The Liberal Party's New Electoral Strategy: Obama!

Grits want Ignatieff to be Obama's newest best friend

Now that George W Bush has been out of office for three months, the Liberal party has realized they need a better electoral strategy against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative party than "Bush's best friend".

So the Grits have dreamed up an alternative: "Michael Ignatieff is Barack Obama's best friend".

On Wednesday Ignatieff will have a dinner meeting with Richard Holbrooke, Obama's Afghanistan policy advisor.

Liberal party insiders have reportedly been scrambling to spread the good word on the meeting, and portray it as demonstration that Obama would prefer Ignatieff as Prime Minister.

"Michael Ignatieff is not even prime minister and already the Obama team is reaching out to him for his expertise and because they believe he will be Canada's next prime minister," said an unidentified Liberal.

"This shows how highly regarded Michael Ignatieff is to leading figures in the Obama administration," says another unidentified Liberal.

This tactic is likely meant to remind Canadians of the role John F Kennedy played in the political rivalry between John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson. Kennedy actively sought ways to help Pearson defeat Diefenbaker, whom Kennedy didn't particularly care for -- and the feeling was mutual.

During the 1960s, it was Kennedy who sought to interfere with Canadian politics. This time it's the Liberals who are attempting to drag an American President into Canadian politics, and make it appear as if he's taking partisan sides while he's doing it. It's a common act of Liberal cross-border partisan parochialism, one with particularly hypocritical undertones.

If the Conservative party were making themselves this cozy with an American President, the Liberals would howl bloody murder over it. In fact, they have before.

Even more comical are Liberal claims that Canada has allowed itself to be neglected in the formation of policy on Afghanistan.

"Canada's voice has been muted. We should not simply be a repeat of the US," said another Liberal insider. "We have paid the largest price in the percentage of soldiers killed and we are significant aid donor. We should make sure we have a say in the war against terrorism and the mounting challenge in Pakistan."

Of course this ignores the fact that Canada has been very active in settling multilateral -- not merely bilateral -- policy on Afghanistan, especially through NATO.

This all points to an evident lack of imagination in the Liberal party's strategy. At the earliest opportunity, they'll envoke Obama and one can expect that they'll do it as often as they can.

Quelle Fuckin' Suprise!

Could this have anything to do with this?

Some times, the conclusion of a big election can put a few things in perspective.

For example, Michael Byers seems to have had a change of heart regarding the United States. Byers, who typically doesn't like Americans very much, suddenly seems to think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should re-connect with the United States.

A week ago today, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix reported on an address Byers delivered at the Canada Trade Summit in Saskatoon.

"On a formal level, Mr Obama needs to receive an invitation to Ottawa ASAP, and also an expressed willingness on the part of Mr. Harper to travel to Washington, again on a formal level, as soon as possible," Byers remarked. "I would want to see Canadian diplomats reaching out to members of Mr Obama's team within a few weeks of the election result."

Naturally, that wouldn't have happened if John McCain had won the election. But now that Obama has officially emerged victorious, one can only hope, like Byers, that it would happen soon.

But one would have to wonder what Byers would be suggesting if George W Bush were winning a third term.

...Oh, yeah. Byers doesn't like Bush very much.

One can only wonder if Byers would be so eager to see a renewal of relations between the United States and Canada if John McCain had somehow won this election.

Byers' known antipathy to the United States doesn't, however, change the fact that he's correct -- if only incidentally. Barack Obama's Presidency is a crucial opportunity to redefine relations between the United States and Canada.

It seems that the federal government seems to have recognized this as well. And not merely the bureaucracy, either: it seems the Conservative party is eager to get down to work with Obama.

"Most [of us] are leaning towards Obama," one unidentified Conservative staffer told CTV. "But still the general overall thought, I think for us, is that either [one] is better than George W."

"I'm a solid Republican myself," admitted the staffer. "But there really is this Conservatives-for-Obama thing going on."

It seems that the Conservatives are actually optimistic that a bilateral accord on greenhouse gas emissions can be reached between Harper and Obama -- neither are proponents of the Kyoto protocol.

Beyond this, however, the Conservatives stand to reap a distinctly superficial benefit from Obama's victory.

"We can't play the Bush card on them anymore," admitted what CTV describes as a "prominent Liberal".

But Michael Byers clearly underestimates the importance of the relationship between the United States and Canada if he honestly believes he can reduce the entire relationship to shallow cross-border partisan parochialism.

It's unsurprising that Byers is eager to re-connect with the United States following Obama's election. What is surprising is that the Conservative party seems especially eager to do it, too.

Jack Layton: Agent of American Imperialism

Layton getting awfully cozy with oft-despised Americans

To adopt the old parlance from sports to politics, "everyone wants to be like Barack".

It doesn't have quite the same snap as "everyone wants to be like Mike", but when assessing the state of left-wing politics in at least North America today, it holds true.

Just like anyone who ever even touched a basketball wanted to emulate the then-best-known athlete in the world, anyone who's ever embraced progressive politics wants desperately to emulate the man who is currently the best-known politician in the world today.

Certainly, Jack Layton wants to be like Barack. One need look no further than the theme of the 2008 NDP campaign: change.

It certainly doesn't hurt that Jack Layton attended the 2008 Democratic National Convention, either. For a party all too often content to accuse their opponents of importing American policies and American values, it seems that Jack Layton is utterly unafraid to get good and cozy with the "empire" to the south -- particularly with a Presidential candidate whose rightward shift promises little global reprieve from the "imperialist" policies the NDP so often denounces as abhorrent.

Of course, this particular paradox is nothing new for the NDP. Consider commentary offered by journalist Ian King about NDP House leader Libby Davies.

The episode in question involves Davies taking CBC veteran reporter Terry Milewski to Seattle to attend some anti-war protests there. Afterward, Davies brought anti-war protester Ann Wright back across the border.

As King notes, "There is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of the American “anti-war” movement, with all its attached hangups over Vietnam and line-by-line reuse of symbols and slogans from the time."

Add that to the fact that the anti-war movement in the United States -- preoccupied first and foremost with the Iraq conflict -- are ill-suited to address the state of affairs in Canada in regards to the Afghanistan conflict, which has been sanctioned by the United Nations, putting the lie to insistence that the war is "illegal", as opposed to the Iraq war which enjoys no such sanction and so arguably is illegal.

Not to mention that the Vietnam-era rhetoric being employed by Iraqi war resisters in Canada is also ill-suited to their obligation to participate in a war they volunteered to fight in (for good or ill).

Likewise, there is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of Obama-esque rhetoric into Canada, no matter how much the NDP wants to, or the Liberal party wishes they could.

Certainly, there's nothing un-Canadian about looking to political movements in other countries for inspiration, but therein lies the rub.

If it isn't un-Canadian for Jack Layton and the New Democrats (as Layton emphasizes it) to look south of the border for inspiration, then it isn't un-Canadian for the Conservative party to do likewise.

While the current state of affairs in the United States should serve as a cautionary tale to the Conservative party to remain very careful about which inspirations to act on and which to reject, for the NDP or their partisans to accuse the Conservatives of being un-Canadian for doing so isn't only engaging in some inherently silly rhetoric, it's also being incredibly dishonest.

Of course Jack Layton isn't really an agent of American Imperialism. To insist so is just plain silly. But, like stupid, silly is as silly does.

If Jack Layton wants to continue indulging himself in silly rhetoric that panders to cross-border partisan parochialism, he may want to remember this:

He could always reap that particular whirlwind.

Who's Really "On Your Side"?

Since its release last week, a lot has been made about the most recent Conservative party advertisements.

First off, with Stephen Harper rushing to trample his own fixed election date legislation, they are clearly pre-election campaigning. There is no question about that.

But the theme of the ad bears some obvious consideration.

In the ad, numerous "main street Canadians" lavish praise on Stephen Harper and his government. This enthusiasm-themed ad -- a stark contrast to the various negative ads the party has released over the past 18 months -- features various people in rather ordinary settings -- a blue-collar worker at his shop, a man leaned against his pickup truck in what appears to be his driveway, a woman at the park with her kids.

But for an ad that goes to such lengths to appear to portray ordinary Canadians in ordinary settings, there's something very off-putting about the obviously-scripted nature of their comments.

Certainly, this is an election spot. And while one certainly expects this sort of thing from election advertising, they at least expect the producers of the ad to at least try to be a little less obvious about it.

Aside from that, there has always been something unsettling about politicians who insist they're "on your side".

For some Canadians, it may seem comfortable to know there's someone "on your side" -- or at least insisting they're on your side. But it begs an inevitable question:

If this particular candidate, this particular party, is "on my side", who isn't?

Has partisanship really become so deeply engrained in our politics that we're literally choosing sides?

Sadly, when followed through to its logical conclusion, the taking sides mentality goes far, far beyond political partisanship. After all, anyone who isn't hopelessly naive understands that there are some people who simply will not agree with them on any number of topics, if not at deep, fundamental levels.

Theoretically, we choose our political affiliations based on who best empathizes with our particular concerns and beliefs. Of course some people do choose their political affiliations based on a much more fickle basis, as evidenced by those who vote for a particular party because it's "cooler" to do so, or refuse to vote for a particular party because they "won't win". But for the most part, we expect individuals to support particular political movements because they believe in them.

Ergo those who hold different beliefs, concerns and priorities than ourselves will inevitably choose political movements that differ with our embody beliefs, concerns and priorities. But our movement -- be it a party, protest organization, or community foundation -- is "on our side". And the others, well, aren't.

In the minds of those most prone to such thinking, those who aren't with us are against us. And that's where half the problem lies.

This "on your side" mentality only breeds parochialism into our politics and, ultimately, into our communities.

In Strong Democracy Benjamin Barber reminds us that proper democracy is a cooperative effort -- something that citizens work together on, not fight against one another over. Unfortunately, there are some individuals who will never understand this, even those for whom the beliefs they claim to hold suggest they should.

The "with us or against us"-"on our side/not on our side" mentality only divides citizens who should otherwise be working together in an effort to build a better country for all Canadians, not merely the country preferred by those who are "on our side".

Perhaps some day our politicians will come to understand this. But in order for this to happen, voters have to stop rewarding politicians for sewing the seeds of partisan parochialism in our country and in our very communities.

A good citizen is on everyone's "side". A healthy democracy depends on it.

Barack Obama: Progressive Messiah or Johnny-on-the-spot Benefactor?

Naomi Klein: does Obama have progressive street cred?

Coming once again via The Real News Network, Naomi Klein asks an important question about Barack Obama:

Is he the best benefactor for the collective energies of the American progressive movement? Or is he merely being embraced as the last, best hope of an alternative to ongoing Republican rule?

According to Klein, the gatekeepers of the "progressive infrastructure" in the United States have "suspended their critical thinking skills" in order to prevent John McCain from coming to power. In Klein's mind, the progressive movement is risking its honesty and integrity in singlemindedly becoming cogs in the "Obama machine".

"War mode" thinking has arguably led progressives -- not just in the United States, but in fact worldwide -- to embrace Obama as an anti-Bush figure.

Many of the organizations backing Obama -- such as MoveOn -- have campaigned for Obama relentlessly despite the fact that his policies don't necessarily match their expressed interests.

Unfortunately, this isn't such a big trick for many so-called progressives. Despite the fact that the actual behaviour of such regimes entirely contradicts their expressed beliefs, many so-called progressives will rush to the defense of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin and the Taliban.

They'll conveniently overlook the fact that in Ahmadinejad's Iran homosexuals are brutally whipped (even as he denies the very existence of Iranian homosexuals on the world stage), in Putin's Russia opposition parties are ruthlessly squeezed out of politics, and women were brutally oppressed in Afghanistan.

The effect is even more profound when they rush to defend individuals who belong to their own movement. Consider the slavish defenses of individuals like Canadian Cynic -- individuals who, through their own behaviour prove themselves antithetical to what the progressive movement is actually supposed to stand for.

The rationale for this is actually quite simple -- and fickle -- indeed:

Anybody who conservatives dislike must automatically be good.

Many of these so-called progressives will immediately ignore the fact that progressives and conservatives often have many interests in common -- so much so that many people embrace socially progressive views while espousing fiscally conservative beliefs.

There are many things that, in fact, conservatives and progressives believe in common: beliefs such as the importance of human rights.

Yet as soon as a conservative politician condemns human rights abuses in Iran, many progressives feel obligated to rush to object. Iran isn't so bad, they insist, the brutal beatings, by Iranian police, of women lobbying in favour of women's rights to the contrary.

If conservatives say that Iran is bad, then Iran must somehow be good.

According to Naomi Klein, the same logic seems to apply to the Barack Obama candidacy: if Obama is running against John McCain, then Barack Obama must automatically be good -- regardless of whether or not he actually embodies the beliefs the progressive movement espouses.

There is no question Barack Obama will be a far more liberal President than John McCain.

But Naomi Klein just may be right: progressive voters may want to be very careful when deciding whether to cast their vote for Barack Obama or Ralph Nader. A vote for Obama may bring them less than they bargained for.

Waving Goodbye to a Golden Opportunity

Cross-border partisanship hampering our relations with our biggest trading partner, defense ally

It's entirely possible that when John McCain visited Ottawa this past Friday, it may have been merely a preliminary visit to his first visit as President of the United States of America.

So when McCain came north of the 49th parallel to address free trade, one would have thought it would be an excellent opportunity for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to, at the very least, meet with a presidential candidate to discuss matters important to Canada.

But apparently not, as Harper and other members of the sitting Conservative government seem to have deliberately made themselves unavailable.

Of course, there are other matters at stake other than simply an opportunity to touch base with a possible president. Opponents of McCain -- who so often tend to be opponents of Harper's as well -- have been bending over backwards to portray McCain as "George Bush the third". For Harper, whom these individuals do everything they can to associate with George W Bush as closely as possible, meeting with McCain -- who is recieving the very same treatment -- could be handing them too much ammunition for his liking.

Which would be fair enough, if reminding a potential American president of the importance of the Canada/US relationship and discussing relevant policy wasn't as important as it is.

Even a desire not to appear as if Harper were getting too involved in cross-border partisan politics could have been mitigated by extending an invitation to Democratic nominee Barack Obama to come meet with Harper as well, and to discuss the very same crucial issues -- ranging from free trade to defense policy to border security.

This represents yet another golden opportunity that Harper and company have effecitvely discarded through simple lack of foresight: an opportunity to start building some bridges between Canadian Conservatives and American Democrats, and start to break down the walls of petty cross-border partisanship.

If Liberals are allowed to flaunt their close ties with Democrats --- as they certainly did when Howard Dean addressed their leadership convention -- then certainly they cannot fault Harper for deciding to form a few of his own.

It's more than a little unfortunate even as the Conservatives have waved good-bye to this golden opportunity that the Liberals, currently Canada's alternative government -- seem all too determined to do likewise. According to the National Post, a Liberal party aide dismissed the McCain speech as a "a neo-con jamboree," suggesting that there are clearly some ideological limits on how a Liberal party government would choose to associate with a prospective President McCain.

It's rather unfortunate how deeply this cross-border partisanship has crept into our politics: so much so that our government seems terrified to be so much as seen with the individual who may well become President of our biggest trading partner and most important defense ally come November, and that our opposition parties scoff at the very idea.

Sad indeed.

This Just In: Garth Turner Still Doesn't Get It

Turner continues his obsessive feud with Preston Manning's ghost

When Garth Turner was expelled from the governing Conservative caucus just over a year ago, he feigned confusion over the matter -- even outrage.

At the end of the day, however, all too many Canadians knew precisely why he had been kicked out of caucus: that he engineered his own expulsion both by disregarding caucus rules and by helping foster a state of continuing conflict between himself as his ex-Reform party/Canadian Alliance colleagues.

At stake in the latter was his known disdain for what he had labeled HAH (Hats-and-Horses) Conservatives.

Now, unable to swallow his pride and his intellectual vanity, he sits on the other side of the aisle, banished to opposition benches with little hope of ever returning to government. In all likelihood, he will serve out the remainder of his career as an opposition blowhard.

One would think that perhaps Turner would, at some point, reevaluate where that vanity has led him.

But don't count on it. In a recent post at his blog Turner has proven himself all too eager to continue his Ahab-esque battle with the Great White political whale that has already taken his hand:

"Some suggest disgruntled Libs voted Green in this week’s by-elections to protest their own party. Be more aggressive, they urge. Kick Conservative ass.

Others decry a brief comment made here two days ago, chiding many people for simply staying home. Bad voters, I said, use it or lose it. The response: there’s nobody worth voting for.

In my mailbag, this letter from a voter, Ian, in Eastern Ontario. Not atypical of a few I’m getting:

"Dear Garth:

I recently became a new member of the Liberal Party. Sometimes I wonder why. Watching their performance in The House leaves a lot to be desired – skipping votes. I have been voting for the Liberal Party for nearly 60 years. My wife and I are among the many who lost in the Trust Unit fiasco. So much for Harper promises.

The main reason for this e-mail is The Finance Minister travelling about the Country advising Ontario is not the place to invest due to high taxes in the corporate field. Harper is now singing from the same song sheet. Moreover, Harper is merely a mouthpiece for Tom Flanagan. Small govenment, lower taxes, limited Govenment surplus, is the Flanagan manifesto. The Conservative (Reform-Alliance) Party objective to divide the Country. Much of the population cannot see this and do not care.

I do not know Stephane Dion. The information, I gather, is that he is a clever academic. I do, however, fear for his ability to lead the Party to a majority/minority Government. The Liberal Party has to get a more forceful message regarding exactly what is happening with our present governing power. I do appreciate in general the media coverage are not helpful towards Mr. Dion. Coverage from CTV (Conservative Television) including Duffy, Fife, Oliver et al.

Question Period in the House is disgraceful. The Speaker appears to have no control. The failure to answer questions, lying and insults are disgusting.

Again, I fear Mr. Dion’s ability to lead to a Liberal success are about as hopeful as the “South will rise again”!!!!!!"

Dear Ian. I’m glad you wrote. I’m glad you joined the party. Now you have a voice in changing it. As you decide how, let me give you a couple of thoughts from a guy who is also a new member – just over a year now.

The Liberals formed government for thirteen years and did much good, mostly (to my mind) turning a $40 billion deficit into a $14 billion surplus, taking inflation and interest rates to new lows and paving the way for an economic boom. Even as a PC during that time, I applauded the results.

Politically, well, another story. Face it – getting Libs into power was not rocket science while the PCs disintegrated, thanks to the efforts of the wingnuts in the Reform Party, which was basically unelectable. Given that, Liberals stopped being hungry, stopped being aggressive, stopped being insanely partisan, and concentrated on governing."

Sadly, this is a fairly predictable response among many disgruntled former Progressive Conservatives. Much like Liberals can't take responsibility for their own defeats, instead blaming the NDP essentially for existing, Turner, Joe Clark and his merry band of embittered demagogues blame the Reform party for their 1993 defeat -- more or less because they existed.

But it's funny how, even 15 years after that ignominious defeat, Turner can't accept responsibility for the fact that the Progressive Conservatives, through their utterly unapologetic attempts to placate Quebec at the expense of the rest of the country, in many ways made it utterly impossible for conservative-minded Canadians in many parts of the country to continue to support them.

Somehow, in Garth Turner's mind, the plebes in Western Canada were wrong to seek out and support political candidates who shared their vision of what Canada's future should be. Instead, they should have swallowed their principles and continued to vote for a party that no longer embodied them.

"Meanwhile, Conservatives (which is what those Reformers are now called), evolved in an opposite direction. Unburdened with power, they spent every moment plotting how to get it. They organized the shorts off their membership. They learned how to communicate effectively. They got very good at spin, attack, derision, debate, character assassination, smear, media relations, innuendo, tactics, tour and messaging. They set up a killer data system. They hired a mess of political field operatives. They honed a platform. They learned retail politics. They probed the many weaknesses of the guys in office. They hired tough nuts like Doug Finley and Ian Brodie to run the back shop. They lived and ate and drank and slept and breathed and peed politics. And they won."

"Spin, attack, derision, debate, character assassination, smear, media relations, innendo, tactics, tour and messaging."

Sounds an awful lot like the lot that Turner has thrown in with.

It's ironic that Turner would complain that the Conservative party -- or in his words, Reform party 3.0 -- has become adept at character assassination considering that the party to which he currently belongs actually mastered the act.

For proof of this, one really need look no further than the mass character assassination carried out against Preston Manning and the Reform party. Repeated insinuations of racism against the party -- often carried out through proxies and in open defiance of the fact that Manning acted decisively to rid the party of racists -- made the Reform party unelectable in many parts of the country.

Which was precisely how Garth Turner liked it at the time, and he's almost certainly longing for those good ol' days.

"Today Stephen Harper is therefore not only prime minister, but in charge of a bare-knuckle brigade of streetfighters who still dream nightly of standing over the torn-asunder carcasses of Liberals, holding aloft their still-beating hearts. Or close. You get my drift, Ian?

Thus, you might imagine the work I’ve been doing for the last few months as a special advisor to Stephane Dion. Feeding him raw steak. Hormone injections. Weights. Anger training. New glasses with hidden electrodes. Bought him a Harley. The works. When the House resumes March 31st, I’ll have the guy so hepped up he’ll rip out his desk during QP and crush Stephen Harper with it like a western pine beetle. Let the Speaker look irritated and call, “Order, order!” Bug juice on the mace. Bug bits everywhere.

Oops. Sorry Ian, forgive me. I had a CPC moment there."

The poor attempts at humour aside, Turner then indulges himself in a moment of comfortable delusions:

"Truth be told, Libs suck at political viciousness. Many of my colleagues are content to wait until the great pendulum of common sense swings back into their column, at which time they will continue to govern. They feel Mr. Harper and his knuckle-draggers will expose themselves for all the world to see. In due course, they reason, natural justice will prevail."

There you go again, Garth -- making friends with your former colleagues.

All joking aside, does Turner really not consider this ad, in which the Liberal party suggested that Stephen Harper is a jack-booted fascist in the making, politically vicious?

But don't ask Turner about that one. Turner's only concerned with Conservative attack ads.

"Those who actually know Stephane Dion never stop being impressed. They see a guy driven not by a naked quest for power, but by ideas and principles and the passion to pursue them. Even when sand is being kicked in his face. Even when not a day passes when the prime minister and the entire Government of Canada is obsessed with destroying him. Even when people who have never shaken his hand, and never will, pronounce him from their armchairs, brandishing remotes, as gutless.

Dion is anything but. It amazes me a guy of his background, morality and intellect would put up with this crap. After all, he could still be in the world of academia, applauded daily by his students, courted by premiers and prime ministers for his advice, adding to our collective wisdom and having a nice life with Janine and Kyoto.

So, we’re all better off that he perseveres. He stands for environmental rescue, social justice, economic sanity and the big ideas the rest of us miss. Mostly, he represents hope.

Not hope that he’ll be as mindlessly partisan, brutally aggressive or unashamedly ambitious as Mr. Harper, but rather, Ian, that he will never."

Indeed, Turner's obsessive attempts to settle the score with his alleged Reform party protagonists has led him into a realm of sheer fantasy.

Stephane Dion stands for environmental rescue: not when he had the opportunity.

Stephane Dion stands for social justice: when he trots out a 40-year-old unkept Liberal campaign promise.

Stephane Dion stands for economic sanity: when he suggests we should handcuff our economy with a carbon tax that will do little to curb climate change.

Since receiving the boot from the government caucus, Garth Turner really does seem to have slowly lost his grip on reality. Sadly, a good deal of that stems from his own political vanity -- the same vanity shared by Joe Clark, David Orchard and Danny Williams. He's not merely a conservative, he's a progressive conservative, they add with a wink.

He, like Orchard, still hasn't come to grips with why Canada's Progressive Conservative party wound up in the predicament it did: because so-called progressive conservatives lost touch with their supporters. Because they lost the faith.

He, like Clark, still hasn't recognized that in order for conservatism to remain a viable, potent political force in Canada, people like himself need to work with conservatives who don't share all of his views, instead of insisting that they be banished to the political fringe so that he never need dirty his hands working with them.

Brian Mulroney swallowed his pride. So did Peter MacKay. The day that Garth Turner can find it in himself to do the same, maybe he'll finally start taking responsibility for his own failings. Maybe he'll even convince Stephane Dion to do likewise.

But in the meantime, Turner just doesn't get it. And he probably won't get it any time in the near future.

This Week in Political Irrelevance...

Canadian Communist Party apparently still exists

It's been said that old communists don't die, they just fantasize about a communist future.

Such was the case with the Communist Party of Canada this past week, as they met on the University of Alberta campus "to discuss a communist future".

Apparently, the fact that communism has no future has been entirely lost on them.

"[The Alberta election] will be an important testing ground," said Communist party leader Miguel Figeuroa. "Defeating the Tories in Alberta would go a long way to defeating them across the country, which would be in the best interest of the vast majority."

It seems that the historical tradition of the leaders of parties supported by the vast minority claiming to represent the vast majority remain intact.

He declined to comment on whether or not he'll be holding his breath until such a defeat occurs (although one can certainly hope he will).

"The re-election of the Harper Tories, especially if they get a majority, would be extremely detrimental to the future of our country, for our sovereignty, for preservation of the environment," Figueroa announced. "They’re representing the interests of Big Oil and Big Capital, not the long term interests of our country or our globe."

Figueroa also failed to comment on the Communist Party's links to big hammer and big sickle.

It all turns out to be fairly heady stuff. Just listening to Figueroa, one would think that communism wasn't a momentous disaster in virtually every country in which it was imposed, and that some of the most egregious violations of human rights weren't perpetrated by communist regimes.

Then, one remembers that they were.

Of course, old communists like Figueroa like to try and soften their message by speaking about their brand of "social democracy". Then, they say things like this: "You can’t have genuine political democracy when the economy is profoundly undemocratic. Capitalism runs rampant; globalization is increasing disparities between the rich and poor. ... Rights working people had fought for decades to win—trade union rights, social programs like healthcare and education—are all coming under attack."

"The idea of counter-posing the individual to the needs of the community as a whole has been brought to its zenith under capitalism," he continued. "You get ahead at the expense of others; it’s a cutthroat society, law of the jungle. Is humanity doomed always to have such attitudes? We don’t think so. But of course, it’s not going to happen overnight."

At the end of the day, individuals like Figueroa are still talking about communism, while pretending that a miraculous transformation of human nature will somehow make this glorious wonderland possible, and indulging in the fantasy that, by golly, if only they could get Mixed Member Plurality voting in place, maybe they could even get their foot in the political door.

Meanwhile, Figueroa, elected as Communist Party glorious leader in 1992, has continually been reelected to the position. Whether one should consider this a statement on the health of the communist movement in Canada, or a lack of aforementioned democracy within the Communist Party (gee, who'd've thunk that?), one may judge for oneself.

When people like Figueroa simply refuse to accept their irrelevance (although it's hardly as if their acceptance of this fact matters), one thing is for certain: at least they keep things interesting -- even if it's only by making amusing spectacles of themselves.

Then again, considering that Figueroa and his so-called "round table" discussion barely managed to warrant mention in a University newspaper, it seems the Canadian Communist Party isn't even relevant enough to do that properly.

Pro-Choice, Pro-Life Camps Lack Answers Regarding Depression Risk

Theorized Post-Abortion Syndrome raises important questions, but are we really prepared to ask them?

If one needed proof that abortion has become more of a rhetorical issue than a real issue, a recent online spat between Big Blue Wave's Suzanne and Reality Check's Amanda Marcotte just might be it.

Wrapping the issue up with labels such as "pro-life" (who isn't in favour of life?), "pro-choice" (aren't we all proud to live in a free country?), "anti-choice" (who in their right mind honestly opposes freedom?), and "anti-life" (not even going to touch that one), it seems there is actually an active effort to ensure that the issue of abortion can never, absolutely ever be the subject of rational debate.

Perhaps part of it is the folly of trying to converse rationally with people who are consistently irrational -- but I digress.

At its most insidious, the rhetoricization of the abortion debate has become little more than a wedge issue between feminists (who are "about feminist supremacy") and anti-feminists (who "think through organizing against women, at least bad women, they have earned at 'Get Out Of Female Jail' card").

At the root of the Suzanne-Marcotte spat is the theorized "post-abortion syndrome", wherein women are argued to experience guilt, anxiety, psychological numbing, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

Various studies have attempted to address the impact of abortion on depression risks for women, and have often disagreed.

When an issue is as controversial as abortion, it's actually natural that scientists will disagree. It's also natural that more still would feel discouraged from embarking on research in the field at all.

Last but not least, scientists are not immune to holding political opinions, which quite often can influence their work -- particularly in the emerging breed of "activist science".

It's rather unfortunate that individuals on both sides of the issue attempt to turn Post-Abortion Syndrome into merely another rhetorical wedge in what would more properly be addressed as a real issue.

Frankly, both sides of the issue are playing a very dangerous game as it relates to this issue. If Post-Abortion Syndrome is ignored as feminists of Marcotte's opinion suggest, a significant number of women could needlessly suffer. However, in the hands of the anti-abortion crowd, Post-Abortion Syndrome could be promoted as a reason to outlaw abortion outright, despite the fact that many of the alternatives to legalized abortion (for example, back-alley abortions) are every bit as dangerous as Post-Abortion Syndrome, and sometimes worse.

Even if Post-Abortion Syndrome turns out to be a scientific dud (there seems to be little or no scientific consensus on the matter), the plight of women who suffer depression after an abortion is a serious issue, and deserves to be treated as a real issue, not just as a rhetorical one.

There is little doubt that women suffering depression following an abortion vis a vis Post-Abortion Syndrome could be treated no differently than most other depression patients. But if increased risk of depression is a potential consequence of an abortion, women considering abortion certainly have the right to know that.

Most importantly, they do have the right to choose. But if feminists of Marcotte's opinion want to suppress knowledge of this potential risk in the name of protecting freedom of choice, they are certainly doing these women a massive disservice. They certainly aren't acting in the best interests of women, as one would expect as a feminist.

Just as opponents of abortion would be doing these women a disservice by potentially refusing them the right to make that choice. Freedom of choice being what it is, opponents of abortion will simply have to accept that sometimes people will make a choice they don't like.

This is the nature of abortion as a real issue, with real implications for real women. Wrapping it up in rhetoric only makes evaluating it needlessly difficult.

If each side of this polarized debate (Suzanne and Marcotte included) want to decide to soften their rhetoric so that they may in turn soften their positions, those of us who reside in a little place we like to call "the real world" will be ready and waiting for them when they do.