems, whichever party receives the most seats in the House of Commons is automatically declared the winner, and called on to form a government. It is true that more than 62% of the population voted against Harper, but all of the other party leaders received even less support than he did. Going to a coalition was quite unnecessary, given that the opposition forced Harper to back off on the funding issue. What the opposition parties should be doing is working with the Conservative government, the way the people wanted them to! Both sides should remember that, in order to avoid the collapse of the Harper government and avoid an election that Canadians absolutely do not want, they must cooperate and compromise, which what they were elected to do in the first place.

Il me semble qu’une convention moderne s’est développée, qui exige que si un gouvernement perd la confiance de la Chambre de communes, il faut appeler une élection immédiatement. Voilà ce qui est arrivé en 2005 quand le gouvernement minoritaire de Paul Martin s’est écroulé, quand Harper pensait qu’il pouvait gagner l’élection qui suivait. Il est vrai que plus de 62% de la population a voté contre Harper, mais tous les autres partis politiques ont reçu encore moins d’appui. La formation d’une coalition n’était pas nécessaire, étant donné que l’opposition a forcé Harper à reculer sur le financement des partis politiques. Ce que les partis de l’opposition devraient faire est de coopérer avec le gouvernement conservateur, de la manière dont le peuple les avaient voulus! Les deux côtés devraient rappeler que, afin d’éviter l’écroulement du gouvernement Harper et une élection que les Canadiens ne désirent aucunement, ils doivent coopérer et compromettre, ce qu’ils ont été élu à faire dès le début.

With no party receiving a clear mandate of support from the voters, and with nearly 40% of the population staying home on election day, to me it seems clear what Canadians want, for their politicians to not play partisan games and cooperate with one another in dealing with our economic, environmental, and social issues. Harper does not have all the answers in dealing with the economy, nor do Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe or May. Their infighting does nothing to rebuild the trust and unity we need to get through this crisis.

Étant donné qu’aucun des partis a reçu un mandat clair des électeurs, et avec presque 40 % de ces derniers restant chez eux la journée de l’élection, il me semble clair que les Canadiens désirent leurs politiciens à coopérer ensemble en adressant nos problèmes économiques, sociaux et environnementaux, plutôt que de jouer des jeux partisans. Harper n’a pas toutes les réponses à ces difficultés, et non plus Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe ou May. Leurs combats politiques ne font rien à rétablir la confiance et l’unité que nous avons besoin pour dépasser cette crise.

This applies more broadly to supporters and opponents of the coalition as well. Our insults and fighting is only making the problem worse-both sides of the argument have equally strong and legitimate reasons for their stances, and condemning one another is only reopening old wounds and grudges that we can’t afford to waste our energy on right now.

Ceci s’applique plus généralement aux partisans et aux adversaires de la coalition en même temps. Nos insultes et nos combats aggravent le problème. Les deux côtés de l’argument ont des points également légitimes pour leurs positions, et en condamnant l’un l’autre, nous rouvrons des anciennes blessures et des rivalités sur lesquels on ne peut pas gaspiller notre énergie pour l’instant.

That is why, above all else, it is critically important for both supporters and opponents of the coalition to set aside their differences and cooperate. This crisis is larger than any single group or party, and the needs of the country must come before individual partisan desires. Try and see the other side’s point of view, and above all, please try and ease off the rhetoric on both sides-it’s not getting us anywhere.

C’est pourquoi, avant tout, il est absolument essentiel pour les partisans et les adversaires de la coalition de mettre leurs différences de côté, et de coopérer ensemble. Cette crise est plus grande que n’importe quelle seule groupe ou parti, et les besoins du pays doivent prendre priorité sur les désirs partisans individuels. Essayez de voir l’autre point de vue, et avant tous, s’il vous plait essayez de reculer la rhétorique des deux côtés, qui ne font rien pour nous aider.

Canada deserves no less.

Le Canada n’en mérite pas moins."

Small Favours

Big questions at root of Khadr issue

With Barack Obama set to come into office in one week, one should be less than shocked that leaders around the world -- including in Canada -- are lining up to do him favours.

Case in point: with Omar Khadr's trial in the United States slated to begin on January 26, Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire is eager to see Canada take Khadr off of the new President's hands. In fact, Dallaire insists, it would be doing Obama a favour.

"If we take Omar Khadr back, we take one of his problems away. We alleviate a situation for him where he doesn't have to look at a case of a Canadian child soldier being prosecuted in a process that is considered to be inappropriate, if even legal in international law," Dallaire announced. "So I think the opportunity is there to assist the new president in moving down the road of human rights and applying the international conventions like the Geneva convention."

Feeling that he's exhausted his options within the Canadian political system to bring Khadr back to Canada, Dallaire has taken his show on the road to Washington, DC, where he directly lobbied the American government to deport Khadr.

For his own part, Michael Byers seems to believe that Obama is eager to be rid of Khadr, but that political interference north of the border is preventing it.

"The Obama team may be discovering that the reluctance on the part of certain allies to take Guantanamo detainees is actually causing some delay in their plans," Byers noted. "Obviously, one of those allies who could and should be helping the Obama team is Canada, in terms of requesting and accepting the repatriation of Omar Khadr."

But while Dallaire insists that judicial proceedings are inappropriate against Khadr -- who he quite accurately describes as a child soldier -- Byers quite properly notes that Khadr should undergo a psychological evaluation upon his return to Canada. The question to be decided by that evaulation, according to Byers, is whether or not judicial proceedings are appropriate.

But whether Dallaire likes it or not -- and the reasons why he doesn't like it are understandable, valid and even commendable -- this is an important question to answer. And whether or not Byers likes it -- and his reasons for not liking it would be perfectly valid as well -- there remains a possibility that the United States would prefer that this question be answered in one of their courts.

The question could turn out to be pivotal in the war on terror: whether individuals such as Khadr should be treated as child soldiers, criminals, or as prisoners of war.

The implications of each are fairly obvious. If Khadr is treated as a child soldier, the proper course of action is to keep Khadr in custody while giving him psychiatric care and counselling. If Khadr is treated as a terrorist, he will fall into a very nebulous area of international and criminal law. Whether terrorism suspects should be treated as criminals or prisoners of war has never been absolutely clear because it has never been clear if terrorism is better treated as a crime or as an act of war.

At stake could be the issue of whether or not individuals like Khadr could, in future, be treated as assets in future terrorism investigations and how far investigators -- be they law enforcement or military intelligence officials -- can go in regards to interrogation.

It also has obvious implications for the kinds of rights that individuals such as Khadr would have under each circumstance. As child soldiers, individuals such as Khadr have the right to treatment and, eventually, freedom. As criminals, they would have the right to a speedy trial. As prisoners of war they would enjoy the full protections of the Geneva Convention.

What is absolutely clear is that the legal definition of "enemy combatants" will no longer cut it. While those in favour of prosecuting the war on terror under the most vigilant pretences certainly loathe to admit it, the detention of such individuals in full denial of any rights whatsoever is as contrary to international law as it gets.

Even Obama himself -- with his own keen interest in the war on terror -- may prefer that the answer to this question be decided in American, rather than Canadian, courts.

If Canada accepting Khadr is a favour to Obama, it's certainly a small one. Considering some of the larger questions at play in the matter, it may also be a favour too small for Obama to accept.




Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Mike Oldham - "Omar Khadr"

The City Gal - "Senator Romeo Dallaire on Khadr"

Archiblog - "Obama's Flip Flop and Child Soldiers

Of Meatheads and Mea Culpas

Some people just aren't smart enough to get it. Case in point.

Mere days after getting his sorry ass kicked on both the Tom Flanagan front and on the Al Franken front (repeatedly), Canadian Cynic is back to doing what Canadian Cynic does best: in this case, clutching at straws, desperately trying to eke out something that his sycophantic fellow groupthinkers will regard as a victory.

Unfortunately for Cynic, the best he can seem to manage is this, a well-deserved dressing down of Cynic's blogmate Lindsay Stewart -- also known as a cheerleader for assaults on the elderly.

For the purposes of erasing his recent humiliations, Cynic cites a news article about the seemingly all but inevitable budget deficit.

But once again (unshockingly) Cynic misses the point.

In the original post, Lindsay Stewart jumped all over first-quarter taxation receipts that had come up short of government spending. In other words, a first-quarter deficit.

The deficit is here, Stewart crowed, as if he knew it all along.

This, while on the very same day another news report contradicted Stewart in the entirety. While the country had, indeed, posted a small deficit through the first two months of fiscal 2008, by June that had been converted into a surplus.

To most people with a shred of common sense, five months is a far better track record than less than a single day.

But there's more.

In the original post -- as delightful a little nugget of stupid as there ever was -- Stewart went out of his way to blame the entire affair on Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Flaherty, he insisted, was nothing but a "blinkered ideologue", running up a budget deficit with tax cuts and increased spending.

But then there is the big picture side of this story: what would Canada's fiscal situation look like right now if Stewart had gotten the government he wanted. How would things be any different?

For just a moment, we'll pretend that Stewart didn't endorse Gilles Duceppe -- the leader of the separatist Bloc Quebecois -- for Prime Minister during the recent election, and assume that he would have preferred a Liberal government to the Conservatives.

Next, let's take a close look at the last budget the Liberal party offered while in office. In November 2005, the Liberal party offered a budget with a surplus of $7 billion.

Yet as Cynic himself is crowing today, the Conservative party is set to table a budget with a projected $40 billion deficit.

Compare the two, and it seems that -- unless Cynic and Stewart are prepared to advocate for more deep cuts by the Liberal party into education, health care and defence -- the Liberal party could have posted as much as a $33 billion deficit.

One can alreaddy hear the inevitable reply: but, but, but... that's different!

Which brings one around to the important question -- the very question that Cynic and Stewart are dodging: if there would have been a budget deficit regardless of who was in power, is it really reasonable to blame the government that just happens to be in office? Or does it seem that, perhaps, there are other issues at play here?

Of course there are. Anyone who isn't a hopeless partisan or ideological hack can tell as much. It's far from coincidental that Canada's economic woes have so closely followed the economic collapse of the United States -- an economic collapse precipitated by mass mismanagement and under-relgulation of their financial markets.

Which is something that Canadian Cynic would have learned about the hard way if he had paid attention to his own dishonest rhetoric, as compared to the actual facts of the matter.

Suffice it to say that Canadian Cynic is no economist. Here at the Nexus, we hold no delusions about being economists ourselves. But we would invite readers to compare approaches to economic issues.

Over at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, economic matters are confronted with mere finger-pointing and counter-factual triumphalism. Over here at the Nexis, economics has been subjected to a far more contemplative, researched and constructive treatment.

Anyone who wishes to compare the two is more than welcome to do so.

With Canadian Cynic burning bridges at nothing if not an amusing rate, one would think that he couldn't take too many more black eyes in front of the blogging community.

Apparently not. And as always, Cynic is simply too stupid to figure out when to quit.

Not Your Poli Sci Prof's Coalition

Electoral coalition proposed by Tom Flanagan was a different animal than the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition

Even as certain intellectual cowards continue to try and dodge answering for tbeir critical misrepresentation of a opinion article written by Tom Flanagan -- a misrepresentation that, as it turns out, was based on a completely inadvertent mistreatment of Flanagan's arguments by another blogger -- some individuals have pointed out that Flanagan himself was once in favour of a coalition government.

Yet for those uncritical enough to consider the coalition that Flanagan proposed to be the same as the recently-proposed coalition government, they may want to take a second look at the facts.

First off, it is true that Flanagan once supported the idea of a coalition between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative party. This is a fact.

However, the coalition that Flanagan supported was an electoral coalition.

"For more than 75 years, large numbers of western voters have shown themselves unwilling to remain with the two old-line parties," Flanagan announced in a speech given at McGill University in 1999. The electoral coalition was one of the options being promoted by Preston Manning under his "unite the right" initiative.

"In my opinion, the formula that is most likely to 'unite the right' in Canada for any length of time would be one that has not yet been tried, that is, an electoral coalition of two or more regionally based parties that would retain their separate identities, refrain from running candidates against each other, co-operate in parliament to advance shared positions, and form a coalition government if the voters ever saw fit to endow them with enough seats," Flanagan explained.

The model that Flanagan and Manning had propsed was a strategy that would have been implemented ahead of an election. It was based on the idea that in ridings where a Reform party candidate or a Progressive Conservative candidate had come in a close second to a Liberal candidate the other party would agree to allow them to run unopposed by another conservative candidate.

The coalition would have been part of the election platform of the two parties. Citizens voting in that election would know full well that they were potentially voting for a coalition government. They would know who the partners were, and Canadian voters would be able to cast their judgement on the prospect based on that knowledge.

The situation today is very different.

During the 2008 federal election, Liberal leader Stephane Dion explicitly rejected Jack Layton's suggestion that the Liberals and NDP form a coalition government. A coalition government, he insisted, was strictly off the agenda.

When Canadians casted their ballots on October 14, 2008, a coalition government wasn't one of the possibilities they could have expected -- certainly not a coalition with a seat total smaller than the party that won a plurality of seats in that election, but merely propped up by a separatist party. Add a level of secrecy regarding the demands made by that separatist party -- a party that Canadians cannot be expected to trust -- and what emerges is something that looks very different from the coalition that Flanagan proposed.

The differences go deeper than merely the participants involved. With the electoral coalition proposed by Flanagan, Canadians would have recognized this as a possiblity -- perhaps even a probability -- and would have had their say on it during an election.

With the Liberal-NDP coalition, voters have not been allowed to have their say. This is a possibility that was explicitly rejected during the recent federal election. Voters casting their ballots in favour of at least the Liberal party couldn't have known they were voting for a possible coalition, especially considering that Stephane Dion had already said otherwise.

In other words, one is very much in keeping with the Canadian democratic norms that Flanagan cites in his recent dressing-down of the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition. The other -- the currently-proposed coalition -- is not.

One cannot help but wonder why it is that supporters of the coalition are so desperate to do an end-run around Canadian voters -- who have voiced their opposition to the proposed coalition but might elect Michael Ignatieff Prime Minister if given the opportunity to in an election.

But for those who have paid close attention to the rejection of Flanagan's normative pro-democracy argument -- and in some cases have resorted to childish tactics in order to avoid debating it -- there really seems to be one overwhelming conclusion to be drawn:

Now that the Canadian people have spoken by delivering the Conservative party a second minority government, the supporters of the coalition have decided that they don't care what voters think anymore.

Once upon a time, those who proposed coalition governments weren't so blatantly undemocratic.

Green Shifts

Top Green Party vote-getter defects to the Liberals

When Elizabeth May (reputedly) leaked her own election post-mortem to the press, one of her conclusions was that her popularity with the Canadian electorate was the Green party's greatest asset.

This past week, however, may leave many Greens wondering if they haven't just lost their greatest asset, as Monica Jarabek, the Green candidate who got more votes than any other in the country, decided to leave the party for the (pun intended) greener pastures of the Liberal party.

Jarabek may or may not decide to seek the Liberal nomination in London West for the next federal election.

"I'm keeping an open mind about my role in the next election," Jarabek announced. "I won't rule that out. It would be an honour."

Jarabek's goal as a Liberal is very simple: she wants to attract more Green-minded Canadians to the party. "I'm hoping to transfer more 'green thinkers' to the Liberal party, whether they are from the Green party or not," she said.

She, like Elizabeth May, seems to believe that the Liberal party has come a long way from being the party that failed to implement the Kyoto protocol. "Now I realize we are running out of time on the climate crisis and I see the Liberal party has come a long way as far as green philosophies," she said. "The Liberal party is full of excellent people and it has attracted a lot of 'green thinkers' like [MPs] Glen Pearson and Justin Trudeau and Ruby Dhalla. These are people who I think are leaders of the future and I want to work with them to make that change."

Whether or not the Liberal party has truly changed its course regarding the environment is entirely up for debate.

But the bigger question becomes pretty obvious. The Liberal party ratified the Kyoto protocol then promptly allowed its implementation to languish for years. Elizabeth May is willing to deal so closely with a party that failed to live up to the commitments that it, itself, made regarding cliamte change, then one has to wonder if any practical difference remains between the two parties.

When choosing between a party that failed to implement Kyoto and a party that's willing to overlook that in the name of political convenience, perhaps more Greens would be better off choosing to join the party that actually stands a chance of winning political office.

When Elizabeth May became the leader of the Green Party, she was taking it over when many wondered if it even had a reason to exist. May promised an electoral breakthrough -- something that would have provided it with a reason to exist -- that she subsequently failed to deliver. Now that May has proven that the party is willing to sacrifice its principles vis a vis environmental policy in order to get its leader elected -- or at least appointed to the Senate -- many Green party members may be realizing that there is no reason for the party to continue existing. At least not with its current leadership and its current policies.

The Green party is now being viewed by a majority of Canadians as Liberal lite.

Which is another good reason for the Green party to rid itself of May's permanently-bungled leadership.

If the Green party doesn't divest itself of May's leadership and recover its identity, there will be reason for even more Greens -- maybe even May herself -- to continue leaving for the Liberal party.

Monica Jarabek could be only the most recent of many Green party defections.

Oh, What Ever Will Kevron Do?

Canadian Cynic turns on his own

As a particular recent episode at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink is demonstrating one of the prices some of Canada's "progressive" bloggers are paying to be part of Cynic's community:

Absolute subservience to Cynic's will.

In a fit of outrage over what he percieves to be censorship on Jason Cherniak's part, Canadian Cynic has issued a demand to any bloggers willing to spit on their purported values enough to be on his blogroll: withdraw from Liblogs. Or else.

As the basis for his demand, Cynic insists that Jason Cherniak has been censoring any bloggers critical of Israel's current actions in the Gaza strip from the blogroll.

But as it turns out, Jeff Jedras of a BCer in Toronto can shed some light on the subject:

"On Liblogs, perhaps as one of the five admins I can add a little insight. No one has been removed from the roll because of their opinions on Gaza, or disagreement with Liberal policy. A quick scan of the posts over the past week would seem to indicate that if it was our intent to censor such opinion, the amount of negative opinion on there would mean we were doing a really crap-ass job of it. 3/5 admins need to be in favour before someone is dismissed and we very much err on the side of liberal free speech.

No one has been removed because of their opinion on Gaza, or any other topic. Two bloggers have left the roll recently.

Mound asked to be removed in a post on their own blog. There was no decision made to remove Mound because of anything they wrote, we were merely honouring Mound’s request. Given that Mound later claimed to have been unwillingly removed, we asked Mound to clarify: do you want off, or not? Mound declined to clarify. So that’s that.

Le Daro was not removed because of their opinion on any issue. One of the few lines we’ve drawn on Liblogs is libel. Le Daro made several statements that we felt raised a question of libel, and that is the only reason why Le Daro was removed.

Concerns about potential libel are one of the rare times we’ll consider removing a blogger from the roll; I know you remember a similar incident a few months back Red. We have been consistent on this issue over the past year, and I don’t think this is an unreasonable line to draw."

Unshockingly, LeDaro is likely unwilling to accept Jedras' judgement on the matter.

Upon being challenged by one of Cynic's cronies, Jedras even referenced which LeDaro post was considered at risk of being libelous. It was, as it turns out, a doozy:

"Cherniak has been palling around with his close buddies Kelly McParland and Ezra Levant, they are well known to be despicable neo-cons. Cherniak is anything but liberal. The way he posted his ideological rants on the top of Liblogs, quite frankly promoting violence in Gaza, I doubt that Cherniak and his neo-con cronies are even human. They have no sense of humanity or compassion. They do not care about those who are suffering and being killed, but rather want to promote and encourage such inhumanity.

Is the Liberal Party not catching on to the damage Cherniak (in collaberation with McParland and Levant) are doing to the party? If these are the Liberal Party's advocates, then the Liberals are doomed. Maybe it's time to start a new Reform Party out of the ashes of this ruined Liberal Party, that would be more in line with the views of the Cherniak-McParland-Levant troika."

In order to prevent even the slightest hint of that lunacy from escaping unnoticed, LeDaro is basically suggesting that Jason Cherniak -- one of the Liberal party's foremost partisans -- is conspiring with Kelly McParkland and Ezra Levant to destroy the Liberal party and create a new Reform party. LeDaro is also suggesting that Cherniak is "not even human" and are willfully promoting continuing violence in the Gaza strip.

Interestingly. it seems that not only is Canadian Cynic wrong about why LeDaro was kicked off of Liblogs, but Cynic himself couldn't cut it as a Liblogger.

After all, Cynic himself has an impetuous love of saying libelous things. Such as accusing other bloggers of advocating the murder of abortion clinic doctors, when all available evidence demonstrates that the obvious is true.

For his own part, Martin Rayner has no intention of leaving Liblogs at Canadian Cynic's behest. Nor should he. Considering the facts of the matter, there's no reason why Rayner should feel obligated to leave Liblogs just because Canadian Cynic wants to throw one of his characteristic temper tantrums.

But the real amusing x-factor of all of this is Kevron -- the dull third-rate troll who perpetually has nothing of value to contribute who mindlessly idolizes both of these individuals.

Whatever will Kevron do when mommy and daddy fight?

January 2009 Book Club Selection - Fighting For Canada, Diane Francis

With Parliament set to resume in only a few weeks time and the pro-coalition crowd still trying to push the coalition forward, it's more important now more than ever that Canadians understand what happens when Canadian politicians take Quebec Separatists lightly.

Fighting for Canada is a book that is regarded as entirely unwelcome by those who would most blatantly appease the separatists. This is because the book exposed the struggle preceding, during and following the 1995 sovereignty referendum for precisely what it was: a near-cataclysmic intersection of manipulation by the Parti and Bloc Quebecois and complacency of the federalist forces in Quebec.

Fighting for Canada is a book that will remind many Canadians -- those who remain wary of the dangers that Quebec separatism continue to pose to Canada -- of the folly of giving Quebec separatists too long a leash, or of allowing them to get too close.

Idiots Speak. Laughter Optional.

Of Canadian Cynic and idiots too stupid to comprehend rudimentary social science

Over at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, Canada's leading online hatemonger waxes not-so-eloquent about Dr Tom Flanagan, an election-time Conservative party strategist and rest-of-the-time Political Science professor at the University of Calgary.

If one were to judge from the title of this particular post, Cynic seems to think that Flanagan should be disciplined over an op/ed column Flanagan recently wrote for the Globe and Mail (Cynic thinks that Flanagan should be disciplined for his opinion -- go figure).

To try and support this otherwise-despicable assertion, Cynic relies on a blog post by Northern BC Dipper in which the blogger in question posts excerpts from a Political Science textbook written by Flanagan.

One of the excerpts in question deals with a coalition government as one of three possibilities to come out of an election:

"Three election outcomes are possible…” [One is majority government, the second is minority government.] “Finally, two or more parties may join forces to form a coalition government, dividing ministerial appointment between them. The leader of the larger partner in the coalition normally becomes prime minister (Page 334)."

And another excerpt deals with the 1985 Ontario Liberal-NDP accord:

"It was not a coalition, because no ministerial positions were allocated to the NDP. Rather, the two parties signed an “accord,” an written agreement that for two years the Liberals would not call an election and the NDP would not defeat the government on a non-confidence motion. There is a long history in Canada of informal understanding being reached for the purpose of supporting a minority government, but this was the first formal, written agreement (page 331).”

Which would almost be a solid point. Almost.

But there is a basic underlying fallacy to the thesis being proposed by this blogger: the excerpts from Flanagan's textbook outline are positive statements. They outline what can happen under the formal rules of Canada's Parliamentary Democracy. Meanwhile, Flanagan's Globe and Mail column -- Flanagan's Globe and Mail opinion column -- is a normative statement. It outlines what Flanagan believes should happen. Or in this case, what should not.

Flanagan lays out a very simple argument: that the proposed coalition government is fundamentally undemocratic because voters aren't being given a say. Considering that the most recent polls demonstrate that the majority of Canadians prefer a compromise to the proposed coalition. All in all, only 27% of Canadians continue to support it.

Other polls have found that 60% of Canadians prefered holding another election instead of simply replacing the Harper government with a coalition.

Flanagan's column isn't about democratic procedure -- few argue that Canada's parliamentary rules very much do allow for a Coalition government to replace a defeated government. Flanagan's column is about democratic principles -- principles that very much are subjective, and have been quibbled over by supporters of a diverse range of theorists from Burke to Barber.

The argument that Flanagan posits is a very simple one -- that the Canadian people should decide on whether or not they want a Liberal-NDP coalition government.

So not only is Northern BC Dipper's argument that Flanagan's statements conflict with what he wrote in his textbook fallacious, but Cynic's assertion that Flanagan's column is "pathetic, unethical, hypocritical, [and] lying" is not merely fallacious, but outright fallacious.

After all, Flanagan's textbook is merely a description of what can happen under Canada's Constitution. Flanagan's column is a description of what he thinks should happen.

To denounce someone's opinion as a "lie" simply because one doesn't like it is the last refuge of a very small-minded individual. Certainly, such things have been said about Canadian Cynic before. And as before, it will be true time and time again.

But even more amusing than this is Cynic's test case on the subject:

"Consider, just as an example, Flanagan teaching a course in intro Canadian politics, with the final exam containing a question on the legitimacy of multi-party coalitions. As we all know now (because Flanagan conveniently explained it in his very own textbook), there is nothing whatsoever illegitimate about such a coalition. But if that question were on the final, we now have a bit of a problem:

What would be the right answer?

Would it be the one found in Flanagan's text? Or the totally contradictory one found in Flanagan's Op-Ed piece? Oh, dear. And if you don't think that has the potential for embarrassment, think of someone failing a course by just a whisker because they got that answer "wrong." Don't you think there would be grounds for appeal? "Well, sure, my prof said this in class, but he said the other thing in the Globe and Mail! Why don't you ask him what the right answer is?"

Awwwwwwwwwkward."

Indeed.

Here Cynic is clearly overlooking the very nature of the social sciences themselves.

Social sciences, from economics to sociology to political science, are wrought with conflicts and disagreements between varying schools of thought.

Furthermore, exams in social sciences are normally designed not to solicit objective "correct" answers to particular questions, but are designed to force students to apply the knowledge and skills they've learned in the course. Most social science exams don't seek objective "correct" answers, but rather call upon students to make an argument about a particular topic and support it with facts from the course material.

Assuming that one teaches his course using his own textbook -- which, sadly many university professors are prone to do -- a successful answer to such a question would have to begin with a description of a coalition government's procedural legitimacy.

But once the student begins to address the question of the normative legitimacy of a coalition government, all bets are off. Provided that a student can successfully support an argument in favour of a coalition, one would expect that their answer would be graded accordingly.

If all a student could muster to this vital component of the question is "it's OK because Parliamentary rules allow for it" they might well be dissatisfied with their grade. But at the same time, they wouldn't have fully answered the question, either.

Which has become a hallmark of many of those falling all over themselves to support their precious Liberal-NDP coalition with the separatist Bloc. Despite all the numerous normative reasons why this coalition should not be allowed to come to power, the coalitionists can't seem to offer a decent argument about why it should.

And considering that they can't offer an effective rebuttal to concerns over the implications of mortgaging Canada's government to the separatists, it makes it all the more suspicious.

Cynic's manufactured outrage over Tom Flanagan's opinion -- and what he thinks should happen over it -- is just another example that these people don't care about anything other than their own petty partisan desires. And they're willing to go as far and get as undemocratic as necessary to get it.

But one has to hand it to Cynic: he was almost honest this time.

His outrage isn't about any misrepresentation of fact on Flanagan's part -- there was none. His outrage was about Flanagan daring to express his opinion.




Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Daimnation! - "No Coalitions Without Elections

rgl Canadian Thoughts - "Canadian Government 101"

Mark Francis - "Professor Flanagan's Non-Sequitur"

Patrick Brazeau's Choice (Made)

Brazeau chooses Senate, but still has questions to answer

Despite his stated plan to do otherwise, Patrick Brazeau's recent appointment to the Senate confronted him with a choice:

He could be a Senator or the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Obvious potential conflict of interest prevented him from doing both.

Today, Brazeau finally announced a decision.

"My goal is and has always been to serve Canada's aboriginal peoples and my country to the best of my skills and abilities, in a manner that is accountable, responsible and transparent," Brazeau announced. "I am committed to bringing this same discipline to my role as a senator in the Parliament of Canada."

Yet some may wonder precisely how disciplined Brazeau has been as the National Chief of the CAP. On Thursday, the CAP suspended Walker Menard, its Manitoba director. Menard had commented negatively on the internal inquiries that had cleared Brazeau and one other senior employee of the CAP of sexual harrassment allegations.

Menard had also questioned Brazeau's qualifications to sit in the Senate.

The CAP insists that Menard's suspension has more to do with misrepresentation of membership numbers by the Manitoba branch of the CAP.

That the two complainants in the sexual harrassment allegations would be unsatisfied with the results of the inquiry is far less than surprising. However, Menard's comments cast even further doubt on the inquiry process. Clearly, further investigation is called for.

There are few ways to look at Menard's suspension other than as suspicious.

This kind of suspicion is unbecoming of a Canadian Senator. Considering the numerous black eyes that institution has suffered over the past few decades, it cannot stand another.

Brazeau and the CAP need to submit to a full investigation into not only the allegations that have been raised, but also into Menard's suspension.

Canadians have the right to expect transparency and accountability from both houses of government. If Brazeau won't deliver these things as National Chief of the CAP Canadians have every reason to be concerned about whether or not he'll deliver them as a Senator.

Disposable Heroes, French Style

Often far from the imaginations of many people in the western world are the French Foreign Legion.

Often operating in total secrecy, the famed Foreign Legion are foreign citizens recruited to fight for France. In many cases, these individuals are leaving behind badly tattered personal lives in order to be put through a strenuous month-long basic training followed by near-certain combat:



It isn't difficult to grasp the benefits of having a force like the French Foreign Legion at one's disposal. Whenever a mission emerges that is almost certain to involve absorbing casualties, the French have someone they can send to fight their battles for them. Because they aren't French citizens, there's little need to worry about outcry from the French populace when a few soldiers die.

The negative implications of having a force like the Foreign Legion go deeper than a simple threat to the government -- as was the case when the Foreign Legion conspired to assassinate Charles DeGaulle over his policies regarding Algeria. The existence of such a force also undermines the responsibility a government owes to its soldiers: to only send them into harm's way when absolutely necessary.

Once again, because Legioniarres aren't French citizens it's easy for French politicians to regard them as unworthy of the same concern that would be shown for the life of a member of the French regular army.

While some may say that it would be better for many people -- except, perhaps, the French -- if France were to abolish the Foreign Legion.

However, for all the negative implications of the Foreign Legion -- including turning out thousands of potential mercenaries into the open market -- the ultimate decision for that will be left to the French. And so long as there remain foreign nationals willing to fight and die for France, it's certain that French politicians will see little reason to do so.

Definitely Not The Advertising Standards They Want

Christian organization notes that Richard Dawkins can't prove nonexistence of god

As 800 buses carrying a Richard Dawkins-backed advertising campaign prepare to roll out across Britain, Stephen Green, the national director of Christian Voice, has submitted a complaint about the ads to the British Adverstising Standards Authority.

Green is complaining that the ads, which read “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”, cannot be effectively proven.

“It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules," Green complains. "There is plenty of evidence for God, from people’s personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.”

While many of those who oppose the anti-religious zealotry of Dawkins and his supporters may be tempted to back Green on his bid to have the atheist ads declared in violation of advertising standards. But they need to think twice before they do.

It doesn't take genius to recognize that "there's probably no god" isn't really a statement of fact. It's a statement of probability, which when applied to issues such as religion can only help but be a matter of opinion.

And while Green could argue that "people's personal experience" is evidence of God's existence, atheists could just as easily argue that their personal experiences prove God's non-existence.

Furthermore, to suggest that the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world” is evidence of God's existence is a specious argument. It suffers from the same integral weakness as those that argue that seeming evidence of engineering principles in biological cells is proof of God's existence.

After all, many of the principles used in engineering are based on phenomenae originally observed in nature. To claim that the existence in nature of principles discovered only because they were observed in nature to begin with is proof that an intelligent designer (in this case, God) exists is to try to lean on only one half of a circular argument.

Green -- and many religious believers, both Christian and otherwise -- need to admit that there is no physical, objective evidence for the existence of God. As such, God's existence can't realistically be considered any more probable than God's non-existence.

That's why a belief in God requires so much faith.

To top it all off, Green's complaint would have very serious implications for the ability of Christian organizations -- both Churches and otherwise -- to advertise based on their belief that God exists, which generally isn't called into question in Christian advertisements.

But more important is this: what makes individuals such as Dawkins and his cohorts so objectionable to begin with is that they begrudge the religious for their beliefs.

For individuals such as Stephen Green to in turn begrudge atheists for what they believe is, frankly, hypocritical.

To entrench that hypocrisy into advertising standards is absolutely not what Green should want to do.

Talk to Me...

...About Canadian Cynic's dishonesty

When Al Franken started bringing Christie Harvey, the Centre for American Progress' Director of Strategic Communications on his Air America talk show, he wrote an amusing little ditty to introduce her.

Singing to the tune of "Misty", Franken warbled "Talk to me/about the right wing's dishonesty".

As the democratically embarrassing debacle surrounding the Franken/Norm Coleman Senatorial contest in Minnesota continues to unfold, one could apply the same tune to Cynic himself. What is quickly emerging is a textbook case of the intellectually dishonest leaning on the intellectually dishonest for vindication of their obnoxious and anti-democratic ramblings.

Today, Cynic wants to draw attention to a Talking Points Memo blog post by Eric Kleefeld. In this post, Kleefeld does raise a valid point or two. But he also hits more than his share of bumps along the way.

First off, there is the way Kleefeld addresses the issue of double-counted ballots:

"Coleman claims that damaged absentee ballots were duplicated so they could be fed into the machines on Election Night -- a standard procedure in Minnesota -- but a number of duplicates weren't properly labeled and so both they and the originals were counted during the recount. In all fairness, this is probably Coleman's best argument, because it can't be ruled out that this happened to some extent -- but nor can it be proven that it was in any way significant enough to undo Al Franken's 225-vote lead."

Considering that up to 150 ballots are argued to be double-counted, discounting the number of ballots that were double counted would reduce Franken's lead to 75 votes. That would place Coleman's campaign in a position to overturn the result by winning only two of their three substantive challenges.

Furthermore, even if the allegations of double-counted ballots aren't enough to overturn the result on their own it is still a discrepancy worth investigating. It should be relatively simple to determine.

Damaged ballots are duplicated in order to be fed through a vote counting machine. If there are damaged ballots among those that were recounted by hand -- ballots too damaged to be counted by machine -- it's pretty clear that these ballots were double counted.

In the rush to discount this particular challenge, Kleefeld overlooks the bigger picture. If such a double-counting occurred, it's only right to verify it, even if only for the purpose of preventing such an outcome in future elections.

After all, without a concrete proven example of such an occurrence there will almost certainly be numerous people who won't take it seriously. Without proof that this is something that very much can happen, it could -- and probably will -- happen again.

Then there is Kleefeld's treatment of voting precincts that wound up having more ballots than voters who signed in to cast them:

"Coleman claims that multiple precincts had "more votes than voters," a potential irregularity if we understand that as being more ballots than people who signed in on the register. But Coleman has another definition: When the votes tallied in the recount were more than were counted on Election Night, with no reference to what was on the voter register. The whole point of a recount is to find votes that the machines failed to pick up at first."

This would be a valid point if it were actually true.

In one very specific case, Ramsey county wound up with 177 more ballots than voters who signed in on the registry. If this doesn't represent a "more votes than voters" situation in Kleefeld's mind, then it is Kleefeld himself who is shifting this definition.

This being said, in at least one case -- that of Hennepin county -- the sign-in sheets can be used to verify one of the decisions rendered by the Canvassing Board. The number of voters who signed in to vote at the Hennepin county firehouse -- where up to 133 ballots were argued to have been lost -- confirm that the number of voters who signed in matches the election night totals.

On this particular case the Canvassing Board certainly rendered the right decision.

This aside, there is the matter of absentee ballots:

"The Coleman complaint wants to force the review and inclusion of 654 absentee ballots that local officials in both blue and red counties say were properly rejected, and which come almost entirely from precincts that Coleman won."

In order to argue this, Kleefeld would have to be overlooking the state of Minnesota's focus on counting as many votes as possible.

Under Minnesota state election law, any ballot that clearly demonstrates voter intent is meant to be accepted as valid. Thus, it's extremely difficult to unintentionally spoil a ballot in Minnesota.

Furthermore, the reported discrepancies in reporting between Franken-leaning precincts and Coleman-leaning precincts -- with some Coleman-leaning precincts apparently not reporting at all -- is more than enough reason to subject rejected absentee ballots to a standardized procedure of review.

As with most of the discrepancies undermining the legitimacy of this election result, it actually doesn't matter -- not one iota -- who actually won. What is important is that the discrepancies are resolved.

Nothing matters more than delivering a democratically legitimate result. While anti-democratic dimwits like Canadian Cynic certainly don't understand this, the very least they could do is stop being so bloody dishonest about the entire affair.

Patrick Brazeau's Choice

Amidst the innuendo, the Globe and Mail raises a point

As Patrick Brazeau prepares to formally take his seat in the Canadian Senate, a scandal is emerging that may cast a shadow over the entire affair.

Jade Harper, a former employee of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, has filed a grievance against Brazeau alleging that he allowed drinking and sexual exploitation to take place in the offices of the CAP.

"There was a lot of drinking at the office," Harper said. "Once I put my grievance in, I would get the dirty looks in the office. No one would talk to me. Patrick wouldn't ...They just totally shut the door on me completely."

Harper alleges that she was sexually exploited by a senior CAP employee. She had a "personal relationship" with that individual.

As if Harper's allegations weren't bad enough, Brazeau himself is facing a sexual harrassment complaint that dates to the same time as Harper's complaint.

The original complaint is currently before Canada's currently-embattled Human Rights Commission. The executive board of the CAP had investigated the allegations and acquitted Brazeau last year.

"It's basically case-closed," Brazeau insisted.

However, Walter Menard, the CAP executive board member from Manitoba, insists that the investigation was not transparent. Indeed, the Harper case represents the second time that the CAP had such allegations made against during that period of time, and the second occasion on which the CAP simply investigated itself.

Of course, such issues tend to be extremely contentious, and are rarely resolved to the satisfaction of the complainants unless the accused is found guilty. That the matter would find itself before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal as opposed to a court of law is also fairly troubling, considering the extremely dubious activities of some of Canada's Human Rights Commissions.

Considering the timeframe of the two complaints, there is no question that they should be investigated by an outside agency. However, the CHRC is absolutely not the place for such an investigation.

More interestingly, however, Brazeau wants to wants to remain the chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples even as he sits in the Senate.

As a spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation noted, that is definitely a serious no-no.

"At the end of the day, if the money's coming from taxpayers, it's double dipping of a kind," the spokesperson announced, referring to the $100,170 Brazeau recieves as the CAP Chief and the $130,400 salary he would recieve as a Senator. The CTF spokesperson also rightly raised the very real probability -- not mere possibility -- of a conflict of interest. "To actually be a member of the government that he's advocating to would strike me as inherently conflictual."

There's very little question that it would. As the Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Brazeau's first responsibility is to Canada's off-reserve aboriginal population. But as a Senator, his first responsibility is to the people of Canada as a whole.

While most Canadians like to believe that almost any issue that arises between Canada's aboriginals and the country as a whole can be worked out to the mutual satisfaction of each party, history has far too often taught us differently.

While Brazeau's voice within Parliament and within the government in particular is valuable to aboriginal Canadians, the truth of the matter is that he cannot reasonably be expected to live up to the obligations of each role. Especially when one considers the near inevitability of conflict between the two.

Brazeau needs to decide how he can best serve his country and his people. Then he needs to make his choice.

He cannot be both a Senator and the Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Somewhere in Waterloo, Canadian Cynic's Heart is A'twitter

No, It Doesn't Get Any Funnier Than This

Stupid so thick you can eat it with a fork

Over at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, Canada's premier online hatemonger muses triumphally about a Wall Street Journal editorial and a predictably partisan response to it.

Tthere's at least one small, teensy-weensy little problem, though.

Nate Silver notes that the Minnesota State Supreme Court rejected Norm Coleman's petition on duplicate ballots. Which is half-true. When one actually takes a moment or two to examine Silver's own sources, it turns out that the justices actually recommended the matter be referred for a future hearing:

"The Supreme Court denied a bid by the Coleman campaign to prevent local and state canvassing boards from tallying votes that the incumbent says may have been counted twice. Most of the votes at issue are from DFL strongholds.

The justices said the campaign's claim of double-counted ballots is better resolved in a court hearing where evidence can be presented, instead of by canvassing boards."

Among the evidence that may be presented at the hearing could be the prior comments of State Supreme justice Barry Anderson who himself admitted that "very likely there was a double counting."

Silver also goes on to note that there must not be any precincts with more votes than voters because, by golly, he hasn't heard of any.

Silver notes that even if there are precincts with more ballots than voters who signed in on election night that the decisions to count such ballots "are not inconsistent if the Canvassing Board's objective is wanting to count every vote."

Which is fair enough, if one overlooks the expectation that votes counted in an election are all valid. Just as the double-counted ballots that Barry Anderson admits "very likely" occurred cannot be considered valid, none of the votes cast in excess of signed-in voters on election day could be considered valid.

If anything, they should raise suspicion of ballot box-stuffing -- a possibility that should be investigated.

The decision to conclude the recount before the absentee ballots from Coleman-leaning districts does violate the Canvassing Board's objective of counting every vote. And for obvious reasons.

Silver's resposne to this is very obvious as well -- he insists that all of Minnesota's precincts reported whatever absentee ballots they believed may have been valid. Because he says so.

But once Silver is revealled to be indulging himself regarding the State Supreme Court's decision regarding double-counted ballots, it casts suspicion over Silver's insistences that all of Minnesota's precincts have reported their wrongfully-rejected ballots, especially considering that Silver seems to lack a source for that assertion.

Cynic also hilariously cites a letter written by Edward J Cleary, which didn't actually bother to challenge any of the facts reported by the Wall Street Journal -- not even that Ramsey county, the precinct in which Cleary sits as a Judge -- but instead insists that the Canvassing Board "won't hold [their] breath" waiting for an editorial on a Coleman victory to appear.

Cleary also accuses the Wall Street Journal of an "over the top slam" on Franken by describing him as illegitimate.

But Cleary is clearly missing the point. If the number of discrepancies in the Minnesota Senate election remain unresolved, the results will certainly be illegitimate. What could one consider a Senator elected by illegimate means other than illegitimate? This is not a difficult concept.

If the numerous discrepancies in the recount are resolved and Al Franken remains the winner, so be it. It will be a good day for American democracy when these discrepancies are investigated and resolved accordingly.

But it will be -- just as in 2000 -- a very dark day for American democracy if these discrepancies are overlooked in the obvious rush to certify the results.

That isn't a difficult concept to understand. But it's far less than shocking to discover that some -- such as Canadian Cynic and Nate Silver -- are either too stupid to grasp it, or simply don't care enough once their partisan interests become involved.

Pop Culture and Philosophy vol. 2: Trent Reznor and the Invisible Antagonist

Like quite a few heavy metal bands, the music of Nine Inch Nails -- which is really more of a one-man project by frontman Trent Reznor than an actual band in its own right -- is awash in philosophical questions.

"Only" clearly provokes an underlying question of what is real: the protagonist of the song or the antagonist?

If one wanted to be facetious, the answer could be considered fairly simple: the writer of the song, Trent Reznor, is a real person. So from that point of view one would expect that it would have to be him.

When one takes a close look at the lyrics of the song, it quickly becomes apparent that the protagonist himself may not be entirely sure of his own existence, at least in the conventional, corporeal sense:

"I'm becoming less defined as days go by/
Fading away/
And well you might say/
I'm losing focus/
Kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself

Sometimes I think I can see right through myself/
Sometimes I think I can see right through myself/
Sometimes I can see right through myself"

The protagonist seems to suggest that he's beginning to see himself less as an actual person and more as an idea. He says that he can see right through himself, as if he's become invisible or, worse yet, he doesn't necessarily like this particular idea.

In other words, he doesn't like himself.

In his self-loathing, Reznor's protagonist takes the route that many self-loathers do -- he rejects the world itself:

"Less concerned about fitting into the world/
Your world that is/
Cause it doesn't really matter anymore/
(no it doesn't really matter anymore)/
No it doesn't really matter anymore/
None of this really matters anymore"

But for Reznor's protagonist the matter may go deeper than even this. Even if he doesn't necessarily recognize himself as real in the conventional sense, even if he views himself merely as an idea, the world he's rejecting -- the antagonist's world -- may be nothing more than a fantasy that he made up.

Moreover, in a vein typical of self-loathers, Reznor made up his antagonist -- and his antagonist's world -- up out of sheer masochism:

"Yes I am alone but then again I always was/
As far back as I can tell/
I think maybe it's because/
Because you were never really real to begin with/
I just made you up to hurt myself"

After remarking on his success in hurting himself, Reznor's protagonist rages about the nature of the fantasy world itself. For him the point of it all is very simple:

"There is no you/
There is only me"

To put it simply, while Reznor is unsure of his own existence as anything other than an idea -- or, possibly, an apparition -- he is sure of his own existence period.

Furthermore he's also assured of the nonexistence of his antagonist. He rages over and over again: "there is no fucking you/There is only me."

But is his self-assurance justified?

If one were to be facetious again, one would realize that the listener -- to whom the song could be argued is addressed -- realizes that they are real. One must at this point question whether or not Reznor's protagonist is delusional, insiting that the antagonist doesn't really exist despite the fact that they clearly do, or is imagining himself in a world without his antagonist.

Then again, there's a reason why this particular line of reasoning is facetious. Reznor wrote this song for a purpose. Considering that he published it, that purpose was obviously not self-gratification.

One is brought back to Reznor's conceptualization of himself as an idea:

"Well the tiniest little dot caught my eye and it turned out to be a scab/
And I had this funny feeling like I just knew it's something bad/
I just couldn't leave it alone, I kept picking at the scab/
It was a doorway trying to seal itself shut/
But I climbed through

Now I am somewhere I am not supposed to be, and I can see things I know I really shouldn't see/
And now I know why, now, now, now I know why/
Things aren't as pretty/
On the inside"

Considering that Reznor's protagonist has already admitted that he can see right through himself, one is drawn to the conclusion that the scab in question must be metaphorical.

Considering the aforementioned obvious overtones of self-loathing inherent in the song, it's pretty clear that the scab in question is not the healing over of a physical wound, but a psychological blemish that is either the cause of, or mere reinforcement of, the protagonist's palpable self-hatred.

As it turns out, this metaphorical scab is the doorway within himself, where he can see things he "really shouldn't see" and discovers that "things aren't so pretty on the inside."

Having been confronted by his inner self, the protagonist's discomfort seems to be enough to provoke a severe psychological crisis. His rejection of the world's existence could clearly be a manifestation of that crisis.

As interesting as the song itself may be, the music video actually adds additional evidence that Reznor's protagonist may actually be the one who is non-existent. In the video, Reznor appears only through an office toy -- the one that allows people to imprint their faces in magnetic metal beads. (If anyone knows what the hell those things are called, please feel free to share -ed)

Regardless of whatever conclusions one may draw about what the song's protagonist believes is -- or actually is -- real, the song does provide a fascinating window into the mind of an individual so disenchanted with themselves as to want to hurt themselves.

Michael Ignatieff's Man in Somalia

Adam Esse wants to be President of Puntland

With Somali pirates continuing to grab headlines in the international media, one could have expected it would only be a matter of time until the issue was raised in Somalia.

Interestingly enough, it's become an issue in the Puntland Presidential election. Even more interestingly, it's being raised by a Canadian candidate, who is contesting the Presidency against yet another Canadian.

Puntland is a semi-autonomous region within Somalia.

Adam Esse, who also holds a Canadian citizenship, believes that the piracy issue in Somalia can be solved by creating more jobs there.

"I want to become president to change the bad situation that we have over here in terms of security, stability, the economy, education and equality between the genders," Esse recently announced.

Spoken like a true Liberal. And interestingly enough, it just so happens that Adam Esse is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. He was a delegate for Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign.

Some may have considered Esse to be something of an oddity at the leadership convention, as he had arranged a meeting in which Aly Hindy accused Liberal deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety Anne McLellan of "terrorizing" Canadian Muslims.

"If you try to cross the line I can't guarantee what is going to happen. Our young people, we can't control," Hindy said at the time. "The police came to me and said, 'This is a kind of threat', and I said yes. But it's for the good of this country."


"We believe CSIS should stop terrorizing us," Hindy wrote in a pamphlet in which he encouraged Muslims not to cooperate with terrorism-related investigations. "CSIS is powerless. CSIS has no authority over you. If CSIS agents come to your door, do not open it for them."

Less than a year later, as many Canadians may recall, 18 suspects were arrested for a terrorist plot against the Prime Minister, Parliament and the CBC. While Hindy almost certainly was not involved in this, his encouragement to Canadian Muslims to not cooperate with terrorism-related investigates could have made this plot more difficult to detect than it had to be.

At the time, however, Adam Esse offered excuses for Hindy's behaviour. "Some people, when they talk, they get a little heated," Esse mused. "If you talk, you remove a lot of misconceptions, a lot of misunderstandings."

Of course, what Esse forgets to mention is that there are some things that talk is insufficient to address.

For example, Hindy noted to the media that six or seven young Muslim men had asked him about joining insurgent forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. Hindy wisely told them "people fighting in Iraq, they don't need more people," and told them to wage a non-violent struggle at home.

However, when asked by the RCMP if he knew the identities of any individuals who may engage in violent actions, Hindy told them "you just open the telephone directory" despite clearly knowing the identities of up to seven potential terrorists. In this particular case, these individuals had discussed travelling to Afghanistan in order to fight against Canadian soldiers.

Considering Michael Ignatieff's fairly vigilant stance toward Afghanistan in particular, it seems fairly surprising that Adam Esse would be a delegate for him while seemingly associating with individuals such as Aly Hindy.

The other Canadian in the race for the Putland Presidency is Mohamud Muse Hersi, the incumbent.

Hersi has faced international criticism for his inability to get the piracy situation in Puntland under control. Hersi has even been accused of collusion with pirates. More specifically, Hersi has been accused of allowing Somali pirates to operate out of Puntland's ports and hold hijacked ships for ransom.

Hersi has also been accused of personally profiting from oil contracts.

The wealth appropriated through piracy in Puntland -- an estimated $60 million annually -- is three times the government's annual budget of $20 million. Many blame the lack of a central Somali government, and its accompanying poverty, for the prevalence of piracy there.

It would be interesting to see how the Canadian government -- whether headed by Michael Ignatieff or not -- would interact with either Hersi or Esse as the President of Puntland. With the President of Puntland holding a Canadian citizenship, Puntland -- and perhaps Somalia in general -- could become a logical focal point for Canadian foreign aid.

With Canada already involved in the fight to prevent UN aid shipments from pirates, close cooperation with a regional President who is also a Canadian citizen only makes sense.

However, judging from some of the characters Adam Esse associates with while on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, some Canadians could find cause for concern should be become the President of Puntland, just as the accusations of corruption against Mohamud Hersi are very troubling.

Nice Teaching Job You've Got There

...Be a shame if something happened to it

The Canadian Union of Public Employees has a message for any Israeli academics who may want to teach or speak on unveristy campuses in Ontario:

Condemn Israel's military actions in the Gaza Strip. Or else.

CUPE drafted the proposal as a response to a December 29th attack on an Islamic University in Ghaza.

"Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale," CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan announced. "They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That's what the Nazis did."

Of course Ryan is overlooking the fact that Hamas is widely known to use schools and hospitals as hideouts for their fighters, normally using the occupants of those buildings as human shields or to provoke international outrage when those buildings are attacked.

Reports that the University was being used to store weapons for Hamas remain unconfirmed.

But as debate over Israel's actions in Gaza become a matter of intense international debate, as they so often do, CUPE's move to force Israeli academics to denounce Israel's actions would ultimately have the effect of limiting this debate on University campuses across Ontario.

Moreover, Ryan is overlooking an important issue underlying the permanent state of affairs between Israel and its various Islamic militant foes: that is, a state of total war.

Canada has not been at a state of total war for well over 60 years. While Ryan's criticism may suit an ordinary country under ordinary states of warfare, but Israel is no ordinary country and its conflict with Hamas is no ordinary conflict.

If anything, perhaps Ryan should consider condemning the University in question should claims that it was storing weapons caches for Hamas turn out to be true. After all, any institution of higher learning that agrees to store weapons certainly surrenders its sancrosanct status.

While an air strike is most certainly an unsuitable method for dealing with such situations -- a special forces strike provides additional safety for civilians, although there are never any guarantees in war -- any University that chooses to provide material support to a combatant becomes a legitimate target in war time.

Academics -- be they Israeli or otherwise -- have the right to hold such an opinion if they so choose. For Sid Ryan to imagine that he can coerce them into saying otherwise is dangerous for the academic climate of any university.

And That Makes 5

Congratulations to our men's junior hockey team for a fifth well-earned championship!

You've done our country proud 30,000,000 times over.

Now, We Wouldn't Want Him to Strain Himself

Shorter Canadian Cynic: "Uncounted absentee ballots? Double-counted ballots? Phantom ballots? Phantom voters? Fuck all that and fuck democracy."

So, What'd We Learn?

Over at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, one wonders precisely what to take away from this.

Should it be that Canada's pro-abortion lobby is absolutely terrified of debate? Or should it be that Canadian Cynic is (unshockingly) a complete hypocrite (with freeping being such a terrible thing and all)?

Fortunately, it can be both.

Senator Al Franken?

Not nearly so fast

With Al Franken having been announced the winner of the Senate election in Minnesota, certain idiots are insisting that "it's all over, except for the inevitable, pathetic GOP snivelling, whining, pants-pissing, court challenge, possible filibuster and rancid hypocrisy."

Now if only it were so.

Republican Norm Coleman can, at the very least, delay Franken's seating by challenging the results of the recount in court, something he is almost certain to do.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, there's more than enough cause for Coleman to challenge these results.

First off, 25 precincts in Minnesota have -- strangely enough -- counted more ballots during the recount than voters who actually signed in to vote on November 4th.

There is the matter of the alleged double-counted ballots. According to Minnesota state election law, any damaged ballots are to be copied, with the duplicate clearly marked as such. Then, the original ballot is to be segregated.

Yet it seem that the marking and segregation of these ballots was not actually done. Even Barry G Anderson, a justice with the Minnesota State Supreme Court, has admitted that "very likely there was a double counting."

Yet instead of investigating the matter further, the Canvassing board is merely adding these results -- which Anderson himself admits "very likely" includes double-counted ballots -- to the totals, claiming that it has no authority to challenge local officials.

Even more flagrant is the matter of the phantom ballots from Hennepin County, where machine-counted totals failed to match the number of actual ballots on hand. The Franken campaign claims that 133 ballots were "lost", and pushed the Canvassing board to certify the machine-counted totals from election night as opposed to what can actually be verified through a hand count. The Canvassing board obliged them.

In Ramsey county, there seem to be up to 177 more ballots on hand than voters who showed up to vote there. This time, the Canvassing board counted the extra ballots instead of simply accepting the election night total as they did with Hennepin.

Even more interesting are some of the inconsistencies regarding absentee ballots. Following the Franken campaign's complaints that absentee ballots were erroneously rejected, Franken-leaning counties quickly reexamined these ballots and submitted a list of those mistakenly rejected. The Coleman-leaning counties haven't been nearly so quick to respond.

One of the Coleman petitions remaining before the Supreme Court is one to subject absentee ballots to a standardized process of review. Under Minnesota state law, this in itself is to prevent the Canvassing board from certifying any results.

And while some people predictably want to overlook all these glaring inconsistencies -- some of which flagrantly violate Minnesota state law -- the fact remains that the credibility of the electoral process is very much at stake in this particular matter.

What is important here is not who wins this election. That is immaterial. What matters here is that all of the votes are counted, and counted properly. And many of these issues are not at all difficult to understand.

When one precinct reports more machine-counted votes than actual ballots on hand, it's clear that an error was made during the machine counting process. When one precinct suddenly has more ballots on hand than voters who showed up there on election night, those results are simply too suspicious to certify. They may well be evidence of electoral fraud in Ramsey county.

Those with no respect for democracy may be in a rush to certify these results. Many Democrats, being as human as their Republican counterparts, may be in a rush to do so.

But just as the US Supreme Court was wrong to certify George W Bush president with an incomplete recount in Florida and Al Gore was wrong to capitulate the matter in the Senate, the Minnesota state Canvassing Board would be wrong to certify Al Franken with an incomplete recount in Minnesota. Norm Coleman would be wrong to concede under these circumstances.

Some people may refer to this as karma. But they're also forgetting that two wrongs don't make a right.

Hmmm... How Many Times Do You Count a Vote Again?

Minnesota Senate race isn't over yet

With the counting of ballots in Minnesota having come to a preliminary conclusion, many are rushing to pronounce Democrat Al Franken the new Senator from Minnesota.

But as it turns out, those folks are being more than a little premature.

With numerous petitions still before the court, Republican Norm Coleman is reportedly preparing a lawsuit.

Coleman has numerous complaints. Among them are suggestions that up to 150 ballots were double-counted in Franken's favour, which would reduce Franken's lead to a mere 75 votes. The Democrats have rightly noted that this isn't enough to win.

Unfortunately for them, these aren't the only contested ballots left to be resolved.

Among them are up to 654 absentee ballots the Coleman campaign believes were wrongfully rejected from which they could net an additional 50 votes. Franken's lead would be reduced to 25. There is also the matter of the phantom ballots from Minneapolis' third ward, which could cost Franken 46 votes, as well as 171 lost ballots discovered in a Maplewood fire station. That would cost Franken another 37.$

If Franken's campaign loses these challenges -- not necessarily even all of them -- that could mean the end of his Senatorial ambitions.

With enough challenges on the table to overturn a pro-Franken decision, there would be no conscionable way that the US Senate could bow to the demands of Amy Klobuchar and Charles Schumer and seat Franken, even if only provisionally.

It's unsurprising, perhaps, that some idiots don't understand a very simple concept regarding democracy.

In an election, you count the votes -- once apiece -- then you name a winner. Not before. And while this may be a stunning revelation for people who have no respect for democracy, their hypocrisy should be far less astounding to the remainder of us.

After all, these are people who have spent the past eight years bemoaning the very existence of the George W Bush administration. And these are very same people who protested Bush's elevation to office despite the existence of thousands of uncounted votes in Florida. They were right to do so. It comes back to this very same basic prinicple of Democracy: count the votes, and count them properly.

The right to vote, as it turns out, goes hand-in-hand with the right to have that vote counted.

So just as they were right to criticize the perversion of the democratic process that led to Bush's presidency in the first place, they're wrong to insist that Franken be seated before the election is completed and without a certificate of election.

But there are other reasons why Franken shouldn't be seated.

As it turns out, the Republicans are actually taking this page out of the playbook of Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has made the admirable stand of refusing to seat Roland Burris -- the controversial Rod Blagojevich appointment -- without a valid certificate of appointment, which must be signed by both Governor Blagojevich and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

In an equally admirable move, White has refused to sign Burris' certificate. Reid himself may have urged White to refuse to sign.

The Democrats cannot reasonably expect to have it both ways -- to insist that one uncredentialled Senator be seated (once again, before the election in question is actually completed), while refusing to allow another.

Once again, some people are certainly too stupid to understand this.

And even as they turn out to be oh-so-wrong about the conclusiveness of the election in question, such individuals are choosing to overlook some very serious implications of a Franken seating. Most important is the question of, if Norm Coleman is successful in his ballot challenges, what would the point of seating Franken have been in the first place?

The question is not whether or not one believes Al Franken should be the Senator from Minnesota. It's a matter of whether or not he actually won.

Michael Ignatieff and China's New Colonialism

China becoming a global leader in African exploitation

With Michael Ignatieff set to lead the Liberal party into the new year, it's safe to say that foreign policy will find itself firmly entrenched in the Liberal party`s agenda.

Of particular interest should be Ignatieff`s stance on China. In 2006, Ignatieff criticized Stephen Harper for the Prime Minister`s criticism of China.

Among other things, Ignatieff hailed reductions in Chinese poverty as an erstwhile human rights triumph.

"You have to give them credit for a fact not enough Canadians, I think, recognize which is over the last 10 years, the most important human-rights advance in the world has been the hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted out of absolute poverty," he mused.

Yet one can`t help but wonder how Ignatieff might have reacted to some of China's activities abroad, particularly in Africa:



It seems China is turning back the clock on colonialism. The country that was once the most sought-after Colony among all European countries is all grown up, and ready to do some exploiting of its own.

Among raw materials, China is also pursuing African oil. The Beijing government is pursuing oil through a collection of exploration and development deals, and reciprocal trade deals coupled with foreign aid packages.

China`s efforts in Africa has them active in countries like Equitorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In the latter two cases -- one of which, Sudan, is currently the subject of considerable human rights-related outcry -- the Chinese are involved in countries with ongoing civil conflicts.

Inevitably, China's activities in the DRC will favour the Congolese government over the rebel National Congress for the Defense of the People. As in the Sudan, the Chinese are taking sides in a civil conflict.

If anything, China's activities in Africa -- energy-related and otherwise -- demonstrate that communism is all but officially dead in China. Now, it has learned to exploit the developing world just as stringently as western states and multinational corporations have.

The mess -- both in terms of environmental devestation and human suffering -- being left in China's wake poses a definite question mark on Ignatieff's insistence that reduction in Chinese poverty is a human rights triumph.

Especially when one considers the cost.

Nuh-Uh, Al...

...You don't sit until the election is over

With the recount between Al Franken and Norm Coleman for Minnesota's remaining senate seat set to exceed Coleman's term, the Democrats have some funny ideas.

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota's other Senator -- and, naturally, a Democrat -- seems to think that whomever is ahead in the recount when Coleman's term expires should be seated in the Senate on a probationary basis while the recount is completed and while any further litigation works its way through the courts.

However, that won't happen if John Cornyn, a Republican senator from Texas, as anything to say about it.

"I can assure you that there will be no way people on our side of the aisle will agree to seat any senator provisionally or otherwise unless there is a valid election certificate and all legal issues about who got the most votes is finally decided," Cornyn insisted.

Cornyn is absolutely right to do this.

Not only would seating Franken before an official election result is determined be extremely undemocratic, but there would be little point to it.

Without an official election decision, Franken could not expect to be allowed to vote, or even speak. If anything, Franken would be reduced to sitting among his fellow Democrats and trying to look pretty.

The Democrats couldn't even expect to enjoy their filibuster-proof senate -- something clearly on Klobucher's mind when she suggests that Franken be allowed to sit provisionally.

In essence, there's a very basic principle at stake: in the United States, you win an election then you get to sit in the Senate. Unless you happen to have bought your seat from Rod Blagojevich.

The Faustian Naivete of the Coalition

The problem with deals with the devil is that they don't keep their end of the bargain

Ever since the Liberals and the NDP made their coalition deal with the Bloc Quebecois -- a deal many supporters of the coalition continue to mislead Canadians about -- many Canadians have wondered precisely what the Bloc demanded in return for the deal.

On Thursday Marlene Jennings, the Liberal MP for Notre Dame-de Gracie-Lachine revealed what just one of those demands were.

The Bloc, it seems, demanded that all federally-regulated companies operating in Quebec be subject to Bill 101. Jennings reports that she flat-out denied that.

“I said no. Never. Not while I have a breath in my body,” Jennings insisted.

Jennings' refusal allegedly cost the Liberals six months of Bloc support -- reducing it from a full two years to 18 months.

“I was able to [say no] because I knew that for people in my riding, and English-speaking communities, and the Jewish community, and other communities, Bill 101 is anathema… for a variety of reasons,” Jennings continued.

Jennings also crowed about her purported accomplishment of convincing the Bloc to take sovereignty off the agenda for the 18-month term of the coalition agreement.

“I’m quite proud of it,” Jennings addeded, “because it’s the first time in the 18 years [since] the Bloc was first founded, that the Bloc, in writing, took sovereignty off its agenda, if the agreement was put into action. No other party, no other government has been able to do that."

Of course, Jennings seems to believe that this is the perfect answer to the concerns many Canadians have over how much the Liberals are prepared to sacrifice to keep their coalition intact.

But Jennings forgets that there's a difference between the demands the Bloc would make during the negotiation of a coalition agreement -- a coalition that, no matter how much Jennings lies, the Bloc very much is party to -- and the demands that the Bloc would make when the noose is already around the Liberal party's neck.

In the course of the negotiations, before they had any real leverage, it was merely Bill 101. Give the Bloc Quebecois some real leverage and it very well could be the clarity act.

Beyond that, one has to imagine there's a difference in the concessions the Liberals would have been willing to make during the negotiations and the concessions they'd be willing to make once their precious coalition is a reality.

During the negotiations Jennings was willing to draw the line short of Bill 101. But no one can say for certain how far Jennings, Stephane Dion and the Liberal party would have been willing to go in order to preserve a government.

The naivete of expecting a written coalition accord -- an agreement that Canada's democratic institutions have no power to actually enforce -- to bar the Bloc from breaking their word and making further demands is beyond Faustian.

After all, no one should expect a party that so blatantly and intentionally decieved their own people during the 1995 sovereingty referendum -- and did this so effectively that many oui-voting Quebeckers believed they would continue to elect members to Canada's Parliament under the guise of "sovereignty association" -- simply cannot be trusted to keep their word to the rest of the country.

Even beyond this Faustian naivete, there is one other matter that Canadians need to be very concerned about: the concessions the Liberals have already agreed to make.

The naivete is one thing. The secrecy is quite another.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Johnny Bee - Johnny B ... Says Spill All the Beans, Marlene

Adam Daifallah - "Jennings Speaks Out"

Full Metal Shock Doctrine

For the sadly unitiated, Full Metal Panic is an anime series about Sagara Sousuke, a 17-year-old mercenary serving in an organization called Mithril.

Born in Afghanistan and rescued from a civil war there, Sousuke operates an AS unit -- basically a common mech as imagined in various anime series, but perhaps most notably in the Mech Warrior series of video games.

In the opening episode of the third season of the show, Sousuke and his unit are sent to intervene in an ethnic conflict in the Republic of Balic, an ambiguously Eastern European country in which militia led by Colonel Maress are slaughtering civilians.



When Kurtz Weber -- another teenaged mercenary, a sniper -- wonders aloud about the purpose of the conflict, Melissa Mao, the commanding officer of the unit, offers an explanation that is rather reminiscent of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

"They probably use actions that violate international peace treaties to give major countries suitable provocation and then look at the results to decide who to approach for backroom deals regarding the rights to their mineral resources or whatever," Mao explains, before admitting, "our involvement here is part of that, too."



In other words, Mao is suggesting that the beligerents in many civil and ethnic conflicts engineer the conflict in order to provoke an international outcry. While the media and general public focus on the atrocities being committed, the country in question quietly sells its natural resources to the highest bidder -- regardless of whether or not such countries may or may not be under a trade embargo of some sort.

Quite often, such arrangements could be augmented -- or obfuscated -- by foreign aid arrangements.



An interesting case is that of Myanmar -- also known as Burma -- where the government refused foreign aid after a cyclone devestated a local "undesirable" population.

Eventually, the government of Myanmar allowed foreign aid from members of the Association of South East Asian Nations. Less than one year prior, however, a proposed free trade agreement between Australia, New Zealand and ASEAN provoked international outcry because of Myanmar's poor human rights record.

Despite such outrage -- which only became worse as it became evident that the governmeny of Myanmar was allowing victims of the cyclone to die of starvation and disease following the cyclone -- the ASEAN-New Zealand-Australia free trade agreement was signed on August 28, 2008.

With their eyes glued to the situation in Myanmar, many international observers failed to notice until it was too late.

While Naomi Klein clearly intended her shock doctrine to only be applied to market capitalist regimes, it's clear that the doctrine has fascinating implications anywhere a catastrophe is exploited to further an economic agenda.

Scenarios such as that portrayed in Full Metal Panic may turn out to be far more plausible than one may prefer to imagine.

The Smart Money Is On Not Making Predictions

Lawrence Martin predicts Harper will hang up his hat

In a column published in yesterday's Globe and Mail, Lawrence Martin is predicting that Stephen Harper will call it a political career in 2009.

Martin lists seven essential reasons why he believes that Harper will do this:

1. By resigning as leader, Harper would be one of few Conservative leaders -- among the few, Robert Stanfield and (naturally) John A MacDonald -- to leave the Conservative party in good condition, cementing his legacy within the party

2. With Barack Obama being elected in the United States, the global mood seems to be shifting away from conservative governance.

3. Stephen Harper lacks a final big goal to pursue. Having "tightened the screws" on government (in Tom Flanaghan's words), Harper has nothing concrete left that he needs to accomplish.

4. The spectres of Brian Mulroney, Bob Rae and RB Bennett may be reminding Harper that governing during a recession is not nearly as much fun as governing during times of prosperity.

5. Michael Ignatieff is not the "punching bag" that Paul Martin and Stephane Dion were. With the Liberals out of office, the chances of a scandal helping the Conservatives win an election are extremely remote.

6. Harper has enjoyed his share of good fortune, and ought not to expect much more.

7. Chances of Harper winning a majority government are remote.

Certainly, some of these reasons -- particularly, numbers one and four -- are in play. But Martin would be mis-reading both the current political situation and Canada's political history in order to pretend that any of the others are sufficient reason for Harper to choose to leave office.

First off, one has to remember that while Obama has certainly promoted himself as a liberal leader, he's come under significant criticism -- including scathing denunciations from Naomi Klein -- for not being liberal enough for the liking of many of those on the left wing.

While Obama certainly seems left-wing compared to George W Bush -- and honestly, who doesn't? -- being liberal in comparison does not a drastically left-wing administration make. One has to recall that Obama was elected at least partly because he was palatable to conservative Democrats.

Secondly, Harper has plenty of goals left to pursue. While his recent appointment of 18 Senators show that Harper is (unfortunately) willing to compromise on his principles in the short-term, Senate reform certainly hasn't come off the agenda.

If anything, Harper's appointments should give the opposition reason to bet behind an elected Senate. The best way to stop a future Conservative (or Liberal) government from stacking the Senate is to require that Senators be elected.

Third, the election of Stephane Dion was expected to intellectually intimidate Stephen Harper -- intimidation that many expected to effect Harper's performance. Instead, Stephane Dion performed well below expectations, and Harper strengthened his minority government.

Michael Ignatieff has many strengths that Dion doesn't have. But Ignatieff also has weaknesses that Dion didn't have. Ignatieff wasn't chosen leader by the members of his party, he became Liberal leader by default. Furthermore, Ignatieff's prior stance on the Iraq war will prove to be a soft spot that the NDP, who are always eager to improve their seat totals at the Liberals' expense -- won't shy away from exploiting.

Fourth, to try to predict who will or will not enjoy good fortune is actually rather insipid.

Last -- and certainly not least -- Martin forgets that winning a majority government is not necessary in order to be recognized as a great leader. Lester Pearson tried for his entire tenure as Liberal leader to win a majority government, and never accomplished that task.

Yet Pearson continues to be recognized as one of the best Prime Ministers Canada has ever had. While it certainly must have been helpful to have an amicable relationship with then-NDP leader Tommy Douglas, Pearson showed that it was possible to accomplish great tasks with a minority government.

Unfortunately, Harper doesn't enjoy the same luxury. Instead, Harper faces opposition leaders who have constructed the political discourse in this country on grounds so stringently ideological that they literally cannot politically afford to be seen cooperating with him, on on issues -- such as tackling violent crime -- that Canadians overwhelmingly support.

Instead, Harper has taken advantage of the opposition's distinct fear of an election in order to incrementally accomplish his fiscal goals.

But Harper isn't done yet. Anyone who honestly believes that Harper will leave without having accomplished as much as he can sorely underestimates the Prime Minister's determination.

Not that Harper couldn't decide to leave office -- he mostly certainly could.

But there's a difference between recognizing that Harper may choose to leave office and flat-out predicting that he will.

Lawrnce Martin says the "smart money says Harper exits this year". But if Canada's recent political history has shown anything, it's that the smart money is on not making predictions at all.

George Strait - The Cowboy Rides Away.
Uploaded by taduckly_

It's Time to Demand Economic Democracy

In the previous two segments of The Commanding Heights, the shortcomings of the two dominant economic orthodoxies of our time -- market economics and Keynesianism -- were explored at length.

In the third installment, "The New Rules of the Game", The Commanading Heights explores the current nature of the global economy, and examines its underlying conflicts.



Some of the points in the film seem facetious knowing what one knows now. For example, Robert Rubin, the co-chairman of Goldman Sachs during the 1992 Presidential election, talks about a meeting with then-Presidential candidate Bill Clinton, wherein he and several other corporate executives impressed upon him the need for renewed fiscal discipline in the United States.

Yet Rubin, as the current director of Citigroup Incorporated, collected more than $17 million in salary and bonuses from that company over the last year.

Especially at a time of economic crisis, that in itself is an awfully curious definition of "fiscal discipline".

While Clinton himself would prove to be a rather undisciplined individual, Clinton did manage to impress some fiscal discipline on the United States. With a then-debt of $4 trillion, it was badly needed.

But what Clinton -- what political leaders in general, in most of the countries in the world -- have failed to do is impress upon multinational corporations the need for fiscal discipline within their own organizations.

Corporate executives paying themselves multi-million dollar compensation packages while those funds could be used preparing for -- or preventing -- economic disasters is comparatively unconscionable.

However, there are answers to many of the the serious problems with the global economy. The most important of them is a democratization of the global economy.

In Jihad vs McWorld, Benjamin Barber writes about two global forces emerging as a result of globalization: "McWorld", representing market-driven consumerism and its accompanying cultural nihilism, and "Jihad", representing reactionary identity politics and its accompanying moral nihilism.

The corporations that control the lion's share of the global economy conduct their business in a disctinctly undemocratic manner. Their decisions are typically made by a very small group of people who certainly do not adequately represent the various stakeholders in their companies.

"Jihad", on the other hand, is democratic -- but only to a certain extent. The forces of "Jihad" are organized around communitarian principles. While each individual "jihadist" movement represents a broad group of people, there is little room for individual freedom within those particular groups. They demand significant personal concessions and unconditional personal loyalties as a condition of group membership.

There is often significant overlap between the forces of "Jihad" and "McWorld". Each often organize themselves and operate according to very similar principles.

But on their own, neither "Jihad" nor "McWorld" offer a tenable alternative to the other, just as the economic history of the past forty years has shown that neither market economics nor Keynesianism are truly tenable alternatives to each other.

What is needed is a "third way". In order for that third way to be created, people need to be able to exert democratic influence on both the corporations that account for so much of the global economy and the various regulatory agencies that operate them.

At least at national scale, the latter is relatively simple. Democratic countries allow for periodic referendums on the policies of these agencies -- at least so much that citizens can throw out the politicians we choose to operate them.

At the international level the matter is much more complex. Organizations such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization function in distinctly undemocratic manners. Furthermore, there is actually only one method that can reform such institutions: it requires significant international cooperation.

Such organizations can be brought to heel, as was done in 1999 at the famed Battle of Seattle. While the organizers of trade summits have made use of methods to manage political protest and insulate themselves from it -- often banishing political protest from within miles of the meetings themselves -- civil society organizations have increasingly found themselves a seat at the table.

In a process political scientist Nicanor Perlas defines as "threefolding", government, business and civil society can more firmly establish their particular realms of interest. Each can be empowered to defend their particular areas of interest, and cooperate with others when areas of interest overlap.

At first, Perlas notes, such interaction has to be forced. In Seattle, protesters did so by creating an unprecedented ruckus and making themselves unignorable. Other individuals, such as Ralph Nader, have done so using courts of law.

In time, the expectation is that such processes will occur increasingly naturally, and on an increasingly formal basis.

Still, it cannot happen overnight. The prominence that global civil society won at the Battle of Seattle has been at constant risk of evaporation -- let alone decline -- ever since. It requires time and diligence on behalf of those who have concerns about how the global economy is developing. In democratic countries, they have the right to voice such concerns, no matter how hard the task of being heard is becoming.

Democratizing the operations of multinational corporations seems like a daunting task as well. Fortunately, there remains an important back door into the board rooms of the corporate world.

As the film notes, millions of people around the world invest in the market through RRSPs and mutual funds. As such, there are millions of people who, according to Steven Davis, Jon Lukomnik, David Pitt-Watson, control one of the largest pools of mobile capital in the world.

After the repeated stock market crashes of the past months, there is little question that this pool of capital isn't worth nearly as much as it so recently did.

But the economy's reliance on these pools of capital -- and once the economy recovers, it will be as reliant on this capital as it ever was -- makes those who control it very powerful indeed.

If those investing in various pension funds were to start democratically exercising their power, the corporate world would have no choice but to listen. This requires that the "citizen investors" that Davis, Lukomnik and Pitt-Watson learn to use this power.

Just as Ralph Nader took up numerous lawsuits in the name of consumer advocacy, the current economic crisis has shown that it's just as important that dedicated individuals take up the mantle of investor advocacy. Just as our economic elites are concerning themselves with consumer confidence, they must certainly concern themselves with investor confidence as well.

Naturally, the power held by citizen investors will favour those comparative few who enjoy the wealth to invest in the first place.

For those not blessed with such wealth, civil society -- activists, advocacy groups, and labour unions (among others) -- will be an important outlet to democratically exert their influence on the economy. Perlas' three-folding model must be applied as it has never been applied before.

For those imagining, however, that they will cordon off their individual countries or communities, there is little ahead but disappointment.

Telecommunications technology, the media, and trade have rendered globalization a foregone conclusion. It's becoming increasingly difficult to pretend that globalization -- and its accompanying free trade policies -- has forever been inevitable.

The answer now is not to turn back the clock to a time past, and old economic realities that are now unattainable. The answer is to look ahead, and democratize the global economy.

And the time to do it is now, before the world's alternating bands of revolutionaries concoct the next global crisis.