Electronic information war may be history's first
Remember the late 80s/early 90s? Good times.
Most people remember them well. The Internet was still in its infancy, and every other movie in theatres, or perhaps even on video (Betamax, even?) had some sort of computer genius who could do absolutely anything with a computer. They're magic, you see.
So then it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there was a time when people believed that future wars would be fought by computers, with computers, against computers. Computerishly.
But those days may be closer than we think. In a way.
In the midst of its current conflict in Lebanon, Israel's Foreign Ministry has made the future now. Concerned that the information superhighway (or cyberspace, if you will) is becoming plugged up with anti-Israel propaganda, Israeli diplomats have begun tracking message boards and websites featuring anti-Israel messages via a "megaphone" program, that has been distributed by download to supporters.
Just this past week, nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students have downloaded this program, and have taken Israel's war to some of the places where it's most unpopular.
Simply put, this megaphone software allows members of the WUJS to troll on unsympathetic websites, posting supportive opinions and participating in the debate.
This puts Israel at the head of the pack when it comes to using the internet to fight what may well be history's first organized "electronic information war". Certainly, other countries have used the internet to their advantage -- mostly to either disseminate outright propaganda, or have censored the internet to keep information out of their citizens' hands.
Perhaps Israel is the only state to fully recognize the Internet's potential as an organizing/mobilizing tool. " The Internet's become a leading tool for news, shaping the world view of millions," says Amir Gissin, the public relations officer of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. " Our problem is the foreign media shows Lebanese suffering, but not Israeli. We're bypassing that filter by distributing pictures showing how northern Israelis suffer from Katyusha rocket attacks."
Certainly, the topic of the rocket attacks is contentious on many internet message boards. Reports of them are often dismissed as "propaganda", or "false flag operations" concocted to justify what many see as an Israeli war of aggression.
This is part of the problem with much of the "debate" that is taking place on this issue. When confronted with information that does not support their opinions (perhaps if you're an Israeli supporter being told about the civilian casualties being caused by Israeli airstrikes, or a Lebanese supporter being told that Hezbollah are hiding amongst civilians), it is simply dismissed as "propaganda", and is ultimately discarded. What quickly develops is a debate that is rhetorically charged, and fuelled by disinformation (disinformation in the sense that new on either side consent to being fully informed).
Israel's internet campaign may change all that. Often, these debates are being waged between people who may be entirely too embroiled in a conflict that they are ultimately detached from. But Israel's megaphone software allows those who are in the middle of the conflict -- Israeli citizens under fire from rocket attacks, perhaps -- to share their experiences directly with some people who otherwise would not have had the benefit. That could make all the difference in the world.
Certainly, some will object to the presence of Israeli supporters on their sites. Some will object simply because they cannot stand to defend their opinions against people who do not agree with them. Some will object because of the online etiquette considerations of Israel's actions (and this is actually quite fair).
But in the end, Israel is only doing what smart nations do: they are adapting to the world's new realities -- in this case, the effectiveness of the internet -- and using them to thrive. And, god willing, the debate over the war in Lebanon will only benefit from the influx of new participants, regardless of whether or not they are pro-Israel.
If Israel has any amount of success waging this electronic information war, it can be expected that other states -- such as the United States -- will seek to emulate it.
The future is now. Internet warfare is probably here to stay.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Harper Must Learn his Lessons in Order to Adjust to Middle Power Status
Room remains for Canada to act as an intermediary... But it is slim
As a world leader, there is no question that one has a lot less control over world events than they would like. Often, crises can develop quite quickly, with few if any warning signs, or can start as something smaller, then escalate out of control.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has certainly learned this the hard way over the past two weeks, as what began essentially as a hostage situation, boiling over a period of months, exploded into a full-blown war between Israel and Hezbollah this week. There is no doubt that Harper has learned many hard lessons in the days since.
Despite criticism regarding command-and-control from the Prime Minister's Office hampering efforts, the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon proceeded fairly efficiently. Even the Prime Minister himself lent a hand, as he diverted his Airbus flight home from France to Turkey in order to pick up a planeload of evacuees. Many evacuees complained about poor conditions on board the ships chartered to bring them to safety, while others complained about lax treatment by officials at the Canadian consulate in Cyprus. On top of all this, the operation was far from perfect, as a Canadian family of eight from Montreal was confirmed dead in an Israeli airstrike. There was also a report of an Israeli aircraft opening fire on a ship bearing Canadian refugees (however, the small explosion was ultimately traced to a faulty fire extinguisher).
Considering that this was the largest civilian evacuation in Canadian history, the operation went as well as could be hoped.
But Harper learned one other harsh lesson this week: as he has little control over international crises, he also has very little control over the public perception of his response.
When conflict began in earnest, Harper responded quickly by calling the Israeli actions a "measured response" to the actions of Hezbollah, who were not only holding two captured Israeli soldiers, but were also launching rocket attacks into Israel from southern Lebanon.
While whether or not the Israeli military expidition can be considered a "measured response" (especially in the face of many civilian casualties) is entirely open for debate, these key facts of the issue really are not. Which may be what made the criticism that quickly followed all the more absurd.
Liberal Party interim leader Bill Graham complained about Harper's lack of initiative as a peacemaker. "Canada has always been able to serve as an intermediary," he explained, "but we can only serve in that useful role if in both our comportment and our actions we take steps and stances which enable us to play that role."
Graham didn't deny that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Deputy Prime Minister and current Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay responded fairly simply: "A ceasefire and return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah," MacKay told CTV's Canada AM. "Let's not forget that this was an unprovoked attack by a terrorist organiztion. Missiles were being fired into Israel."
Harper was also accused of "parroting" the American position on Israel. "He's almost at the forefront of a very small group of nations who say whatever Israel does is right," said Axworthy. "We're becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution."
However, as a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Axeworthy knows full well that support is Israel is a traditional tenet of Canadian foreign policy. In 1997, Axworthy himself closed an investigation on wether or not Israeli intelligence operatives were using Canadian passports (although Axworthy did offer Israel his fair share of criticism).
In the end, MacKay argued that Harper's stance actually served the interests of establishing long-term peace. " The Prime Minister has taken a very independent sovereign decision to participate in world events in a way that we feel is cognizant of all the circumstances including the history and the ongoing struggles in the region," he noted. " It is very much in keeping with an effort to find a long-term peaceful solution, not one that is going to be just a quick fix."
He also insisted that no peace will ultimately come of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal.
Many pro-peace activists also took to treating Harper's stance in a manner comparable to that given to U.S. President George Bush. On Saturday, in protests in Montreal and Toronto, anti-war activists carried banners of Harper emblazoned with the words "war monger" -- despite the absence of Canadian troops in the war zone.
Ultimately, the trouble with the debate on this crises is that each side seems to enjoy ignoring the key facts that make the issue so complex. Bill Graham, Lloyd Axworthy and (portions of) the Liberal party seem to subscribe to some sort of bizarre belief that peace talks are practical in an environment where a terrorist organization is launching continuous rocket attacks against a soveriegn country. Many of the most extreme anti-war groups are ignoring the matter of these attacks althogether.
Yet it seems that the Conservative party is largely ignoring the issue of civilian casualties -- even after the deaths of Canadians in the crosshairs. Not to mention claiming that Israel's actions serve the interest of long-term peace, when the Israeli Defense Force's actions will almost certainly spawn the next generation of Hezbollah members.
There certainly do need to be peace talks -- there is no question about that. But Hezbollah has already proven itself to be a terrorist organization with absolutely no interest in peacefully coexisting with Israel. As such, any such peace talks would have to take place exclusively between Israel and Lebanon. As part of the price for peace, Lebanon will have to agree to work together with Israel do deal with Hezbollah once and for all.
This is where Stephen Harper comes in. If he has left himself any room to function as an intermediary (as the Liberals so desire), it would be under such a framework. Similarily, the Liberals will also have to recognize that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and will need to be treated as such.
However, before he can even begin to do so, Harper will have to learn the lessons this crises is teaching him -- and learn them quickly.
As a world leader, there is no question that one has a lot less control over world events than they would like. Often, crises can develop quite quickly, with few if any warning signs, or can start as something smaller, then escalate out of control.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has certainly learned this the hard way over the past two weeks, as what began essentially as a hostage situation, boiling over a period of months, exploded into a full-blown war between Israel and Hezbollah this week. There is no doubt that Harper has learned many hard lessons in the days since.
Despite criticism regarding command-and-control from the Prime Minister's Office hampering efforts, the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon proceeded fairly efficiently. Even the Prime Minister himself lent a hand, as he diverted his Airbus flight home from France to Turkey in order to pick up a planeload of evacuees. Many evacuees complained about poor conditions on board the ships chartered to bring them to safety, while others complained about lax treatment by officials at the Canadian consulate in Cyprus. On top of all this, the operation was far from perfect, as a Canadian family of eight from Montreal was confirmed dead in an Israeli airstrike. There was also a report of an Israeli aircraft opening fire on a ship bearing Canadian refugees (however, the small explosion was ultimately traced to a faulty fire extinguisher).
Considering that this was the largest civilian evacuation in Canadian history, the operation went as well as could be hoped.
But Harper learned one other harsh lesson this week: as he has little control over international crises, he also has very little control over the public perception of his response.
When conflict began in earnest, Harper responded quickly by calling the Israeli actions a "measured response" to the actions of Hezbollah, who were not only holding two captured Israeli soldiers, but were also launching rocket attacks into Israel from southern Lebanon.
While whether or not the Israeli military expidition can be considered a "measured response" (especially in the face of many civilian casualties) is entirely open for debate, these key facts of the issue really are not. Which may be what made the criticism that quickly followed all the more absurd.
Liberal Party interim leader Bill Graham complained about Harper's lack of initiative as a peacemaker. "Canada has always been able to serve as an intermediary," he explained, "but we can only serve in that useful role if in both our comportment and our actions we take steps and stances which enable us to play that role."
Graham didn't deny that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Deputy Prime Minister and current Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay responded fairly simply: "A ceasefire and return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah," MacKay told CTV's Canada AM. "Let's not forget that this was an unprovoked attack by a terrorist organiztion. Missiles were being fired into Israel."
Harper was also accused of "parroting" the American position on Israel. "He's almost at the forefront of a very small group of nations who say whatever Israel does is right," said Axworthy. "We're becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution."
However, as a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Axeworthy knows full well that support is Israel is a traditional tenet of Canadian foreign policy. In 1997, Axworthy himself closed an investigation on wether or not Israeli intelligence operatives were using Canadian passports (although Axworthy did offer Israel his fair share of criticism).
In the end, MacKay argued that Harper's stance actually served the interests of establishing long-term peace. " The Prime Minister has taken a very independent sovereign decision to participate in world events in a way that we feel is cognizant of all the circumstances including the history and the ongoing struggles in the region," he noted. " It is very much in keeping with an effort to find a long-term peaceful solution, not one that is going to be just a quick fix."
He also insisted that no peace will ultimately come of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal.
Many pro-peace activists also took to treating Harper's stance in a manner comparable to that given to U.S. President George Bush. On Saturday, in protests in Montreal and Toronto, anti-war activists carried banners of Harper emblazoned with the words "war monger" -- despite the absence of Canadian troops in the war zone.
Ultimately, the trouble with the debate on this crises is that each side seems to enjoy ignoring the key facts that make the issue so complex. Bill Graham, Lloyd Axworthy and (portions of) the Liberal party seem to subscribe to some sort of bizarre belief that peace talks are practical in an environment where a terrorist organization is launching continuous rocket attacks against a soveriegn country. Many of the most extreme anti-war groups are ignoring the matter of these attacks althogether.
Yet it seems that the Conservative party is largely ignoring the issue of civilian casualties -- even after the deaths of Canadians in the crosshairs. Not to mention claiming that Israel's actions serve the interest of long-term peace, when the Israeli Defense Force's actions will almost certainly spawn the next generation of Hezbollah members.
There certainly do need to be peace talks -- there is no question about that. But Hezbollah has already proven itself to be a terrorist organization with absolutely no interest in peacefully coexisting with Israel. As such, any such peace talks would have to take place exclusively between Israel and Lebanon. As part of the price for peace, Lebanon will have to agree to work together with Israel do deal with Hezbollah once and for all.
This is where Stephen Harper comes in. If he has left himself any room to function as an intermediary (as the Liberals so desire), it would be under such a framework. Similarily, the Liberals will also have to recognize that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and will need to be treated as such.
However, before he can even begin to do so, Harper will have to learn the lessons this crises is teaching him -- and learn them quickly.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Will the War in Lebanon Become World War Three?
Probably not... but what if it were?
If you've had the unfortunate experience of waching CNN recently, or even coming within twenty feet of a FOX news broadcast (not recommended by physicians), you've probably heard all the frantic talk about the "Third World War".
That's right, kids, get your party hats: the Third World War is upon us. Even Stephen Colbert has proclaimed it so.Even Stephen Colbert has proclaimed it so.
Certainly, the armed conflict currently taking place in Lebanon (like Iraq, without the benefit of a declaration of war) has brought the world's alarmists and wingnuts to a state of absolute frenzy.
On a recent installment of Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich, for one, made his views on the matter clear. " is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it's also a question of what is really a world war," he said. " ...I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren't responding fast enough, we don't have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel."
He quickly drew allusions to the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and the situation regarding North Korea. " I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you've been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you'd have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III."
Wow. That's heavy stuff. It's downright biblical, in fact.
Speaking of biblical, the most famous World War III prophecy comes, in fact, from the bible. The famous "Revelations" prophecy, which many people have interpreted and endorsed as a prophecy of a third global-spanning conflict, which will eventually bring about the endtimes.
A look at the prophecy itself foretells the third world war in a prelude and six acts. In the prelude, the stage is set as the events leading up to the third world war first begin to happen. In act one, the middle east is engulfed in more and more of that dreaded conflict. In act two, Israel finally goes on the warpath, and starts laying the smackdown. Act three brings a new element to bear: the machinations of those mischevious far-easterners. In the fourth act, confidence in "the system" is "eroded". In act five, the economies and moral systems of the western nations (including the U.S.) collapse. The whole affair wraps up with act six, and the signifcant reduction of population.
According to www.threeworldwars.com, the events leading up to the Third World War have already begun to take place.
The prelude, according to the site, began September 11, 2001 (quelle surprise!). Certainly, this was a date that changed the world, in almost every way that anyone can imagine. If any event of the past ten years "set the scene" for a global war, it was certainly 9/11. Fair enough.
The site kicks off act one with the invasion of Iraq 555 days later (isn't 666 more of a foreboding number? Oh, well) on March 10, 2003. According to this site, Iranian or Pakistani radicals may, in the near future, use a nuclear weapon in the region.
Act two, according to the site, is what we are seeing right now. Fed up with having their soldiers kidnapped and missiles fire at them by Hezzbollah, Israel is expected to move into southern Lebanon in a full-scale invasion later today. But after this, things start to get a little bit hazy.
Act three, as previously noted, concerns troubles in the far east. But there's been trouble in the far east for the past fifty years. Repeated problems with the South Korean missile program, as well as nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan (mostly over the hotly-contest Kasmir region) have been significant news topics over the past five years. Suddenly, act three predates act two.
Act four, erosion of confidence in the system is nothing new, either. It's been happening in many countries (particularly the United States) ever since the 1980s, when voter turnout first started to tank. So now, act four predates act three, which already predates act two.
Act five, some warn, is currently in the process have happening. The collapse of the American economy has been forecasted by a number of economists for a little while now. Once again, nothing new, but at least this one has yet to pass.
Act six, however, could be argued to be underway. The site notes that the population reduction in question could happen by way of natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina, recent earthquakes in Indonesia, and the Tsunami that obliterated the south western Pacific basin come to mind. So, act six, predates act five (which has yet to happen), which is predated by act four, which is predated by act three, which predates act two.
Now, certainly, the chronological order of the events probably shouldn't matter much to those who subscribe to the biblical WWIII prophesy. The fact that enough of the events can be argued to have happened, or be in the course of happening should be unsettling enough for most.
But wait! There's more.
According to this site, the Illuminati is involved, too! It wouldn't be a proper prophesy if the Illuminati weren't thrown in there, somehow. In fact, according to the site the Illuminati and the New World Order have in fact planned the Third World War, and it won't begin to happen until all the necessary puzzle pieces are in place. The recent meeting of the mysterious Bilderberg group in Ottawa probably won't do much to allay those fears, either.
Is the Third World War ongoing as we speak? It may already have been for at least five years now. If anything, the War on Terror is a global war, taking place on two or more continents -- the historical definition of a world war. Regardless of whether or not Israel's campaign in Lebanon sparks a nightmarish global war, historians may one day recognize the war on terror as World War 3 -- or World War 4, if you agree with those who consider the Cold War to have been World War 3.
Certainly, much of the "news coverage" of the ongoing "World War 3" is simply alarmism. But if left untended (and no world leader has yet to make a serious peace overture), this situation could easily balloon into a world war.
While it's easy to simply throw our hands in the air in an act of exasperation over the drama, we must resist the urge to do this, and pressure our leaders to help Israel find the most peaceful resolution possible with Hezbollah and Lebanon. Certainly, Israel cannot permit Hezbollah to continue attacking them, but an all-out war is something that simply must be avoided, if at all possible.
Otherwise, what has existed for the past fifty years in the way of a small regional conflict breaking into occasional wars could become something much bigger, and much, much worse.
If you've had the unfortunate experience of waching CNN recently, or even coming within twenty feet of a FOX news broadcast (not recommended by physicians), you've probably heard all the frantic talk about the "Third World War".
That's right, kids, get your party hats: the Third World War is upon us. Even Stephen Colbert has proclaimed it so.Even Stephen Colbert has proclaimed it so.
Certainly, the armed conflict currently taking place in Lebanon (like Iraq, without the benefit of a declaration of war) has brought the world's alarmists and wingnuts to a state of absolute frenzy.
On a recent installment of Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich, for one, made his views on the matter clear. " is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it's also a question of what is really a world war," he said. " ...I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren't responding fast enough, we don't have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel."
He quickly drew allusions to the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and the situation regarding North Korea. " I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you've been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you'd have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III."
Wow. That's heavy stuff. It's downright biblical, in fact.
Speaking of biblical, the most famous World War III prophecy comes, in fact, from the bible. The famous "Revelations" prophecy, which many people have interpreted and endorsed as a prophecy of a third global-spanning conflict, which will eventually bring about the endtimes.
A look at the prophecy itself foretells the third world war in a prelude and six acts. In the prelude, the stage is set as the events leading up to the third world war first begin to happen. In act one, the middle east is engulfed in more and more of that dreaded conflict. In act two, Israel finally goes on the warpath, and starts laying the smackdown. Act three brings a new element to bear: the machinations of those mischevious far-easterners. In the fourth act, confidence in "the system" is "eroded". In act five, the economies and moral systems of the western nations (including the U.S.) collapse. The whole affair wraps up with act six, and the signifcant reduction of population.
According to www.threeworldwars.com, the events leading up to the Third World War have already begun to take place.
The prelude, according to the site, began September 11, 2001 (quelle surprise!). Certainly, this was a date that changed the world, in almost every way that anyone can imagine. If any event of the past ten years "set the scene" for a global war, it was certainly 9/11. Fair enough.
The site kicks off act one with the invasion of Iraq 555 days later (isn't 666 more of a foreboding number? Oh, well) on March 10, 2003. According to this site, Iranian or Pakistani radicals may, in the near future, use a nuclear weapon in the region.
Act two, according to the site, is what we are seeing right now. Fed up with having their soldiers kidnapped and missiles fire at them by Hezzbollah, Israel is expected to move into southern Lebanon in a full-scale invasion later today. But after this, things start to get a little bit hazy.
Act three, as previously noted, concerns troubles in the far east. But there's been trouble in the far east for the past fifty years. Repeated problems with the South Korean missile program, as well as nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan (mostly over the hotly-contest Kasmir region) have been significant news topics over the past five years. Suddenly, act three predates act two.
Act four, erosion of confidence in the system is nothing new, either. It's been happening in many countries (particularly the United States) ever since the 1980s, when voter turnout first started to tank. So now, act four predates act three, which already predates act two.
Act five, some warn, is currently in the process have happening. The collapse of the American economy has been forecasted by a number of economists for a little while now. Once again, nothing new, but at least this one has yet to pass.
Act six, however, could be argued to be underway. The site notes that the population reduction in question could happen by way of natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina, recent earthquakes in Indonesia, and the Tsunami that obliterated the south western Pacific basin come to mind. So, act six, predates act five (which has yet to happen), which is predated by act four, which is predated by act three, which predates act two.
Now, certainly, the chronological order of the events probably shouldn't matter much to those who subscribe to the biblical WWIII prophesy. The fact that enough of the events can be argued to have happened, or be in the course of happening should be unsettling enough for most.
But wait! There's more.
According to this site, the Illuminati is involved, too! It wouldn't be a proper prophesy if the Illuminati weren't thrown in there, somehow. In fact, according to the site the Illuminati and the New World Order have in fact planned the Third World War, and it won't begin to happen until all the necessary puzzle pieces are in place. The recent meeting of the mysterious Bilderberg group in Ottawa probably won't do much to allay those fears, either.
Is the Third World War ongoing as we speak? It may already have been for at least five years now. If anything, the War on Terror is a global war, taking place on two or more continents -- the historical definition of a world war. Regardless of whether or not Israel's campaign in Lebanon sparks a nightmarish global war, historians may one day recognize the war on terror as World War 3 -- or World War 4, if you agree with those who consider the Cold War to have been World War 3.
Certainly, much of the "news coverage" of the ongoing "World War 3" is simply alarmism. But if left untended (and no world leader has yet to make a serious peace overture), this situation could easily balloon into a world war.
While it's easy to simply throw our hands in the air in an act of exasperation over the drama, we must resist the urge to do this, and pressure our leaders to help Israel find the most peaceful resolution possible with Hezbollah and Lebanon. Certainly, Israel cannot permit Hezbollah to continue attacking them, but an all-out war is something that simply must be avoided, if at all possible.
Otherwise, what has existed for the past fifty years in the way of a small regional conflict breaking into occasional wars could become something much bigger, and much, much worse.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
July 2006 Book Club Selection : Why I Hate Canadians, Will Ferguson
Author Asks: How honest are Canadians with ourselves?
Every year, Canadians open the month of July by celebrating the birth of our country.
So perhaps it is fitting that the book club selection for July is a book that explores the assumptions we Canadians make about ourselves, and questions whether or not they are valid.
Going by title alone, Why I Hate Canadians sounds like it should be some far-right-wing book written by Pat Buchanan (of "soviet canuckistan" fame). The book is actually penned by Katimavik graduate Will Ferguson (don't worry, he explains the relevance of his participation in Katimavik), who wrote the book upon returning to Canada after nearly a decade spent abroad.
Why I Hate Canadians isn't so much a book about Canada, it's a book about Canadians. Likewise, Ferguson doesn't hate Canada -- he hates Canadians. Or, at least he wants to make Canadians face some of the unpleasant truths that come along with all the great things about being Canadian.
Ferguson attacks all the stereotypes -- the "mighty Beaver", the trademarked Canadian tolerance and niceness, and that ever-contentious multiculturalism.
Ferguson seeks first and foremost to force the reader to ask themselves questions: questions about Canada, and about what it means to be Canadian. He revels in all the things about Canada that are great, but forces Canadians to look all their historical and cultural blemishes dead in the eye.
This is a book that all Canadians should read.
Every year, Canadians open the month of July by celebrating the birth of our country.
So perhaps it is fitting that the book club selection for July is a book that explores the assumptions we Canadians make about ourselves, and questions whether or not they are valid.
Going by title alone, Why I Hate Canadians sounds like it should be some far-right-wing book written by Pat Buchanan (of "soviet canuckistan" fame). The book is actually penned by Katimavik graduate Will Ferguson (don't worry, he explains the relevance of his participation in Katimavik), who wrote the book upon returning to Canada after nearly a decade spent abroad.
Why I Hate Canadians isn't so much a book about Canada, it's a book about Canadians. Likewise, Ferguson doesn't hate Canada -- he hates Canadians. Or, at least he wants to make Canadians face some of the unpleasant truths that come along with all the great things about being Canadian.
Ferguson attacks all the stereotypes -- the "mighty Beaver", the trademarked Canadian tolerance and niceness, and that ever-contentious multiculturalism.
Ferguson seeks first and foremost to force the reader to ask themselves questions: questions about Canada, and about what it means to be Canadian. He revels in all the things about Canada that are great, but forces Canadians to look all their historical and cultural blemishes dead in the eye.
This is a book that all Canadians should read.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Homosexuals Turn Up the Heat on Harper Government
But may be missing the parade for the "dykes on bikes"
Believe it or not, there is a time and place for public dancing in crotchless leather pants. Believe it or not, there is a time and place for men to wear women's clothing in public. And there is even a time and place for members of the same sex to ride on floats together and kiss each other in public.
That's right, folks: it's gay pride time again.
Perhaps the most visible and recognizable tactic of those fighting for gay rights and acceptance, "freak parades" have become the centerpiece for gay pride holidays all across the world.
Some credit gay pride parades with helping advance the promotion of tolerance for gays and lesbians. Some claim these parades only increase tension between homosexuals and the rest of society. This is all entirely debatable. One thing that is certain is that gay pride parades are a commendable use of the constitutionally-entrenched right to freedom of expression that every Canadian possesses.
This year, gay pride activists in Toronto -- home to one of the largest gay pride parades in all of North America -- have mixed what some consider to be a healthy dose of politics in with their festivities, in particular taking aim at the governing Conservative party over a pledge to hold an open vote on re-opening the issue of same sex marriage for parliamentary debate.
But these activists -- while their hearts certainly seem to be in the right place -- may have their heads entirely in the wrong spot. Trying to turn homphobia into a political issue may be fair enough. But trying to turn it into a partisan political issue is simply a bad idea.
For one thing, if there is anything gay pride activists have failed to adequately address, it is homophobia among members of all Canada's political parties. For example, Mary Pollack, a former Liberal candidate for BC's Surrey riding, at one point, while serving as the Chairperson of the Surrey School Board, spent one million dollars trying to bar text books from school libraries. The books in question portrayed same-sex families in a positive manner. Courts eventually forced her to allow the books. Joe Borowski, a former Manitoba NDP cabinet minister, wrote a number of articles in the late 1980s that many people considered to be homophobic.
In other words, homophobia is not a blight that is restricted to the Conservative party. While more critics of the Conservative party take aim at them with these accusations, there has been, is, and will continue to be prevalence of this problem within Canada's other parties as well.
Another problem with the stance these people are taking regards the opinions of homophobes. " I think the message from the Prime Minister about reviewing marriage has given homophobes a feeling of power," said Kyle Rae, a co-founder of the Toronto gay pride parade. " It gives them a license."
But doesn't failing to have this debate at all give these "homophobes" (and not everyone who opposes same sex marriage can simply be dismissed as such) more power? It gives them the complaint that they are being ignored, and that homosexuals are being given preferential treatment by the government. Certainly the latter is not true, but what if the former were? It is certainly better to have the debate.
James Loney, the Canadian hostage recently freed in Iraq (who also happens to be gay himself) said, "I think Stephen Harper's intention to reopen the same-sex marriage debate is providing a forum for people to express what I think is a kind of intolerance and a very narrow view."
Loney, who, after his terrible ordeal, must have a full understanding of people with narrow views, must not think that it is also narrow to deny dissenters the opportunity to express their views. It is every bit as narrow as the bigotry that he is speaking against.
Like anyone else, homosexuals have the right to be politically active. Like anyone else, homosexuals have the right to lobby and influence their government.
But they must also recognize that even those who ignorantly hate them have these same rights, and must be allowed the same opportunities to do so. Most importantly, they must recognize that homophobia is not a partisan political issue.
When they do this, the time when they can wear their crotchless leather pants in public everyday will be that much closer.
Believe it or not, there is a time and place for public dancing in crotchless leather pants. Believe it or not, there is a time and place for men to wear women's clothing in public. And there is even a time and place for members of the same sex to ride on floats together and kiss each other in public.
That's right, folks: it's gay pride time again.
Perhaps the most visible and recognizable tactic of those fighting for gay rights and acceptance, "freak parades" have become the centerpiece for gay pride holidays all across the world.
Some credit gay pride parades with helping advance the promotion of tolerance for gays and lesbians. Some claim these parades only increase tension between homosexuals and the rest of society. This is all entirely debatable. One thing that is certain is that gay pride parades are a commendable use of the constitutionally-entrenched right to freedom of expression that every Canadian possesses.
This year, gay pride activists in Toronto -- home to one of the largest gay pride parades in all of North America -- have mixed what some consider to be a healthy dose of politics in with their festivities, in particular taking aim at the governing Conservative party over a pledge to hold an open vote on re-opening the issue of same sex marriage for parliamentary debate.
But these activists -- while their hearts certainly seem to be in the right place -- may have their heads entirely in the wrong spot. Trying to turn homphobia into a political issue may be fair enough. But trying to turn it into a partisan political issue is simply a bad idea.
For one thing, if there is anything gay pride activists have failed to adequately address, it is homophobia among members of all Canada's political parties. For example, Mary Pollack, a former Liberal candidate for BC's Surrey riding, at one point, while serving as the Chairperson of the Surrey School Board, spent one million dollars trying to bar text books from school libraries. The books in question portrayed same-sex families in a positive manner. Courts eventually forced her to allow the books. Joe Borowski, a former Manitoba NDP cabinet minister, wrote a number of articles in the late 1980s that many people considered to be homophobic.
In other words, homophobia is not a blight that is restricted to the Conservative party. While more critics of the Conservative party take aim at them with these accusations, there has been, is, and will continue to be prevalence of this problem within Canada's other parties as well.
Another problem with the stance these people are taking regards the opinions of homophobes. " I think the message from the Prime Minister about reviewing marriage has given homophobes a feeling of power," said Kyle Rae, a co-founder of the Toronto gay pride parade. " It gives them a license."
But doesn't failing to have this debate at all give these "homophobes" (and not everyone who opposes same sex marriage can simply be dismissed as such) more power? It gives them the complaint that they are being ignored, and that homosexuals are being given preferential treatment by the government. Certainly the latter is not true, but what if the former were? It is certainly better to have the debate.
James Loney, the Canadian hostage recently freed in Iraq (who also happens to be gay himself) said, "I think Stephen Harper's intention to reopen the same-sex marriage debate is providing a forum for people to express what I think is a kind of intolerance and a very narrow view."
Loney, who, after his terrible ordeal, must have a full understanding of people with narrow views, must not think that it is also narrow to deny dissenters the opportunity to express their views. It is every bit as narrow as the bigotry that he is speaking against.
Like anyone else, homosexuals have the right to be politically active. Like anyone else, homosexuals have the right to lobby and influence their government.
But they must also recognize that even those who ignorantly hate them have these same rights, and must be allowed the same opportunities to do so. Most importantly, they must recognize that homophobia is not a partisan political issue.
When they do this, the time when they can wear their crotchless leather pants in public everyday will be that much closer.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Grudge Match: Religious Right vs. ...Conservative Partyt!?
Christian activists seek to crucify Garth Turner
It is safe to say that politics and religion are, more often than not, a volatile combination.
Sometimes politics and religion go hand-in-hand. When the need arises, religious
leaders of varying stripes can be effective organizers. Many would consider this to be mainly true of right-wing conservative parties. This isn't necessarily so. Tommy Douglas, the greatest leader ever offered by a Canadian left-wing party, drew his roots directly from Gospel Protestantism -- a socialist breed of Christianity.
But the opposite is just as often the case -- if not more so.
Lately, Conservative MP Garth Turner has had an interesting fight on his hands. At a time when many critics of the Conservative party want to accuse it of being too close to Christian fundamentalists (for the past ten years, in fact), Turner has seemingly incurred the wrath of Charles McVety.
McVety, who is active with a number of Canadian Christian advocacy groups -- including Defend Marriage Canada, the Canada Christian College and the Canada Family Action Coalition -- recently shared a disagreement with Turner over the role of a Christian activist. McVety believes that this role is to defeat "anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-life" Conservative MPs with "family-friendly" Christian candidates.
Naturally, with talk such as this, the subject was same-sex marriage. Naturally, it is safe to assume that McVety is opposed to it.
"[McVety's] group, as you can see in the post below, is after my political head since I trashed their stated plans to swamp nomination meetings of Tory MPs who support gay marriage and are otherwise morally deficient," Turner writes on his weblog, The Turner Report. " I said I disagree with any special interest candidates who are foisted on a party or a riding in a stacked nomination meeting, especially when a sitting MP – electable and experienced – is the victim of a one-night hijacking."
The one-night hijacking in question are schemes in which McVety organizes individuals sympathetic to his cause to purchase Conservative party memberships, and flood pre-election nomination meetings in order to help install a candidate who will support his agenda.
Hijacking isn't a new trick for McVety. He has been known to register online domains under the names of politicians, particularly those who oppose his views. Many critics consider this to be cybersquatting. However, because he uses these sites to express opinions regarding each particular politician's views, the law allows him to do so under tenets of acceptable use.
Charles McVety is not a man who believes in the separation of church and state. His plan to supplant the candidates of a political party with religious activists is chilling to those who believe in the secular state. This is precisely what Turner was alluding to when he wrote: "Faith-based politics is fine. It has a long tradition. It can accomplish a lot of good. But when one religious or cultural group engineers a coup, overwhelming existing political party members and workers, and replacing a politician elected by a plurality of people with a single-issue monochromatic militant, well, kiss democracy goodbye."
Supporters of McVety would later try to use this statement to paint him as an anti-religious zealot. Perhaps a person may suggest it would take a zealot to know one, and if this was true McVety would certainly know one if he saw it.
Along with his wife and children, McVety attended the 2005 Liberal party convention aboard his famed "Defend Marriage" tour bus. About the experience he wrote the following: "As in the days of Lot the penalty for the righteous was that they knocked on the doors of Lot and demanded his young men for their sexual pleasure. This was the penalty for the righteous being “wrong” in their eyes. As I stood on a rally platform outside the Convention Centre we prayed that marriage would be defended Canada protected. Hecklers cursed and swore at us and held up a sign displaying the word 'Immoral'."
This would certainly be a frightening bundle of rhetoric, if it didn't instead provoke one very simple response: what the fuck?
He noted that his daughter, confronted by the contempt and fury of the Liberal attendees, asked him: "daddy, why are they spitting at us?" He neglects to mention that he exposed his children to this behavior (as unacceptable as it may indeed be) knowingly and willingly. Which would make a certain amount of sense: his crusade against same-sex marriage is "for the children".
Let it also be known that this is a man who has organized boycotts against Famous Players theatres (for showing an advertisement supporting same-sex marriage) and the Da Vinci Code (apparently for being a fictional book about Christ).
If allowed to garner any significant amount of influence in the Conservative party, McVety would prove to be one of the greatest liabilities in the party's history. Those who suspiciously eye the Conservative party as crusaders aching to turn the clock back to the days when religion took a direct role in governance would suddenly have their poster boy -- a bigger, better poster boy than Stockwell Day ever could have been.
On the other hand, Turner is an absolute treasure for the Conservative party. He is an MP who defies the typical stereotype that critics of the party would like to promote. He may have a firey personality. He may love to get down and scrap with his opponents, but he stands for what he believes in. Most importantly, he is an indispensible voice of dissent within the party -- without such voices, the Conservatives risk becoming victim to that pitfall that has so entirely entrapped the Liberal party: groupthink.
In short, Turner is a Conservative who's not afraid to think outside that little conservative box. Consider this in comparison to McVety, who obviously believes it is some sort of grievous sin to think outside the pages of the Bible. This is like mixing Jedi and Sith: bad fucking idea.
The Conservative party needs to pull Turner in and hold him close, and push McVety as far away as it can. Only then can it step forth from the shadow of Christian fundamentalism, and get on with the business of being a secular political party.
After all, religion and politics can be a nasty mix.
It is safe to say that politics and religion are, more often than not, a volatile combination.
Sometimes politics and religion go hand-in-hand. When the need arises, religious
leaders of varying stripes can be effective organizers. Many would consider this to be mainly true of right-wing conservative parties. This isn't necessarily so. Tommy Douglas, the greatest leader ever offered by a Canadian left-wing party, drew his roots directly from Gospel Protestantism -- a socialist breed of Christianity.
But the opposite is just as often the case -- if not more so.
Lately, Conservative MP Garth Turner has had an interesting fight on his hands. At a time when many critics of the Conservative party want to accuse it of being too close to Christian fundamentalists (for the past ten years, in fact), Turner has seemingly incurred the wrath of Charles McVety.
McVety, who is active with a number of Canadian Christian advocacy groups -- including Defend Marriage Canada, the Canada Christian College and the Canada Family Action Coalition -- recently shared a disagreement with Turner over the role of a Christian activist. McVety believes that this role is to defeat "anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-life" Conservative MPs with "family-friendly" Christian candidates.
Naturally, with talk such as this, the subject was same-sex marriage. Naturally, it is safe to assume that McVety is opposed to it.
"[McVety's] group, as you can see in the post below, is after my political head since I trashed their stated plans to swamp nomination meetings of Tory MPs who support gay marriage and are otherwise morally deficient," Turner writes on his weblog, The Turner Report. " I said I disagree with any special interest candidates who are foisted on a party or a riding in a stacked nomination meeting, especially when a sitting MP – electable and experienced – is the victim of a one-night hijacking."
The one-night hijacking in question are schemes in which McVety organizes individuals sympathetic to his cause to purchase Conservative party memberships, and flood pre-election nomination meetings in order to help install a candidate who will support his agenda.
Hijacking isn't a new trick for McVety. He has been known to register online domains under the names of politicians, particularly those who oppose his views. Many critics consider this to be cybersquatting. However, because he uses these sites to express opinions regarding each particular politician's views, the law allows him to do so under tenets of acceptable use.
Charles McVety is not a man who believes in the separation of church and state. His plan to supplant the candidates of a political party with religious activists is chilling to those who believe in the secular state. This is precisely what Turner was alluding to when he wrote: "Faith-based politics is fine. It has a long tradition. It can accomplish a lot of good. But when one religious or cultural group engineers a coup, overwhelming existing political party members and workers, and replacing a politician elected by a plurality of people with a single-issue monochromatic militant, well, kiss democracy goodbye."
Supporters of McVety would later try to use this statement to paint him as an anti-religious zealot. Perhaps a person may suggest it would take a zealot to know one, and if this was true McVety would certainly know one if he saw it.
Along with his wife and children, McVety attended the 2005 Liberal party convention aboard his famed "Defend Marriage" tour bus. About the experience he wrote the following: "As in the days of Lot the penalty for the righteous was that they knocked on the doors of Lot and demanded his young men for their sexual pleasure. This was the penalty for the righteous being “wrong” in their eyes. As I stood on a rally platform outside the Convention Centre we prayed that marriage would be defended Canada protected. Hecklers cursed and swore at us and held up a sign displaying the word 'Immoral'."
This would certainly be a frightening bundle of rhetoric, if it didn't instead provoke one very simple response: what the fuck?
He noted that his daughter, confronted by the contempt and fury of the Liberal attendees, asked him: "daddy, why are they spitting at us?" He neglects to mention that he exposed his children to this behavior (as unacceptable as it may indeed be) knowingly and willingly. Which would make a certain amount of sense: his crusade against same-sex marriage is "for the children".
Let it also be known that this is a man who has organized boycotts against Famous Players theatres (for showing an advertisement supporting same-sex marriage) and the Da Vinci Code (apparently for being a fictional book about Christ).
If allowed to garner any significant amount of influence in the Conservative party, McVety would prove to be one of the greatest liabilities in the party's history. Those who suspiciously eye the Conservative party as crusaders aching to turn the clock back to the days when religion took a direct role in governance would suddenly have their poster boy -- a bigger, better poster boy than Stockwell Day ever could have been.
On the other hand, Turner is an absolute treasure for the Conservative party. He is an MP who defies the typical stereotype that critics of the party would like to promote. He may have a firey personality. He may love to get down and scrap with his opponents, but he stands for what he believes in. Most importantly, he is an indispensible voice of dissent within the party -- without such voices, the Conservatives risk becoming victim to that pitfall that has so entirely entrapped the Liberal party: groupthink.
In short, Turner is a Conservative who's not afraid to think outside that little conservative box. Consider this in comparison to McVety, who obviously believes it is some sort of grievous sin to think outside the pages of the Bible. This is like mixing Jedi and Sith: bad fucking idea.
The Conservative party needs to pull Turner in and hold him close, and push McVety as far away as it can. Only then can it step forth from the shadow of Christian fundamentalism, and get on with the business of being a secular political party.
After all, religion and politics can be a nasty mix.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Liberal Party Prepares To Eat its Own Young
Ignatieff has fellow leadership candidates running scared
There is a man who has the Liberals running scared.
No, it's not Stephen Harper, who led the Conservative party in a defeat of the Liberals in the 2006 election. Nor is it the Honorable John Gomery, who handed them their ass at the Adscam inquiry, precipitating that defeat. Nor is it I (although, maybe it should be).
No, the man that the Liberals fear most is one within their party -- one they went to great lengths to recruit to run as a star candidate during the 2006 federal election.
This man is Michael Ignatieff.
At first glance Ignatieff, the current Member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, seems like the man that Liberal party members should absolutely adore. He's taught at Harvard. He's worked for the BBC, the Globe and Mail and New York Times Magazine. He's published volumes of books.
Like all Liberal leaders, Ignatieff was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, which was earned for him by his hard-working father, who emmigrated to Canada from the Soviet Union and eventually served as a distinguished diplomat. George Ignatieff also served as president of the United Nations Security Council. On his mother's side, Ignatieff can trace his lineage to George Monro Grant. Michael continued to benefit from his family's status when he attended the University of Toronto... where is father was conveniently the serving Chancellor.
Ignatieff was parachuted in to run for his riding, which he handily won. When Paul Martin resigned following his defeat, Ignatieff was immediately mentioned as a contender -- possibly the favourite -- to win the Liberal leadership. Indeed, in the minds of many, he has already won.
He's already shown leadership within Liberal party ranks. He recently turned a vote on extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan almost single-handedly, as he and his supporters stood against the Liberal caucus, and delivered the motion to a narrow victory.
Since that moment, Ignatieff has been in the crosshairs of his opponents.
At the June 10 Liberal party leadership forum, Joe Volpe fired his first shots at Ignatieff, when he seemed to point out Ignatieff's short membership in the party. Bob Rae (obviously continuing to attempt to tap into the anti-American crowd) accused Ignatieff of holding opinions that are too similar to those of the American Republicans.
What is perhaps most shocking about Rae's accusations is that they are awfully true.
Ignatieff's critics accuse him of supporting the controversial Missile Defense Shield. In "A Generous Helping of Liberal Brains" he writes:
Ignatieff's critics accuse him of supporting the American war in Iraq. In "The Burden", he writes:
Ignatieff's critics aim to rally the anti-American crowd, and accuse him of spending more time in the United States than in Canada. Again, they are right. Harvard may be one heckuva school, but McGill it ain't. He also writes much of his work under the guise of being an American.
However, there is one area where his critics have clearly missed their mark. Ignatieff has, in the course of his writings, questioned the moral nature of torture. While some people may consider this to be inherently dangerous, all Ignatieff has tried to do in this particular situation is explore the definition of torture. In "Evil under Interrogation", he writes:
There is no question that those who control the Liberal party leadership -- pulling the strings of the "election" process, favor individuals such as Ignatieff. The reasons for this are already well established. For this reason alone, Ignatieff clearly stands head-and-shoulders above his meagre competition -- he holds favour with those whose favour he needs.
These are the king makers of the Liberal party. They were the masterminds behind the ascension of Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, and they imagine the leadership campaign less like an actual campaign, and more like a coronation -- where the "crown" of the "natural governing party of Canada" (they have, in fact, controlled the government for all but a handful of the last 100 years) is neatly passed from meticulously pre-selected leader to the next. It is for this reason that Canadians can probably fully expect the crown to be passed along to one of the surviving Trudeau children at some point in the next 20 years. It is indeed a chilling view of Canadian democracy, but one that the Liberal party has been advancing for longer than any living party member can likely attest.
Because of this in turning on Ignatieff, the Liberal party is in fact cannibalizing itself. The fact is actually quite simple: in looking at the list of candidates for the Liberal leadership, Ignatieff is in fact the most qualified, and easily the most charismatic. This is what makes him most dangerous to his competitors: he is a legitimate triple threat.
Certainly, the Liberals are not the only ones who are afraid of Michael Ignatieff. The Conservative party is likely rubbing its hands together in anticipation of lining up against any of the other piss-poor candidates that have been advanced to lead the Liberal party.
But not Ignatieff. Ignatieff is a true threat. He is determined to defeat the Conservatives: "We have an enormous responsibility to defeat the Harper government. We have to understand -- we have to make Canadians realize the choice they face. This is a government that has abandoned our environmental commitments. This is a government that has lost and betrayed faith with aboriginal Canadians.”
Beyond this, he is the only candidate capable of the task.
In turning on Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal party is in fact turning against its own future. Its future with Ignatieff may not be guaranteed, but it would be a whole lot brighter than with any of the other candidates.
Perhaps that is what these other candidates fear the most.
There is a man who has the Liberals running scared.
No, it's not Stephen Harper, who led the Conservative party in a defeat of the Liberals in the 2006 election. Nor is it the Honorable John Gomery, who handed them their ass at the Adscam inquiry, precipitating that defeat. Nor is it I (although, maybe it should be).
No, the man that the Liberals fear most is one within their party -- one they went to great lengths to recruit to run as a star candidate during the 2006 federal election.
This man is Michael Ignatieff.
At first glance Ignatieff, the current Member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, seems like the man that Liberal party members should absolutely adore. He's taught at Harvard. He's worked for the BBC, the Globe and Mail and New York Times Magazine. He's published volumes of books.
Like all Liberal leaders, Ignatieff was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, which was earned for him by his hard-working father, who emmigrated to Canada from the Soviet Union and eventually served as a distinguished diplomat. George Ignatieff also served as president of the United Nations Security Council. On his mother's side, Ignatieff can trace his lineage to George Monro Grant. Michael continued to benefit from his family's status when he attended the University of Toronto... where is father was conveniently the serving Chancellor.
Ignatieff was parachuted in to run for his riding, which he handily won. When Paul Martin resigned following his defeat, Ignatieff was immediately mentioned as a contender -- possibly the favourite -- to win the Liberal leadership. Indeed, in the minds of many, he has already won.
He's already shown leadership within Liberal party ranks. He recently turned a vote on extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan almost single-handedly, as he and his supporters stood against the Liberal caucus, and delivered the motion to a narrow victory.
Since that moment, Ignatieff has been in the crosshairs of his opponents.
At the June 10 Liberal party leadership forum, Joe Volpe fired his first shots at Ignatieff, when he seemed to point out Ignatieff's short membership in the party. Bob Rae (obviously continuing to attempt to tap into the anti-American crowd) accused Ignatieff of holding opinions that are too similar to those of the American Republicans.
What is perhaps most shocking about Rae's accusations is that they are awfully true.
Ignatieff's critics accuse him of supporting the controversial Missile Defense Shield. In "A Generous Helping of Liberal Brains" he writes:
"The government has recently announced its decision about ballistic-missile defence. The decision will be popular in the party. But we need clarity in our national defence policy. We need to balance a principled opposition to the future weaponization of space with an equally principled commitment to participate in North American defence right now. We don't want our decisions to fracture the command system of North American defence, and we don't want a principled decision to result in us having less control over our national sovereignty. We must be there, at the table, defending what only we can defend.""In short, past agreements not to weaponize space are all well and good. But we need to protect ourselves now. Pragmatic, perhaps. But it is exactly what his critics accuse him of.
Ignatieff's critics accuse him of supporting the American war in Iraq. In "The Burden", he writes:
"Those who want America to remain a republic rather than become an empire imagine rightly, but they have not factored in what tyranny or chaos can do to vital American interests. The case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike."In short, the only hope for the survival of American democracy is to go to war abroad, in places like Iraq.
Ignatieff's critics aim to rally the anti-American crowd, and accuse him of spending more time in the United States than in Canada. Again, they are right. Harvard may be one heckuva school, but McGill it ain't. He also writes much of his work under the guise of being an American.
However, there is one area where his critics have clearly missed their mark. Ignatieff has, in the course of his writings, questioned the moral nature of torture. While some people may consider this to be inherently dangerous, all Ignatieff has tried to do in this particular situation is explore the definition of torture. In "Evil under Interrogation", he writes:
"A liberal society that would not defend itself by force of arms might perish, while a liberal society that refused to torture is less likely to jeopardise its collective survival. Besides, there is a moral difference between killing a fellow combatant, in conformity to the laws of war, and torturing a person. The first takes a life; the second abuses one. It seems more legitimate to ask a citizen to defend a state by force of arms and, if necessary, to kill in self-defence or to secure a military objective, than it does to ask him to inflict degrading pain face to face. On this reading of a democratic moral identity, it may be legitimate to kill in self-defence, but not to engage in cruelty."The point quickly becomes abundantly clear: torture occurs when someone is treated in a manner that cannot be justified based on their actions. Finally, torture is wrong.
There is no question that those who control the Liberal party leadership -- pulling the strings of the "election" process, favor individuals such as Ignatieff. The reasons for this are already well established. For this reason alone, Ignatieff clearly stands head-and-shoulders above his meagre competition -- he holds favour with those whose favour he needs.
These are the king makers of the Liberal party. They were the masterminds behind the ascension of Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, and they imagine the leadership campaign less like an actual campaign, and more like a coronation -- where the "crown" of the "natural governing party of Canada" (they have, in fact, controlled the government for all but a handful of the last 100 years) is neatly passed from meticulously pre-selected leader to the next. It is for this reason that Canadians can probably fully expect the crown to be passed along to one of the surviving Trudeau children at some point in the next 20 years. It is indeed a chilling view of Canadian democracy, but one that the Liberal party has been advancing for longer than any living party member can likely attest.
Because of this in turning on Ignatieff, the Liberal party is in fact cannibalizing itself. The fact is actually quite simple: in looking at the list of candidates for the Liberal leadership, Ignatieff is in fact the most qualified, and easily the most charismatic. This is what makes him most dangerous to his competitors: he is a legitimate triple threat.
Certainly, the Liberals are not the only ones who are afraid of Michael Ignatieff. The Conservative party is likely rubbing its hands together in anticipation of lining up against any of the other piss-poor candidates that have been advanced to lead the Liberal party.
But not Ignatieff. Ignatieff is a true threat. He is determined to defeat the Conservatives: "We have an enormous responsibility to defeat the Harper government. We have to understand -- we have to make Canadians realize the choice they face. This is a government that has abandoned our environmental commitments. This is a government that has lost and betrayed faith with aboriginal Canadians.”
Beyond this, he is the only candidate capable of the task.
In turning on Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal party is in fact turning against its own future. Its future with Ignatieff may not be guaranteed, but it would be a whole lot brighter than with any of the other candidates.
Perhaps that is what these other candidates fear the most.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Just Because You're Paranoid Doesn't Mean They Aren't After You
But does it mean they are?
For as long as there has been conspiracy theorists, three words have struck fear into their hearts and minds: new. World. Order.
An idea of unrelenting paranoia, "new world order" theories essentially deal with the idea of one world government. Many proponents of such theories have kicked their rantings into high gear recently, as the ultra-secretive Bilderberg group meets in Ottawa.
Daniel Estulin claims the Bilderberberg group is a group of powerful people bent upon establishing a monolithic super-state, which would force the world to be united under one government, constitution, religion and currency. He claims that they have already had their fair share of successes: " ...you're seeing it right now as you have NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and you have the European Community (EC)," Estulin insists.
Yikes. Certainly, this is scary stuff.
More notably, Estulin concludes -- using information that he says has been supplied to him by concerned CIA, MI5 and Mossad agents -- that the group pulls the strings of the mainstream media, deciding what will and what will not be considered news in the following year. He claims that they discuss how best to eliminate resistance to their agenda (the alternative truth movement and American Christian patriots have been reportedly been considered in recent years). Ultimately, he suggests the Bilderberg group would take control of the UN -- newly empowered with the ability to directly tax all citizens of the world -- in order to complete its goal of world unification.
But imagine what it would mean for the world if Estulin's frightening theory were true.
For one thing, it would mean that many people who have participated in this conference and who are, we are lead to believe, political opponents are actually complicitly working together toward the same machavellian goals. For example, Liberal Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien have both attended this conference. In 2003, while serving as leader of the opposition, current PM Stephen Harper attended.
This would suggest that Chretien and Harper were "playing for the same team" as it were -- even as they faced each other across the parliamentary floor. Certainly, this would be a conspiracy unparallelled in Canadian history.
Certainly it wouldn't only be Canadian leaders who would be cooperating with each other in this vast conspiracy. The heads of dozens of major corporations -- who, by nature, must compete against each other on a regular basis, have also attended. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended in 2001. In 2003, Republican Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld attended.
This is only a sampling of people who have appeared at Bilderberg conferences -- the group, which claims its purpose is to foster understanding between North America and Western Europe, is shrouded in astounding secrecy. At this year's conference, the Brook Street Resort has expelled all of its guests, and is allowing nobody -- which the exception of a very select few, who have undergone stringent security checks -- is being allowed in or out of the building, or even the parking lot. Unlike other high-profile events, where the arrivals of participants are covered extensively by the press, the Bilderberg conference takes place under a complete media black out -- one that Estulin claims is self-imposed by the media elites who attend the conference on a regular basis. Simply put, we the public don't know who attends the conference.
Certainly, this is disquieting. The presence of people such as Henry Kissinger (who Victor Marchetti identifies as a leader of the C.I.A. "cult of intelligence") doesn't exactly help to lay the suspicions of conspiracy theorists -- or even the general public -- to rest.
If the concernts of individuals such as Daniel Estulin are simply paranoid rantings, perhaps there is no reason at all for the secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg conferences. But if they aren't up to anything, then why all the secrecy?
Perhaps there is more going on under our noses than the Bilderberg group (or the alleged "new world order") would like us to believe. The question is: what?
It's a fair question.
For as long as there has been conspiracy theorists, three words have struck fear into their hearts and minds: new. World. Order.
An idea of unrelenting paranoia, "new world order" theories essentially deal with the idea of one world government. Many proponents of such theories have kicked their rantings into high gear recently, as the ultra-secretive Bilderberg group meets in Ottawa.
Daniel Estulin claims the Bilderberberg group is a group of powerful people bent upon establishing a monolithic super-state, which would force the world to be united under one government, constitution, religion and currency. He claims that they have already had their fair share of successes: " ...you're seeing it right now as you have NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and you have the European Community (EC)," Estulin insists.
Yikes. Certainly, this is scary stuff.
More notably, Estulin concludes -- using information that he says has been supplied to him by concerned CIA, MI5 and Mossad agents -- that the group pulls the strings of the mainstream media, deciding what will and what will not be considered news in the following year. He claims that they discuss how best to eliminate resistance to their agenda (the alternative truth movement and American Christian patriots have been reportedly been considered in recent years). Ultimately, he suggests the Bilderberg group would take control of the UN -- newly empowered with the ability to directly tax all citizens of the world -- in order to complete its goal of world unification.
But imagine what it would mean for the world if Estulin's frightening theory were true.
For one thing, it would mean that many people who have participated in this conference and who are, we are lead to believe, political opponents are actually complicitly working together toward the same machavellian goals. For example, Liberal Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien have both attended this conference. In 2003, while serving as leader of the opposition, current PM Stephen Harper attended.
This would suggest that Chretien and Harper were "playing for the same team" as it were -- even as they faced each other across the parliamentary floor. Certainly, this would be a conspiracy unparallelled in Canadian history.
Certainly it wouldn't only be Canadian leaders who would be cooperating with each other in this vast conspiracy. The heads of dozens of major corporations -- who, by nature, must compete against each other on a regular basis, have also attended. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended in 2001. In 2003, Republican Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld attended.
This is only a sampling of people who have appeared at Bilderberg conferences -- the group, which claims its purpose is to foster understanding between North America and Western Europe, is shrouded in astounding secrecy. At this year's conference, the Brook Street Resort has expelled all of its guests, and is allowing nobody -- which the exception of a very select few, who have undergone stringent security checks -- is being allowed in or out of the building, or even the parking lot. Unlike other high-profile events, where the arrivals of participants are covered extensively by the press, the Bilderberg conference takes place under a complete media black out -- one that Estulin claims is self-imposed by the media elites who attend the conference on a regular basis. Simply put, we the public don't know who attends the conference.
Certainly, this is disquieting. The presence of people such as Henry Kissinger (who Victor Marchetti identifies as a leader of the C.I.A. "cult of intelligence") doesn't exactly help to lay the suspicions of conspiracy theorists -- or even the general public -- to rest.
If the concernts of individuals such as Daniel Estulin are simply paranoid rantings, perhaps there is no reason at all for the secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg conferences. But if they aren't up to anything, then why all the secrecy?
Perhaps there is more going on under our noses than the Bilderberg group (or the alleged "new world order") would like us to believe. The question is: what?
It's a fair question.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Corruption: Is What's Good For the Goose Also Good For the Gander?
Liberals may have hit the jackpot
Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have something other than not getting along with the media to keep him busy these days.
On June 6th, the Liberals called on the RCMP to investigate a lawsuit filed against Conservative MP Rob Anders filed by James Istvanffy, a former executive assistant who alleges he was fired for questioning Anders' decisions regarding the expenditure of his campaign funding.
Istvanffy, who was paid $51,500 annually, claims that Anders borrowed thousands of dollars from him, in order to cover expenses that the House of Commons would't spring for. He also claims that Anders resorted to fraudulently billing the government in order to repay some of his debts. Istvanffy claims that Anders used expense accounts to do this, under the guise of salary increases, fake travel expenses, and book shelves. He also claims that a number of people were put to work on the federal Conservative campaign while being paid with taxpayer dollars.
Naturally, Anders denies these allegations, and has promised a strong statement of such will be released by the end of the week.
As always in Canada, Anders is innocent until proven guilty. It isn't entirely implausible that Istvanffy may be filing the lawsuit and making these accusations strictly as an act of retribution. One could wonder why Istvanffy is suing for unpaid debts while claiming that he was repaid with pilfered taxpayer dollars. Then again, one would also expect that Istvanffy wouldn't be so bold as to make these accusations unless he could prove them.
He will have to prove them -- possibly even in the course of an RCMP or Parliamentary investigation.
"Obviously these allegations are very serious and if they are true, this is something that's more than just a breach of good faith - this is outright fraud and criminal if true,'' said Liberal MP Mark Holland, who represents Ajax-Pickering.
He's absolutely right. After all the ruckus raised by the Conservatives over the sponsorship scandal (and rightfully so), the last thing the Conservatives can afford to have is an in-house scandal of this sort. Should these allegations be found to be true, they could even potentially de-rail the crucial accountability act that the Conservatives have promised.
The Anders story breaks as the Liberal party has uncovered a scandal of its own. Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne has been accused of using a member of his office staff to cut down trees near his cottage -- while on the taxpayers' clock.
However, in what seems like an uncharacteristic move, Liberal interim leader Bill Graham has done what former leader Paul Martin wouldn't do, and has kicked Lavigne out of caucus until the investigation is settled -- one way or the other. Martin, as some may recall, refused to discipline Scott Brison, who as Vice-Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance sent an e-mail to a friend leaking what he believed would be a favourable policy regarding the taxation of income trusts.
"It is inappropriate for Senator Lavigne to sit with the Liberal caucus until any investigations have been completed," Graham said in a statement.
Wow. In an uncharacteristic move, the federal Liberals have set a good example on how to deal with potential corruption (the allegations against Lavigne are not yet proven, either). Certainly, all eyes will turn to Stephen Harper: will he follow suit and (at least temporarily) oust Anders from caucus until this matter is settled?
Hopefully, he will. At least asking Anders to voluntarily sit out from the Conservative caucus until the matter is settled certainly isn't any sort of accusation. Nor would Anders agreeing to do so be an admission of guilt. It would be an act of a government that (as promised) takes corruption -- even the mere accusations of corruption -- seriously.
It isn't often that the Liberal party sets an example that other parties should follow, but this is one of these times. Unfortunately for the Liberals, Bill Graham isn't running for their party leadership.
How, it is up to Stephen Harper to follow Graham's example and show Canadians that his party takes corruption within its ranks every bit as seriously as it has proven it takes corruption within other parties.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have something other than not getting along with the media to keep him busy these days.
On June 6th, the Liberals called on the RCMP to investigate a lawsuit filed against Conservative MP Rob Anders filed by James Istvanffy, a former executive assistant who alleges he was fired for questioning Anders' decisions regarding the expenditure of his campaign funding.
Istvanffy, who was paid $51,500 annually, claims that Anders borrowed thousands of dollars from him, in order to cover expenses that the House of Commons would't spring for. He also claims that Anders resorted to fraudulently billing the government in order to repay some of his debts. Istvanffy claims that Anders used expense accounts to do this, under the guise of salary increases, fake travel expenses, and book shelves. He also claims that a number of people were put to work on the federal Conservative campaign while being paid with taxpayer dollars.
Naturally, Anders denies these allegations, and has promised a strong statement of such will be released by the end of the week.
As always in Canada, Anders is innocent until proven guilty. It isn't entirely implausible that Istvanffy may be filing the lawsuit and making these accusations strictly as an act of retribution. One could wonder why Istvanffy is suing for unpaid debts while claiming that he was repaid with pilfered taxpayer dollars. Then again, one would also expect that Istvanffy wouldn't be so bold as to make these accusations unless he could prove them.
He will have to prove them -- possibly even in the course of an RCMP or Parliamentary investigation.
"Obviously these allegations are very serious and if they are true, this is something that's more than just a breach of good faith - this is outright fraud and criminal if true,'' said Liberal MP Mark Holland, who represents Ajax-Pickering.
He's absolutely right. After all the ruckus raised by the Conservatives over the sponsorship scandal (and rightfully so), the last thing the Conservatives can afford to have is an in-house scandal of this sort. Should these allegations be found to be true, they could even potentially de-rail the crucial accountability act that the Conservatives have promised.
The Anders story breaks as the Liberal party has uncovered a scandal of its own. Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne has been accused of using a member of his office staff to cut down trees near his cottage -- while on the taxpayers' clock.
However, in what seems like an uncharacteristic move, Liberal interim leader Bill Graham has done what former leader Paul Martin wouldn't do, and has kicked Lavigne out of caucus until the investigation is settled -- one way or the other. Martin, as some may recall, refused to discipline Scott Brison, who as Vice-Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance sent an e-mail to a friend leaking what he believed would be a favourable policy regarding the taxation of income trusts.
"It is inappropriate for Senator Lavigne to sit with the Liberal caucus until any investigations have been completed," Graham said in a statement.
Wow. In an uncharacteristic move, the federal Liberals have set a good example on how to deal with potential corruption (the allegations against Lavigne are not yet proven, either). Certainly, all eyes will turn to Stephen Harper: will he follow suit and (at least temporarily) oust Anders from caucus until this matter is settled?
Hopefully, he will. At least asking Anders to voluntarily sit out from the Conservative caucus until the matter is settled certainly isn't any sort of accusation. Nor would Anders agreeing to do so be an admission of guilt. It would be an act of a government that (as promised) takes corruption -- even the mere accusations of corruption -- seriously.
It isn't often that the Liberal party sets an example that other parties should follow, but this is one of these times. Unfortunately for the Liberals, Bill Graham isn't running for their party leadership.
How, it is up to Stephen Harper to follow Graham's example and show Canadians that his party takes corruption within its ranks every bit as seriously as it has proven it takes corruption within other parties.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
June 2006 Book Club Selection : The Revolution Will Not be Televised, Joe Trippi
The perfect storm is coming
Many people are shocked at how close John Kerry came to being runner-up to Howard Dean for the 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidacy.
Reading The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, it becomes crystal clear that few people were more surprised by how close "people powered Howard" came to the ultimate underdog victory than his campaign manager, Joe Trippi.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised chronicles the unlikely tale of how Howard and Trippi utilized the power of the internet to establish an electronic consituency that nearly delivered Howard to the White House. It's a tale of a battle contested between "old politics" and "new politics", with the future of the United States on the line. Ultimately, it's a tale of the grassroots foundation that mainstream American politics have foresaken rising up to reclaim their system, and reclaim their country.
It quickly becomes apparent that the book is essentially a blueprint for building something phenomenal out of nothing. It drags the reader throughout its pages, and drags them out of the television-enslaved past and transplants them into the present, a world that is quickly becoming something that was once envisioned as the distant future.
This book is a fantastic read, and leaves the reader with a great deal to chew on.
Many people are shocked at how close John Kerry came to being runner-up to Howard Dean for the 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidacy.
Reading The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, it becomes crystal clear that few people were more surprised by how close "people powered Howard" came to the ultimate underdog victory than his campaign manager, Joe Trippi.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised chronicles the unlikely tale of how Howard and Trippi utilized the power of the internet to establish an electronic consituency that nearly delivered Howard to the White House. It's a tale of a battle contested between "old politics" and "new politics", with the future of the United States on the line. Ultimately, it's a tale of the grassroots foundation that mainstream American politics have foresaken rising up to reclaim their system, and reclaim their country.
It quickly becomes apparent that the book is essentially a blueprint for building something phenomenal out of nothing. It drags the reader throughout its pages, and drags them out of the television-enslaved past and transplants them into the present, a world that is quickly becoming something that was once envisioned as the distant future.
This book is a fantastic read, and leaves the reader with a great deal to chew on.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Joe Volpe Gives Candy Back to Babies
I'd sure like these kids' allowances
Liberal leadership hopeful Joe Volpe has been busted.
Despite insisting that three $5,400 donations recieved from the children of exectuives of Apotex, a generic drug company, were perfectly legal, Volpe has chosen to return the controversial donations.
" They're kind of embarrassed about the controversy," Volpe said of the children's parents. "They had made a decision for very positive reasons and someone has turned it into something very negative."
And if you'll buy that, mr. Volpe also has a truckload of Apotex's new cure for the common cold that he can sell you -- slightly sneezed on.
In fact, Volpe has recieved $108,000 from current and former executives of the company, which under law, is prohibited from donating funds to a leadership race. While corporations are restricted from making donations, private individuals are not. So, if someone were to donate $5,400 in their children's names to a candidate they feel would be likely to reciprocate to their company, that would be perfectly legal.
...Or not. Under Elections Canada regulations, it is unlawful for individuals to willfully seek to circumvent election laws. While Volpe's lawyer sent NDP Member of Parliament Pat Martin a letter threatening to sue him for accusing Volpe of "a deliberate and well-orchestrated fraud on the Elections act donations limit rules." Martin has since retracted his statement and apologized. Perhaps rightfully so.
Yet, it would seem, if mr. Volpe has not himself tried to circumvent this law, has someone not sought to do it on his behalf? Namely, Apotex CEO Barry Sherman and president Jack Kay? Sherman donated $5,400 in the name of his 11-year-old twins and 14-year-old son. Kay donated in the name of his two children as well.
Of course, one could argue that perhaps the children donated the money out-of-pocket. Liberal party rules actually allow minors to participate in the party. They may be delegates at party conventions, provided that they can pay thousands of dollars in fees necessary to attend. Then again, one would expect that the children of Canada's richest would have one fuckload of an allowance -- certainly enough to cover these expenses.
This has been the story of the Liberal leadership race from the very beginning. In an effort to open the process to more "ordinary people", each candidate must pay a $50,000 fee. Notably, this was reduced from a previous $75,000 fee -- but one can easily question may many "ordinary people" are willing to mortgate their homes in order to enter a leadership race they could not win, in a political party that is predisposed to electing multi-millionaires and billionaires as their leader.
Curiously, Joe Volpe's website (www.JoeVolpe.ca), which is emblazoned with his campaign slogan: "Growth, Opportunity and Equality" has nothing to say about this controversy. As with all Liberal leadership candidates, his campaign slogan should read: "Hegemony of the rich, for the rich, by the rich."
Because that is precisely what this is. Joe Volpe and his Liberal bretheren certainly want this story to blow over quickly, mostly because of the parallels it could draw between them and the spectacularly unpopular and corrupt Bush administration in the United States. In a very similar fashion, corporate executives in the United States were able to gain influence with the president by soliciting donations from their friends, families and employees, then packaging them together to form donations that well exceeded the maximum permissable under American law, yet remained legal because they were essentially thousands of smaller donations. Corporate executives who were able to deliver $100,000 in packaged donations were dubbed "Rangers". Those able to deliver $200,000 in donations were dubbed "Pioneers". In return for delivering such a package of donations, American pharmaceutical executives were able to push through a national prescription drug program that would benefit the companies at the expense of the taxpayer.
This is transactional politics at its worst. And for a leadership candidate of a party that, during the 2006 election, accused Conservative leader Stephen Harper of accepting funds from U.S. President George W. Bush, this absolutely reeks.
There, is however, a ray of hope. The NDP have responded by proposing an amendment that would count the political donations of any minors against the contribution limits of their parents, an amendment that Treasury Board President John Baird has said the Conservatives are very receptive to.
Volpe, for his part, claims that while these donations don't violate the letter of the law, his decision to return them is due to his respect for the spirit of the law. Yet, someone could ask them why he accepted them to begin with, let alone why he waited until after tremendous public and media backlash to do this.
One can simply call it good old fashioned Liberal duplicity. Joe Volpe clearly doesn't care very much about Elections regulations -- he's certainly more than willing to accept money from those who don't care about them at all.
Liberal leadership hopeful Joe Volpe has been busted.
Despite insisting that three $5,400 donations recieved from the children of exectuives of Apotex, a generic drug company, were perfectly legal, Volpe has chosen to return the controversial donations.
" They're kind of embarrassed about the controversy," Volpe said of the children's parents. "They had made a decision for very positive reasons and someone has turned it into something very negative."
And if you'll buy that, mr. Volpe also has a truckload of Apotex's new cure for the common cold that he can sell you -- slightly sneezed on.
In fact, Volpe has recieved $108,000 from current and former executives of the company, which under law, is prohibited from donating funds to a leadership race. While corporations are restricted from making donations, private individuals are not. So, if someone were to donate $5,400 in their children's names to a candidate they feel would be likely to reciprocate to their company, that would be perfectly legal.
...Or not. Under Elections Canada regulations, it is unlawful for individuals to willfully seek to circumvent election laws. While Volpe's lawyer sent NDP Member of Parliament Pat Martin a letter threatening to sue him for accusing Volpe of "a deliberate and well-orchestrated fraud on the Elections act donations limit rules." Martin has since retracted his statement and apologized. Perhaps rightfully so.
Yet, it would seem, if mr. Volpe has not himself tried to circumvent this law, has someone not sought to do it on his behalf? Namely, Apotex CEO Barry Sherman and president Jack Kay? Sherman donated $5,400 in the name of his 11-year-old twins and 14-year-old son. Kay donated in the name of his two children as well.
Of course, one could argue that perhaps the children donated the money out-of-pocket. Liberal party rules actually allow minors to participate in the party. They may be delegates at party conventions, provided that they can pay thousands of dollars in fees necessary to attend. Then again, one would expect that the children of Canada's richest would have one fuckload of an allowance -- certainly enough to cover these expenses.
This has been the story of the Liberal leadership race from the very beginning. In an effort to open the process to more "ordinary people", each candidate must pay a $50,000 fee. Notably, this was reduced from a previous $75,000 fee -- but one can easily question may many "ordinary people" are willing to mortgate their homes in order to enter a leadership race they could not win, in a political party that is predisposed to electing multi-millionaires and billionaires as their leader.
Curiously, Joe Volpe's website (www.JoeVolpe.ca), which is emblazoned with his campaign slogan: "Growth, Opportunity and Equality" has nothing to say about this controversy. As with all Liberal leadership candidates, his campaign slogan should read: "Hegemony of the rich, for the rich, by the rich."
Because that is precisely what this is. Joe Volpe and his Liberal bretheren certainly want this story to blow over quickly, mostly because of the parallels it could draw between them and the spectacularly unpopular and corrupt Bush administration in the United States. In a very similar fashion, corporate executives in the United States were able to gain influence with the president by soliciting donations from their friends, families and employees, then packaging them together to form donations that well exceeded the maximum permissable under American law, yet remained legal because they were essentially thousands of smaller donations. Corporate executives who were able to deliver $100,000 in packaged donations were dubbed "Rangers". Those able to deliver $200,000 in donations were dubbed "Pioneers". In return for delivering such a package of donations, American pharmaceutical executives were able to push through a national prescription drug program that would benefit the companies at the expense of the taxpayer.
This is transactional politics at its worst. And for a leadership candidate of a party that, during the 2006 election, accused Conservative leader Stephen Harper of accepting funds from U.S. President George W. Bush, this absolutely reeks.
There, is however, a ray of hope. The NDP have responded by proposing an amendment that would count the political donations of any minors against the contribution limits of their parents, an amendment that Treasury Board President John Baird has said the Conservatives are very receptive to.
Volpe, for his part, claims that while these donations don't violate the letter of the law, his decision to return them is due to his respect for the spirit of the law. Yet, someone could ask them why he accepted them to begin with, let alone why he waited until after tremendous public and media backlash to do this.
One can simply call it good old fashioned Liberal duplicity. Joe Volpe clearly doesn't care very much about Elections regulations -- he's certainly more than willing to accept money from those who don't care about them at all.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Hockey Fans Should Be Hit With 5, 10 and a Game
Many people unhappy with violence and chaos
News flash.
A lot of people are excited about the Edmonton Oilers advancing to the Stanley Cup final. I'm one of them.
With a 2-1 victory over the Anaheim Mighty Ducks on Saturday, the Oilers will play for the Stanley Cup for the first time in 16 years. The last time they did so, in 1990, they defeated the Boston Bruins to claim hockey's highest prize. This is something that hockey fans in Edmonton have been waiting for all too long, and it is the first great triumph of the new NHL.
Unfortunately, there is something happening that is far less than a triumph -- that is the atrocious behavior of hockey fans celebrating on Whyte Avenue.
Dubbled "the Blue Mile" by national media (the Blue and Whyte Ave by fans), Edmonton's landmark Whyte Avenue has been ground zero for the raucus celebrations following each Oilers win. However, what began quite nicely during the Edmonton/Detroit series has quickly become a nightmare for many denizens of the area -- including, but not limited to, local residents and business owners.
During what can only truly be described as a riot following the key Oilers win on Saturday, up to 20,000 fans lit bonfires in the street, jumped from buildings into trees, and kicked in the doors and windows of hapless Whyte Avenue businesses.
Shamefully, the vandalism of Whyte Avenue businesses has been a common occurance during the post-game celebrations this postseason. Estimates place the clean up cost at $1,500 to $2,000 after each celebration. This is for the street alone -- it doesn't include repairs to local businesses.
The Edmonton Police Service is now responding in kind. Police Chief Mike Boyd has promised a "get-tough" strategy for dealing with these hooligans -- likely one that can't help but involve riot police.He has even noted that police do have the option of declaring martial law and calling in the army to help pacify any crowd that develops.
It's a very sad day for the city of Edmonton, and for Edmonton Oilers fandom, when the option of setting the army loose upon a post-game celebration would even be entertained by the authorities. And the authorities are not to blame for this.
It's the fans.
Certainly, not all the fans. Hopefully, it's only a minority of bandwagon-jumpers who think they've found a good excuse to tear up local streets in search of a macho thrill. Nonetheless, there is simply no where else to point the finger of blame in this matter, and sadly, the blame fits.
For their part, the Oilers themselves don't approve. " It's sad to see some of the incidents that happened," forward Georges Laraque announced. " I hope it won't come to the point that it will ruin everyone's celebration. [Hooligans] don't respect our ethics or our morals and our pride in the city."
Ryan Smyth only wants to see some sanity. " Obviously we would like everybody to be safe and have fun, but be responsible too."
The Oilers aren't alone in their concern. The Edmonton Sun letters page has been filled with angry statements about the violence. " I had better not be stopped from celebrating an Oilers [Stanley Cup win] because of you drunken vandals," wrote Dustin Bell. "Just because you're too young or too stupid to understand that drinking doesn't mean you have to bust up Whyte Avenue doesn't mean you have the right to take away my chance to celebrate with friends and strangers and cheer on the Oilers. It is as smart has having your friends burn down your house because it is your birthday."
Then again, such behavior is nothing new for Edmonton hockey fans. Following the 1990 Stanley Cup victory, the riot that occurred in Edmonton made headlines across the country.
Nor is it anything new for Albertan hockey fans in general: during 2004's legendary Red Mile celebrations in Calgary, public urination and defecation posed serious problems for law enforcement. During this year's celebrations, numerous fans were arrested for hurling objects at police officers.
But just as Oilers fans have set the bar higher inside the arena, they have done the same in the street. Following the Oilers May 12th elimination of the San Jose Sharks, two fans were stabbed in a Whyte Avenue bar. Partiers in the street blocked an ambulance from accessing the scene, forcing police to remove the victims by cruiser.
What is happening on Whyte Avenue is entirely unacceptable. Just as a line was crossed with the infamous 2001 Canada Day riot, so has it been crossed with this. Sadly, it may take an overhand right from Georges Laraque -- or maybe even Dave Semenko himself -- to smarten some of these idiots up.
News flash.
A lot of people are excited about the Edmonton Oilers advancing to the Stanley Cup final. I'm one of them.
With a 2-1 victory over the Anaheim Mighty Ducks on Saturday, the Oilers will play for the Stanley Cup for the first time in 16 years. The last time they did so, in 1990, they defeated the Boston Bruins to claim hockey's highest prize. This is something that hockey fans in Edmonton have been waiting for all too long, and it is the first great triumph of the new NHL.
Unfortunately, there is something happening that is far less than a triumph -- that is the atrocious behavior of hockey fans celebrating on Whyte Avenue.
Dubbled "the Blue Mile" by national media (the Blue and Whyte Ave by fans), Edmonton's landmark Whyte Avenue has been ground zero for the raucus celebrations following each Oilers win. However, what began quite nicely during the Edmonton/Detroit series has quickly become a nightmare for many denizens of the area -- including, but not limited to, local residents and business owners.
During what can only truly be described as a riot following the key Oilers win on Saturday, up to 20,000 fans lit bonfires in the street, jumped from buildings into trees, and kicked in the doors and windows of hapless Whyte Avenue businesses.
Shamefully, the vandalism of Whyte Avenue businesses has been a common occurance during the post-game celebrations this postseason. Estimates place the clean up cost at $1,500 to $2,000 after each celebration. This is for the street alone -- it doesn't include repairs to local businesses.
The Edmonton Police Service is now responding in kind. Police Chief Mike Boyd has promised a "get-tough" strategy for dealing with these hooligans -- likely one that can't help but involve riot police.He has even noted that police do have the option of declaring martial law and calling in the army to help pacify any crowd that develops.
It's a very sad day for the city of Edmonton, and for Edmonton Oilers fandom, when the option of setting the army loose upon a post-game celebration would even be entertained by the authorities. And the authorities are not to blame for this.
It's the fans.
Certainly, not all the fans. Hopefully, it's only a minority of bandwagon-jumpers who think they've found a good excuse to tear up local streets in search of a macho thrill. Nonetheless, there is simply no where else to point the finger of blame in this matter, and sadly, the blame fits.
For their part, the Oilers themselves don't approve. " It's sad to see some of the incidents that happened," forward Georges Laraque announced. " I hope it won't come to the point that it will ruin everyone's celebration. [Hooligans] don't respect our ethics or our morals and our pride in the city."
Ryan Smyth only wants to see some sanity. " Obviously we would like everybody to be safe and have fun, but be responsible too."
The Oilers aren't alone in their concern. The Edmonton Sun letters page has been filled with angry statements about the violence. " I had better not be stopped from celebrating an Oilers [Stanley Cup win] because of you drunken vandals," wrote Dustin Bell. "Just because you're too young or too stupid to understand that drinking doesn't mean you have to bust up Whyte Avenue doesn't mean you have the right to take away my chance to celebrate with friends and strangers and cheer on the Oilers. It is as smart has having your friends burn down your house because it is your birthday."
Then again, such behavior is nothing new for Edmonton hockey fans. Following the 1990 Stanley Cup victory, the riot that occurred in Edmonton made headlines across the country.
Nor is it anything new for Albertan hockey fans in general: during 2004's legendary Red Mile celebrations in Calgary, public urination and defecation posed serious problems for law enforcement. During this year's celebrations, numerous fans were arrested for hurling objects at police officers.
But just as Oilers fans have set the bar higher inside the arena, they have done the same in the street. Following the Oilers May 12th elimination of the San Jose Sharks, two fans were stabbed in a Whyte Avenue bar. Partiers in the street blocked an ambulance from accessing the scene, forcing police to remove the victims by cruiser.
What is happening on Whyte Avenue is entirely unacceptable. Just as a line was crossed with the infamous 2001 Canada Day riot, so has it been crossed with this. Sadly, it may take an overhand right from Georges Laraque -- or maybe even Dave Semenko himself -- to smarten some of these idiots up.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Ottawa Press Gallery Haunts Harper
The Prime Minister and the press must learn to get along
Any relationship between the press and a member of the Conservative party in Canada tends to be a tenuous one. With the exception of a notable few right-wing publications (Western Standard, anyone?) and a dwindling number of quality media outlets (such as the CanWest publications and CTV), the media in Canada does indeed often seem biased against the Conservatives.
In Rescuing Canada's Right, Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin (try saying that three times fast) sum this up quite nicely: "the media in Canada is out to get the Conservatives, because they think the Conservatives are out to get them".
So, then, it may be no surprise that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Ottawa Press Gallery is having what one could consider a stormy relationship.
Yesterday, Harper threw a very public bolt of lightning during an interview with a London, Ontario television station. " Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government," he said, and later added, " It's certainly unnecessary and I have trouble believing that a Liberal prime minister would have this problem. ...The press gallery, at the leadership level, has taken an anti-Conservative view."
Naturally, press gallery president Yves Malo disagrees with Harper, saying, " We regret these comments [by Harper] because we think they are unfounded."
The ultimate point of contention is a move by Harper to limit press access to his Cabinet Ministers, and his insistence on deciding himself who will ask questions at press conferences. Last week, a number of reporters walked out of a Harper press conference because he refused to answer their questions.
" We can't accept that the Prime Minister's office would decide who gets to ask questions", said Malo. " Does that mean that when there'a crisis they'll only call upon journalists they expect softball questions from?"
It certainly is a fair question. Canadians rely on the press to provide them with the information they need, especially when it relates to government affairs. As a result, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to deal with the press openly and honestly. However, Harper should also be able to expect to not have to deal with an unduly hostile press, and does have the right to protect himself from some of the self-glorified hatchet-jobbers infesting the media. The press may claim it is unbiased all they want, but when a photo of Harper -- lit to appear in a sinister fashion -- appears on the front page of a publication as high-profile as the Toronto Star, it hurts the validity of these claims.
According to Charles Adler Online, the new media process has been far more open than many journalists are reporting to the public. Prime Minister's Office spokesman Dimitris Soudas has been spotted emerging from the office with clipboard in-hand, prepared to take a list of reporters who want to ask questions. Many reporters have refused to give their names for the list, as the Press Gallery wants its staff to control which reporters ask questions, and which ones don't.
In response to the Press Gallery's protest, Harper has decided to take his show on the road, and focus on addressing local media, as opposed to strictly focusing on the national media. However, a Thursday press conference on anti-Street Racing legistlation was hijacked by journalists wanting to discuss Harper's approach to the media, and add their own voices to the protest. Going abroad to address local media may be a good idea, but it won't protect him from criticism.
If Stephen Harper wants to build a better relationship with the press, he must realize that it must begin with him. While some members of the press will continue to play the role of the agitator, Harper must work toward earning the media's trust. Heavy-handedly refusing to play by the traditional rules won't win the Prime Minister any friends amongst the press.
The Press Gallery, however, must accept that openness and honesty must also apply to them. When journalists are being denied the opportunity to ask questions by Press Gallery staff, it only brings up uncomfortable questions that they may not want to answer.
This situation calls for what all similar situations call for -- a compromise. Harper could quiet his critics -- and create a more constructive press environment for everyone involved -- by offering to hear questions from a short list prepared by the Press Gallery, as well as a short list prepared by his own staff.
If things continue the way they have been, Harper is only fuelling his own critics. However, if the Press Gallery were to refuse any compromise, it would unquestionably be a sign of a deep cancer within its ranks -- one precisely of the sort that Harper has suggested.
Harper clearly has much to learn about dealing with the media. It is experiences such as this that will teach him how it is done -- but only so long as he doesn't refuse to learn its lessons.
Any relationship between the press and a member of the Conservative party in Canada tends to be a tenuous one. With the exception of a notable few right-wing publications (Western Standard, anyone?) and a dwindling number of quality media outlets (such as the CanWest publications and CTV), the media in Canada does indeed often seem biased against the Conservatives.
In Rescuing Canada's Right, Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin (try saying that three times fast) sum this up quite nicely: "the media in Canada is out to get the Conservatives, because they think the Conservatives are out to get them".
So, then, it may be no surprise that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Ottawa Press Gallery is having what one could consider a stormy relationship.
Yesterday, Harper threw a very public bolt of lightning during an interview with a London, Ontario television station. " Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government," he said, and later added, " It's certainly unnecessary and I have trouble believing that a Liberal prime minister would have this problem. ...The press gallery, at the leadership level, has taken an anti-Conservative view."
Naturally, press gallery president Yves Malo disagrees with Harper, saying, " We regret these comments [by Harper] because we think they are unfounded."
The ultimate point of contention is a move by Harper to limit press access to his Cabinet Ministers, and his insistence on deciding himself who will ask questions at press conferences. Last week, a number of reporters walked out of a Harper press conference because he refused to answer their questions.
" We can't accept that the Prime Minister's office would decide who gets to ask questions", said Malo. " Does that mean that when there'a crisis they'll only call upon journalists they expect softball questions from?"
It certainly is a fair question. Canadians rely on the press to provide them with the information they need, especially when it relates to government affairs. As a result, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to deal with the press openly and honestly. However, Harper should also be able to expect to not have to deal with an unduly hostile press, and does have the right to protect himself from some of the self-glorified hatchet-jobbers infesting the media. The press may claim it is unbiased all they want, but when a photo of Harper -- lit to appear in a sinister fashion -- appears on the front page of a publication as high-profile as the Toronto Star, it hurts the validity of these claims.
According to Charles Adler Online, the new media process has been far more open than many journalists are reporting to the public. Prime Minister's Office spokesman Dimitris Soudas has been spotted emerging from the office with clipboard in-hand, prepared to take a list of reporters who want to ask questions. Many reporters have refused to give their names for the list, as the Press Gallery wants its staff to control which reporters ask questions, and which ones don't.
In response to the Press Gallery's protest, Harper has decided to take his show on the road, and focus on addressing local media, as opposed to strictly focusing on the national media. However, a Thursday press conference on anti-Street Racing legistlation was hijacked by journalists wanting to discuss Harper's approach to the media, and add their own voices to the protest. Going abroad to address local media may be a good idea, but it won't protect him from criticism.
If Stephen Harper wants to build a better relationship with the press, he must realize that it must begin with him. While some members of the press will continue to play the role of the agitator, Harper must work toward earning the media's trust. Heavy-handedly refusing to play by the traditional rules won't win the Prime Minister any friends amongst the press.
The Press Gallery, however, must accept that openness and honesty must also apply to them. When journalists are being denied the opportunity to ask questions by Press Gallery staff, it only brings up uncomfortable questions that they may not want to answer.
This situation calls for what all similar situations call for -- a compromise. Harper could quiet his critics -- and create a more constructive press environment for everyone involved -- by offering to hear questions from a short list prepared by the Press Gallery, as well as a short list prepared by his own staff.
If things continue the way they have been, Harper is only fuelling his own critics. However, if the Press Gallery were to refuse any compromise, it would unquestionably be a sign of a deep cancer within its ranks -- one precisely of the sort that Harper has suggested.
Harper clearly has much to learn about dealing with the media. It is experiences such as this that will teach him how it is done -- but only so long as he doesn't refuse to learn its lessons.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Buzz Hargrove Loses Control
"Unauthorized strike" tells interesting story
Times are tough for Buzz Hargrove.
Following the 2006 federal election, wherein he violated NDP rules by supporting "strategic voting" (read: selling out to the Liberal party), his party membership was revoked. In retaliation, Hargrove called on all CAW members to renounce the New Democrats -- despite Jack Layton's assertion that he wouldn't have expelled Hargrove. Last month, Ontario bus driver Willie Lambert threw his hat into the ring to challenge Hargrove for the presidency of the Canadian Auto Workers union (also known as CAW).
Now, to make matters worse for Hargrove, CAW workers at a General Motor plants in Oshawa, Ontario have gone on what he refers to as an "unauthorized strike". The strike could cripple these operations, and threaten the jobs of hundreds, according to Hargrove.
The strike began in earnest on friday, more than a full day prior to a Saturday midnight deadline during which Hargrove and GM would continue to negotiate regarding wages and the quantity of future work.
Yet, somehow, Hargrove has a little rebellion on his hands. The workers that he claims to represent and work for have rejected his edict, and taken matters into their own hands. How could this be?
The answer to this question is simple: Hargrove simply may not have the trust of CAW members any longer. When he severed official ties between the CAW and the NDP, Hargrove removed the CAW from Canada's largest, most comprehensive labour coalition in Canada. All the other "big unions" (such as CUPE) remain aligned with the NDP. CAW leadership claimed they had a majority vote from CAW members, yet have never released an official vote tally to prove it.
Hargrove's hold over CAW has been reported to be tenuous for some time now. At many CAW protests, many members have been spotted wearing "Buzz Off" T-shirts that were distributed within the union by Hargrove's rivals.
The prognosis is evidently clear.
After fourteen years of holding the CAW presidency (he was first acclaimed as CAW president in 1992, and has never been defeated), it's become obvious that Hargrove has become unable to separate his own interests from that of the CAW, or the workers he represents. In March, Hargrove insisted that "the action of the Ontario NDP is a direct attack on the CAW and our members."
Combine this with the fallout from his election-time abandonment of the NDP and subsequent denunciation of them, then consider the fact that this took up much of the time that Hargrove should have been using to try to and protect his workers from Ford lay-offs, and the picture becomes clear.
Buzz Hargrove is not as in charge as he would like a lot of people to believe. But then again, this may not be a very recent development. On www.westernstandard.ca (on January 26), a CAW member identifying himsefl as "Chazz", wrote: " As a CAW member in Ontario, I can tell you that Buzz is absolutely despised by many union people at the local level and the national level. He should have stepped aside before the last CAW elections, but he hung on."
It could be considered in terms of the butterfly effect. Hargrove got a little too comfortable in his position, and a ripple started. As years progressed, and he became bolder and bolder, he eventually alienated much of his party membership, and these waves are now climbing ever higher. A 2005 settlement between GM and CAW that many workers were disatisfied with (but Hargrove considered satisfactory) may turn out to be the tsunami that erradicates Hargrove's CAW presidency.
In the end, Hargrove may simply have forgotten where he came from. A ROB Magazine salary survey reports that Hargrove earns $131,110.00 per year... probably much more than the rank-and-file CAW members whom he "represents". It isn't terribly likely that the average CAW worker earns that kind of scratch.
As a result, Hargrove's complacency began to shine through in spectacular ways. In 2005, Hargrove announced, " It's inevitable that we'll face some downsizing at GM, as we do at the other two companies. That's the pack of cards we're playing with."
Yet somehow, Hargrove's own job was secure enough that he could spend precious time climbing into bed with Paul Martin and the Liberal party -- time that should have been spent trying to save CAW jobs.
In the end, Chazz himself may describe Hargrove's trouble's best: " ...Like the federal government, change is needed right now at the CAW. Buzz's days are numbered. Not a minute too soon."
The time for CAW to have a president who will actually stand up for workers -- and not pursue his own ill-concieved political career -- has long passed.
Times are tough for Buzz Hargrove.
Following the 2006 federal election, wherein he violated NDP rules by supporting "strategic voting" (read: selling out to the Liberal party), his party membership was revoked. In retaliation, Hargrove called on all CAW members to renounce the New Democrats -- despite Jack Layton's assertion that he wouldn't have expelled Hargrove. Last month, Ontario bus driver Willie Lambert threw his hat into the ring to challenge Hargrove for the presidency of the Canadian Auto Workers union (also known as CAW).
Now, to make matters worse for Hargrove, CAW workers at a General Motor plants in Oshawa, Ontario have gone on what he refers to as an "unauthorized strike". The strike could cripple these operations, and threaten the jobs of hundreds, according to Hargrove.
The strike began in earnest on friday, more than a full day prior to a Saturday midnight deadline during which Hargrove and GM would continue to negotiate regarding wages and the quantity of future work.
Yet, somehow, Hargrove has a little rebellion on his hands. The workers that he claims to represent and work for have rejected his edict, and taken matters into their own hands. How could this be?
The answer to this question is simple: Hargrove simply may not have the trust of CAW members any longer. When he severed official ties between the CAW and the NDP, Hargrove removed the CAW from Canada's largest, most comprehensive labour coalition in Canada. All the other "big unions" (such as CUPE) remain aligned with the NDP. CAW leadership claimed they had a majority vote from CAW members, yet have never released an official vote tally to prove it.
Hargrove's hold over CAW has been reported to be tenuous for some time now. At many CAW protests, many members have been spotted wearing "Buzz Off" T-shirts that were distributed within the union by Hargrove's rivals.
The prognosis is evidently clear.
After fourteen years of holding the CAW presidency (he was first acclaimed as CAW president in 1992, and has never been defeated), it's become obvious that Hargrove has become unable to separate his own interests from that of the CAW, or the workers he represents. In March, Hargrove insisted that "the action of the Ontario NDP is a direct attack on the CAW and our members."
Combine this with the fallout from his election-time abandonment of the NDP and subsequent denunciation of them, then consider the fact that this took up much of the time that Hargrove should have been using to try to and protect his workers from Ford lay-offs, and the picture becomes clear.
Buzz Hargrove is not as in charge as he would like a lot of people to believe. But then again, this may not be a very recent development. On www.westernstandard.ca (on January 26), a CAW member identifying himsefl as "Chazz", wrote: " As a CAW member in Ontario, I can tell you that Buzz is absolutely despised by many union people at the local level and the national level. He should have stepped aside before the last CAW elections, but he hung on."
It could be considered in terms of the butterfly effect. Hargrove got a little too comfortable in his position, and a ripple started. As years progressed, and he became bolder and bolder, he eventually alienated much of his party membership, and these waves are now climbing ever higher. A 2005 settlement between GM and CAW that many workers were disatisfied with (but Hargrove considered satisfactory) may turn out to be the tsunami that erradicates Hargrove's CAW presidency.
In the end, Hargrove may simply have forgotten where he came from. A ROB Magazine salary survey reports that Hargrove earns $131,110.00 per year... probably much more than the rank-and-file CAW members whom he "represents". It isn't terribly likely that the average CAW worker earns that kind of scratch.
As a result, Hargrove's complacency began to shine through in spectacular ways. In 2005, Hargrove announced, " It's inevitable that we'll face some downsizing at GM, as we do at the other two companies. That's the pack of cards we're playing with."
Yet somehow, Hargrove's own job was secure enough that he could spend precious time climbing into bed with Paul Martin and the Liberal party -- time that should have been spent trying to save CAW jobs.
In the end, Chazz himself may describe Hargrove's trouble's best: " ...Like the federal government, change is needed right now at the CAW. Buzz's days are numbered. Not a minute too soon."
The time for CAW to have a president who will actually stand up for workers -- and not pursue his own ill-concieved political career -- has long passed.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Huge Announcement -- Nexus of Assholery Expands!
NEW! Nexus of Assholery Message Board
These are exciting times for us... er, me... here at the Nexus.
Ever since the creation of this shitty, self-absorbed little weblog, I've been wracking my brain coming up with new ways to make it more accessible to prospective readers.
An extended four-month hiatus didn't exactly help (apparently, I've been declared "dead or missing in action" within the blogging community). A number of days ago, while reading Joe Trippi's The Revolution Will Not be Televised, the idea hit me like Triple H with a sledgehammer to the face. A couple of days work on this revelation later, and this self-professed shitty, self-absorbed little weblog is ready to turn the corner. It's ready to become something newer, something better.
The change in question is, quite simply, the creation of a Nexus of Assholery message board.
But it's much more than simply a message board. It's also a hub for internet communities: something of a crossroads on the information superhighway for people to post links to their own weblogs and message boards, talk about just about anything they want to.
You can discuss the media. Debate the issues -- right down to an actual "Debate Club" area in which winners and losers will be declared by the site's actual users. There is also a section in which people who feel so inclined can discuss Nexus of Assholery Book Club selections.
The site is http://assholenexus.proboards101.com/index.cgi. You can also get there by clicking the header under the headline on this particular article).
Go there, register, log in, and post. Communities like this have to be built one person at a time, but in the end the payoff could be colossal. Please tell your friends as well. The more, the merrier.
These are exciting times for us... er, me... here at the Nexus.
Ever since the creation of this shitty, self-absorbed little weblog, I've been wracking my brain coming up with new ways to make it more accessible to prospective readers.
An extended four-month hiatus didn't exactly help (apparently, I've been declared "dead or missing in action" within the blogging community). A number of days ago, while reading Joe Trippi's The Revolution Will Not be Televised, the idea hit me like Triple H with a sledgehammer to the face. A couple of days work on this revelation later, and this self-professed shitty, self-absorbed little weblog is ready to turn the corner. It's ready to become something newer, something better.
The change in question is, quite simply, the creation of a Nexus of Assholery message board.
But it's much more than simply a message board. It's also a hub for internet communities: something of a crossroads on the information superhighway for people to post links to their own weblogs and message boards, talk about just about anything they want to.
You can discuss the media. Debate the issues -- right down to an actual "Debate Club" area in which winners and losers will be declared by the site's actual users. There is also a section in which people who feel so inclined can discuss Nexus of Assholery Book Club selections.
The site is http://assholenexus.proboards101.com/index.cgi. You can also get there by clicking the header under the headline on this particular article).
Go there, register, log in, and post. Communities like this have to be built one person at a time, but in the end the payoff could be colossal. Please tell your friends as well. The more, the merrier.
Monday, May 15, 2006
A Tale of Two Traitors
Emerson and Stronach are no different -- and both should have faced by-elections
It's no great secret that since his post-election defection to the Conservative party, David Emerson has become one of the most controversial figures in Canadian politics.
When he was elected in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, Emerson promised he would be Prime Minister Stephen Harper's "worst nightmare". Instead, he secretly crossed the floor from the opposition Liberals to sit as the Conservative Minister of Trade and the Pacific Gateway. His duplicity was entirely unknown to Canadians of all political stripes until he was caught by news cameras emerging from the inaugural Conservative cabinet meeting -- he had just been sworn in.
Now, Canadians of all political stripes are calling for Emerson's resignation. Leading this campaign is Vancouver Kingsway constituent Manuel Pereda. Along with Kevin Chalmers, a key fundraiser for the Emerson campaign, Pereda has organized his own little protest movement. At one point he even paid for an airplane to fly over Ottawa with a trail instrucing Emerson to "call home".
An online petition demanding the recall of Emerson (found at www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?RDE) currently has 20810 signatures -- more than enough to inspire some sober second thought from Emerson. However, it is obvious this has yet to come. Emerson has developed a habit of denouncing his critics as "partisan zealots".
Resultingly, Pereda is getting little response from Emerson. Pereda reports, " He responds to all my questiosn with one single sentence: his sentence is he's only accountable to constituents at election time."
Naturally, Emerson has tried to shy away from this attitude in public statements, saying, " the reality is I was elected. Once the election was over, I was faced with a decision on how to best serve the people of the riding, and that's all the people of the riding... I concluded I could better serve them , I could get more done, I could get more results for British Columbia if I was in the cabinet than if I was not."
Translation: " I'm bettering my own career, while claiming I'm doing so for my constituents. Meanwhile, as I claim that I am, in fact, doing this for them, I will disrespect them entirely."
Pereda's frustration with Emerson's arrogance and contempt for the electorate is familiar to many Canadians -- many felt the same way after the equally shameful defection of Belinda Stronach.
Certainly, there is one key difference: namely, that Emerson has made himself useful since crossing the floor, helping to settle Canada's softwood lumber dispute with the United States. Although the settlement didn't pull as many American teeth as critics of the settlement would have liked, it did resolve the matter faster than any Liberal government would have (then again, how much faster than "never" would he have had to be?). Stronach, on the other hand, took to a new cabinet position as the Minister for "Democratic Renewal", and proceeded to rest on her non-existent laurels. There is one other inexplicable difference -- Stronach was somehow able to get reelected after her betrayal. Now, one wonders if Emerson could accomplish the same feat.
Like any Member of Parliament who crosses the floor after election, Emerson owes it to his constituents to resign and run in a by-election.
It seems like the only party advancing in the interest in democracy is the NDP. On March 10, it was the NDP that requested that the ethics investigation into Emerson's defection also investigate the defection of Stronach. It is the NDP that is currently proposing legislation that would require any defecting Member of Parliament to immediately submit to a by-election in their riding in order to ascertain the will of their constituents.
In the wake of the last year, neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal party have any credibility on this particular matter. It may indeed be up to the NDP to address this very serious culture of duplicity, because anything the Liberals or Conservatives have to say on the subject will certainly be nothing more than partisan grand standing.
It's no great secret that since his post-election defection to the Conservative party, David Emerson has become one of the most controversial figures in Canadian politics.
When he was elected in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, Emerson promised he would be Prime Minister Stephen Harper's "worst nightmare". Instead, he secretly crossed the floor from the opposition Liberals to sit as the Conservative Minister of Trade and the Pacific Gateway. His duplicity was entirely unknown to Canadians of all political stripes until he was caught by news cameras emerging from the inaugural Conservative cabinet meeting -- he had just been sworn in.
Now, Canadians of all political stripes are calling for Emerson's resignation. Leading this campaign is Vancouver Kingsway constituent Manuel Pereda. Along with Kevin Chalmers, a key fundraiser for the Emerson campaign, Pereda has organized his own little protest movement. At one point he even paid for an airplane to fly over Ottawa with a trail instrucing Emerson to "call home".
An online petition demanding the recall of Emerson (found at www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?RDE) currently has 20810 signatures -- more than enough to inspire some sober second thought from Emerson. However, it is obvious this has yet to come. Emerson has developed a habit of denouncing his critics as "partisan zealots".
Resultingly, Pereda is getting little response from Emerson. Pereda reports, " He responds to all my questiosn with one single sentence: his sentence is he's only accountable to constituents at election time."
Naturally, Emerson has tried to shy away from this attitude in public statements, saying, " the reality is I was elected. Once the election was over, I was faced with a decision on how to best serve the people of the riding, and that's all the people of the riding... I concluded I could better serve them , I could get more done, I could get more results for British Columbia if I was in the cabinet than if I was not."
Translation: " I'm bettering my own career, while claiming I'm doing so for my constituents. Meanwhile, as I claim that I am, in fact, doing this for them, I will disrespect them entirely."
Pereda's frustration with Emerson's arrogance and contempt for the electorate is familiar to many Canadians -- many felt the same way after the equally shameful defection of Belinda Stronach.
Certainly, there is one key difference: namely, that Emerson has made himself useful since crossing the floor, helping to settle Canada's softwood lumber dispute with the United States. Although the settlement didn't pull as many American teeth as critics of the settlement would have liked, it did resolve the matter faster than any Liberal government would have (then again, how much faster than "never" would he have had to be?). Stronach, on the other hand, took to a new cabinet position as the Minister for "Democratic Renewal", and proceeded to rest on her non-existent laurels. There is one other inexplicable difference -- Stronach was somehow able to get reelected after her betrayal. Now, one wonders if Emerson could accomplish the same feat.
Like any Member of Parliament who crosses the floor after election, Emerson owes it to his constituents to resign and run in a by-election.
It seems like the only party advancing in the interest in democracy is the NDP. On March 10, it was the NDP that requested that the ethics investigation into Emerson's defection also investigate the defection of Stronach. It is the NDP that is currently proposing legislation that would require any defecting Member of Parliament to immediately submit to a by-election in their riding in order to ascertain the will of their constituents.
In the wake of the last year, neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal party have any credibility on this particular matter. It may indeed be up to the NDP to address this very serious culture of duplicity, because anything the Liberals or Conservatives have to say on the subject will certainly be nothing more than partisan grand standing.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Bob Rae: Bush is Hitler, Harper Bad
Three cheers for the Munich Pact!
I told myself I was going to back off the Liberals for a little while.
I reminded myself I am trying to be non-partisan, for better or worse, and that the Liberals are suffering enough without my "help".
Then Bob Rae compared Stephen Harper's softwood lumber deal with the United States to the Munich Pact.
Fuck. And here I go:
Yes, you probably read that correctly. On May 10, Bob Rae -- yet another lousy candidate for the leadership of the federal Liberal party -- compared the Canada/U.S. softwood lumber agreement (under which the American government accepted Canada's most important conditions) to the Munich pact (under which Adolph Hitler and then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed that Germany would be allowed to annex Czechoslovakia), not only comparing Harper to one of the weakest political leaders in history, but also compared U.S. President George W. Bush to Adolph Hilter.
Coming from a former leader of the NDP, that's about as subtle as blitzkrieg.
Naturally, many Liberal party members have wanted to distance themselves from these comments. A phonecall made by Warren Kinsella, howver, was able to confirm that Rae did in fact make these comments.
On his website, www.warrenkinsella.com (yes, Warren named his website after himself -- subtle!), Kinsella wrote: " I am told: 1. [Rae] did, in fact, compare Harper to Chamberlain"; 2. He did, in fact, mention "Munic" but not the word "pact". Those are what some of us call a distinction without a difference. Do you think the analogy is appropriate? I sure don't."
Kinsella went on to suggest -- stop the presses! -- Rae owes Harper an apology: " Do you think Bob Rae should apologize? I sure do. Do you think he will? Don't hold your breath."
Even Warren Kinsella thinks Rae fucked up. Mister Rae, this is the best indication that you have, in fact, fucked up.
However, Rae has yet to take responsibility for his comments. On his website, www.BobRae.ca (he also named his website after himself), Rae makes no mention whatsoever of what he and his supporters would probably call a "minor blunder".
Many observers would speculate that what the Liberal party currently needs in a leader, more than anything else, is an individual who can look back at all the mistakes the party made over the past 15 years and learn from them. Evidently, Bob Rae is one of many who are incapable of doing this. After the embarrassment the party suffered with their infamous "a Harper election will make Bush happy" commercial (although not nearly as humiliating as their "troops with guns in our cities" ad), and the adverse effect it had on the party's ability to be elected, one would have thought that all Liberals -- even one as inept as Bob Rae -- would have been smarter than this.
Considering their reputation for being rampantly anti-American, the Liberal party may have wanted to show they can pursue a more productive relationship with Canada's largest trading partner -- then again, maybe not.
With a statements like this, Bob Rae may as well be telling people to vote for Osama bin Laden for the federal Liberal leadership.
I told myself I was going to back off the Liberals for a little while.
I reminded myself I am trying to be non-partisan, for better or worse, and that the Liberals are suffering enough without my "help".
Then Bob Rae compared Stephen Harper's softwood lumber deal with the United States to the Munich Pact.
Fuck. And here I go:
Yes, you probably read that correctly. On May 10, Bob Rae -- yet another lousy candidate for the leadership of the federal Liberal party -- compared the Canada/U.S. softwood lumber agreement (under which the American government accepted Canada's most important conditions) to the Munich pact (under which Adolph Hitler and then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed that Germany would be allowed to annex Czechoslovakia), not only comparing Harper to one of the weakest political leaders in history, but also compared U.S. President George W. Bush to Adolph Hilter.
Coming from a former leader of the NDP, that's about as subtle as blitzkrieg.
Naturally, many Liberal party members have wanted to distance themselves from these comments. A phonecall made by Warren Kinsella, howver, was able to confirm that Rae did in fact make these comments.
On his website, www.warrenkinsella.com (yes, Warren named his website after himself -- subtle!), Kinsella wrote: " I am told: 1. [Rae] did, in fact, compare Harper to Chamberlain"; 2. He did, in fact, mention "Munic" but not the word "pact". Those are what some of us call a distinction without a difference. Do you think the analogy is appropriate? I sure don't."
Kinsella went on to suggest -- stop the presses! -- Rae owes Harper an apology: " Do you think Bob Rae should apologize? I sure do. Do you think he will? Don't hold your breath."
Even Warren Kinsella thinks Rae fucked up. Mister Rae, this is the best indication that you have, in fact, fucked up.
However, Rae has yet to take responsibility for his comments. On his website, www.BobRae.ca (he also named his website after himself), Rae makes no mention whatsoever of what he and his supporters would probably call a "minor blunder".
Many observers would speculate that what the Liberal party currently needs in a leader, more than anything else, is an individual who can look back at all the mistakes the party made over the past 15 years and learn from them. Evidently, Bob Rae is one of many who are incapable of doing this. After the embarrassment the party suffered with their infamous "a Harper election will make Bush happy" commercial (although not nearly as humiliating as their "troops with guns in our cities" ad), and the adverse effect it had on the party's ability to be elected, one would have thought that all Liberals -- even one as inept as Bob Rae -- would have been smarter than this.
Considering their reputation for being rampantly anti-American, the Liberal party may have wanted to show they can pursue a more productive relationship with Canada's largest trading partner -- then again, maybe not.
With a statements like this, Bob Rae may as well be telling people to vote for Osama bin Laden for the federal Liberal leadership.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Canada Needs Belinda Stronach Like Jean Chretien Needs Another Stroke
When rabid Liberals attack
What would you say if someone told you that Canada needs Belinda Stronach?
I know what I'd say -- but (believe it or not), it isn't fit for print here. Scary, huh?
And, yet, a group of pro-Belinda Liberals have insisted that Belinda Stronach is just the man... er, woman... for the job of federal Liberal leader.
Never mind the fact that she ran for (and failed to secure) the leadership of the federal Conservative party. Never mind the fact that she jumped ship to the competing Liberal party strictly to further her own career. AND, not to mention the fact that she has tried to steal a job out from under any man with whom she's spend as much as three minutes in the back of a grody taxi cab...
But I digress. Mostly because some of that is borderline slanderous. And while I do love my slander, I feel it is better spent on Jack Thompson (by the way, Jack, I'm still waiting for you to sue me).
While it is true that the race for the federal Liberal leadership has yielded few quality candidates (go Bob Rae! After all, Ontarians won't remember that whole "incompetent premier" thing), the absolute last thing that the Liberal party needs is for Belinda Stronach to enter the race and provide Liberals with yet another bad candidate for the job.
After all, there is a reason why Stronach withdrew from the race, even after having done some preliminary informal organizing for a run at the leadership.
When bowing out of the race (before even formally entering), Stronach cited a "flawed selection process" as the reason for her change of heart. She claimed that the process was too closed, despite having praised it as "open accessible and accountable" in March. At the time she said, "the rules... demonstrate the party is vibrant and is ready to take the next steps to renew and rejuvinate itself."
This particular flip-flop comes less than a year after she criticized the Liberal budget in the house of commons before jumping to the Liberals to help them pass it in May 2005. For Belinda Stronach, that's just how the world turns. It's how she rolls, if you will.
Liberal officials had warned that they would stringently enforce limits on large campaign donations, nixing what would have been a massive advantage for the Auto Parts heiress (Stronach's father owns Magda International, a company for which Belinda served as both president and CEO -- despite dropping out of business school).
There is another reason for Stronach's withdrawal that she certainly won't publicly admit to -- Elle nes pas parles francais. Translation: she evidently doesn't speak french well enough to order fries from a Burger King in Quebec.
This was exactly the opinion of a commentator for CTV, who reported that after asking her a question in French, she asked him to repeat it -- in English. Certainly, a party that wants to believe itself the flag-bearer for federalism in Quebec can't have that. So, Belinda was done before she ever started.
Aside from all this, the simple fact of the matter is that Stronach is entirely unqualified. Once one becomes familiar with her life story, it becomes plainly obvious that he has gotten where she is in life not by hard work, but by back stabbing anyone she could get close to. When it became apparent the same tactic would not yield results within the Conservative party, she jumped to one where the practice is more commonplace, only to find her blade dulled by her own untrustworthiness and incompetence.
From business school drop out to Liberal party leadership race drop out, one thing is certain: even an embattled organization like the Liberal party can do much better in choosing a leader -- although all the remaining candidates have their own issues to deal with.
What would you say if someone told you that Canada needs Belinda Stronach?
I know what I'd say -- but (believe it or not), it isn't fit for print here. Scary, huh?
And, yet, a group of pro-Belinda Liberals have insisted that Belinda Stronach is just the man... er, woman... for the job of federal Liberal leader.
Never mind the fact that she ran for (and failed to secure) the leadership of the federal Conservative party. Never mind the fact that she jumped ship to the competing Liberal party strictly to further her own career. AND, not to mention the fact that she has tried to steal a job out from under any man with whom she's spend as much as three minutes in the back of a grody taxi cab...
But I digress. Mostly because some of that is borderline slanderous. And while I do love my slander, I feel it is better spent on Jack Thompson (by the way, Jack, I'm still waiting for you to sue me).
While it is true that the race for the federal Liberal leadership has yielded few quality candidates (go Bob Rae! After all, Ontarians won't remember that whole "incompetent premier" thing), the absolute last thing that the Liberal party needs is for Belinda Stronach to enter the race and provide Liberals with yet another bad candidate for the job.
After all, there is a reason why Stronach withdrew from the race, even after having done some preliminary informal organizing for a run at the leadership.
When bowing out of the race (before even formally entering), Stronach cited a "flawed selection process" as the reason for her change of heart. She claimed that the process was too closed, despite having praised it as "open accessible and accountable" in March. At the time she said, "the rules... demonstrate the party is vibrant and is ready to take the next steps to renew and rejuvinate itself."
This particular flip-flop comes less than a year after she criticized the Liberal budget in the house of commons before jumping to the Liberals to help them pass it in May 2005. For Belinda Stronach, that's just how the world turns. It's how she rolls, if you will.
Liberal officials had warned that they would stringently enforce limits on large campaign donations, nixing what would have been a massive advantage for the Auto Parts heiress (Stronach's father owns Magda International, a company for which Belinda served as both president and CEO -- despite dropping out of business school).
There is another reason for Stronach's withdrawal that she certainly won't publicly admit to -- Elle nes pas parles francais. Translation: she evidently doesn't speak french well enough to order fries from a Burger King in Quebec.
This was exactly the opinion of a commentator for CTV, who reported that after asking her a question in French, she asked him to repeat it -- in English. Certainly, a party that wants to believe itself the flag-bearer for federalism in Quebec can't have that. So, Belinda was done before she ever started.
Aside from all this, the simple fact of the matter is that Stronach is entirely unqualified. Once one becomes familiar with her life story, it becomes plainly obvious that he has gotten where she is in life not by hard work, but by back stabbing anyone she could get close to. When it became apparent the same tactic would not yield results within the Conservative party, she jumped to one where the practice is more commonplace, only to find her blade dulled by her own untrustworthiness and incompetence.
From business school drop out to Liberal party leadership race drop out, one thing is certain: even an embattled organization like the Liberal party can do much better in choosing a leader -- although all the remaining candidates have their own issues to deal with.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Adscam Lawsuit is Treading on Precarious Territory
Liberals' Day of Judgement May be Nigh
Since losing the federal election to the upstart Conservative party in January, things have been looking rather bleak for the Liberals. The Conservatives have been surging in the polls to the point that surveys have indicated -- on a regular basis -- that if a federal election were held now, the Conservatives would be likely to win a majority government.
What ultimately led to the defeat of the Liberals is not great secret -- the multi-million (possibly multi-billion, according to forensic accountants) adscam that funnelled taxpayer dollars into Liberal party coffers in order to "save the country". Since their January 23 defeat, the Liberal party has been waiting for the other foot to drop.
Now, the proverbial shit has hit the fan.
During the election, Stephen Harper suggested that under his reign, the government of Canada may sue the Liberal party in order to recover up to $40 million in stolen taxpayer dollars that remain unnaccounted for. To date, the Liberal party has paid back a scant $1.4 million.
Naturally, a move like this has all sorts of implications. First off, it would demonstrate to the Canadian public that the Liberal party and the Government of Canada are indeed separate political entities. The lawsuit would seek to recover "all the dirty money", returning it back to government coffers -- where it should have remained to begin with. Finally, it would also set a legal precedent with severe implications for any governments in future that engaged in such activity -- or, at least those that got caught.
However, $40 million is a steep price for any organization -- especially a political party -- to pay. In a December 24, 2005 Sun Media column, former Liberal debuty leader Sheila Copps reported that the party was "$34,818,257.32 in debt by way of 13 bank loans". If not for Elections Canada rules (insituted in 2004) requiring all political parties to report their financial status, few in the public probably would have ever known this.
Imagine that this particular case goes to court tomorrow, and the Liberals lose -- this would put the Liberal party $74,818,257.32 in debt -- firmly at risk of complete bankruptcy.
Certainly bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of an organization like the Liberal party. However, it would put the party at a severe disadvantage for a considerable period of time. Under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the Liberal party would see their payments on their outstanding bank loans, as well as their newfound debt to the government of Canada restructured over a three to five year period -- more than enough time to place them at a considerable disadvantage during a federal election. Under a chapter 7 bankruptcy, some of these debts could be wiped clean, but the Liberal party would have to divulge itself of many of its assets in order to do this. Also, the $40 million figure won by the government under a lawsuit would not be discharged. Furthermore, a chapter 7 bankruptcy would be disastrous to the party's already-tattered credit rating.
This only adds to the political benefit the Conservative party could derive from such a lawsuit. Not only would it keep adscam fresh in voters' minds through the next federal election, it could also devestate the Liberal party and impede its operations (both day-to-day and election-time) well into the foreseeable future.
A question could be asked about how this bodes for the country. And while the relinquishing of the Liberal party's strangle-hold on federal politics has and will continue to be a positive thing, replacing that with a Conservative party garrote is not exactly what one should consider a positive alternative.
Healthy democracies require differing (and most importantly, fully-functioning) political parties in order to maintain a rich marketplace of ideas. Crippling the Liberal party may well mean allowing not only the Conservative party, but also the NDP and Bloc Quebecois to sieze a greater "market share", as it were. With the exception of an ulikely emergence of the Green Party, the marketplace of ideas would become a significantly smaller one, offering less variety.
Suing the Liberal party to recover stolen public funds may be the right thing to do, but it may have unforeseen consequences for the country as a whole. Prime Minister Harper had best tread carefully to ensure that no damage is done that can never be undone.
Since losing the federal election to the upstart Conservative party in January, things have been looking rather bleak for the Liberals. The Conservatives have been surging in the polls to the point that surveys have indicated -- on a regular basis -- that if a federal election were held now, the Conservatives would be likely to win a majority government.
What ultimately led to the defeat of the Liberals is not great secret -- the multi-million (possibly multi-billion, according to forensic accountants) adscam that funnelled taxpayer dollars into Liberal party coffers in order to "save the country". Since their January 23 defeat, the Liberal party has been waiting for the other foot to drop.
Now, the proverbial shit has hit the fan.
During the election, Stephen Harper suggested that under his reign, the government of Canada may sue the Liberal party in order to recover up to $40 million in stolen taxpayer dollars that remain unnaccounted for. To date, the Liberal party has paid back a scant $1.4 million.
Naturally, a move like this has all sorts of implications. First off, it would demonstrate to the Canadian public that the Liberal party and the Government of Canada are indeed separate political entities. The lawsuit would seek to recover "all the dirty money", returning it back to government coffers -- where it should have remained to begin with. Finally, it would also set a legal precedent with severe implications for any governments in future that engaged in such activity -- or, at least those that got caught.
However, $40 million is a steep price for any organization -- especially a political party -- to pay. In a December 24, 2005 Sun Media column, former Liberal debuty leader Sheila Copps reported that the party was "$34,818,257.32 in debt by way of 13 bank loans". If not for Elections Canada rules (insituted in 2004) requiring all political parties to report their financial status, few in the public probably would have ever known this.
Imagine that this particular case goes to court tomorrow, and the Liberals lose -- this would put the Liberal party $74,818,257.32 in debt -- firmly at risk of complete bankruptcy.
Certainly bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of an organization like the Liberal party. However, it would put the party at a severe disadvantage for a considerable period of time. Under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the Liberal party would see their payments on their outstanding bank loans, as well as their newfound debt to the government of Canada restructured over a three to five year period -- more than enough time to place them at a considerable disadvantage during a federal election. Under a chapter 7 bankruptcy, some of these debts could be wiped clean, but the Liberal party would have to divulge itself of many of its assets in order to do this. Also, the $40 million figure won by the government under a lawsuit would not be discharged. Furthermore, a chapter 7 bankruptcy would be disastrous to the party's already-tattered credit rating.
This only adds to the political benefit the Conservative party could derive from such a lawsuit. Not only would it keep adscam fresh in voters' minds through the next federal election, it could also devestate the Liberal party and impede its operations (both day-to-day and election-time) well into the foreseeable future.
A question could be asked about how this bodes for the country. And while the relinquishing of the Liberal party's strangle-hold on federal politics has and will continue to be a positive thing, replacing that with a Conservative party garrote is not exactly what one should consider a positive alternative.
Healthy democracies require differing (and most importantly, fully-functioning) political parties in order to maintain a rich marketplace of ideas. Crippling the Liberal party may well mean allowing not only the Conservative party, but also the NDP and Bloc Quebecois to sieze a greater "market share", as it were. With the exception of an ulikely emergence of the Green Party, the marketplace of ideas would become a significantly smaller one, offering less variety.
Suing the Liberal party to recover stolen public funds may be the right thing to do, but it may have unforeseen consequences for the country as a whole. Prime Minister Harper had best tread carefully to ensure that no damage is done that can never be undone.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
NEW: Nexus of Assholery Book Club!
Irshad Manji, Risking Utopia: On the Edge of a New Democracy
Oprah Winfrey sure does hate James Fry, doesn't she?
Yeah, we all know the story. Oprah's embarrassed, she feels "decieved", and there will be "consequences" for James Fry.
So, naturally, the topic is: book clubs!
And lately I've been thinking to myself: why would anyone start a book club. It's really just one person dictating to any number of other people what they'll read, pretty much arbitrarily. Then I thought to myself: why? Fuck, why not?
So, yes, before you even ask it, I'll answer that burning question in the back of your cortex: yes, I'm going to start a book club. Once a month, I'm going to tell you what to read -- certainly I don't expect you to read it. Hell, I won't even sell you the book.
Most of the books for this particular book club should be available at your local library -- if you happen to attend a College or University, or even have access to one, I damn near guarantee you you'll find the book in question there. The books in question will cover a wide variety of topics, and I'll do my best to ensure they include many different -- perhaps often conflicting -- points of view.
Perhaps then it is fitting that I announce the first book for the Nexus of Assholery book club: Risking Utopia: On the Edge of a New Democracy by Irshad Manji.
Irshad Manji is known by many as one of the foremost critics of Islam today. The New York Times dubbed her "Osama bin Laden's Worst Nightmare". Right now, she's making all kinds of noise with her book The Trouble With Islam Today. She's also facing her fair share of critics, many of whom refute her claims to a desire for "dialogue with Islam", saying she is more interested in a monologue.
Long before making such a big splash with her current book, Manji tackled the contentious issue of identity politics in Risking Utopia. Risking Utopia is largely a collection of the life stories of various people who have been labelled as belonging to certain racial, ethnic, sexual or ability-related groups. The book is largely two fold: first, about the struggle of these people to define their own identities despite the stigmatization that accompanied the aforementioned labelling, and their determination to take the bull by the horns and solve their own problems.
Risking Utopia is a book that is first and foremost about building a more inclusive -- but, more importantly, less divisive -- society in which people are encouraged to be not only more indepedent, but more cooperative with one another. In a sense, Manji envisions a society that is in many levels interdependant, but within which no one is a burden on anyone else. Furthermore, everyone is welcome.
Sadly, if you're like me, you may find it frustrating that Manji herself may not be ready for the utopia she envisions. Like many writers of leftist stripes she singles out those dreaded "neo-conservatives" for special criticism, and makes it clear there is no place for them in the society she claims to envision.
Nonetheless, the book enshrines a glorious idea, and is a true winner from a gifted writer.
Oprah Winfrey sure does hate James Fry, doesn't she?
Yeah, we all know the story. Oprah's embarrassed, she feels "decieved", and there will be "consequences" for James Fry.
So, naturally, the topic is: book clubs!
And lately I've been thinking to myself: why would anyone start a book club. It's really just one person dictating to any number of other people what they'll read, pretty much arbitrarily. Then I thought to myself: why? Fuck, why not?
So, yes, before you even ask it, I'll answer that burning question in the back of your cortex: yes, I'm going to start a book club. Once a month, I'm going to tell you what to read -- certainly I don't expect you to read it. Hell, I won't even sell you the book.
Most of the books for this particular book club should be available at your local library -- if you happen to attend a College or University, or even have access to one, I damn near guarantee you you'll find the book in question there. The books in question will cover a wide variety of topics, and I'll do my best to ensure they include many different -- perhaps often conflicting -- points of view.
Perhaps then it is fitting that I announce the first book for the Nexus of Assholery book club: Risking Utopia: On the Edge of a New Democracy by Irshad Manji.
Irshad Manji is known by many as one of the foremost critics of Islam today. The New York Times dubbed her "Osama bin Laden's Worst Nightmare". Right now, she's making all kinds of noise with her book The Trouble With Islam Today. She's also facing her fair share of critics, many of whom refute her claims to a desire for "dialogue with Islam", saying she is more interested in a monologue.
Long before making such a big splash with her current book, Manji tackled the contentious issue of identity politics in Risking Utopia. Risking Utopia is largely a collection of the life stories of various people who have been labelled as belonging to certain racial, ethnic, sexual or ability-related groups. The book is largely two fold: first, about the struggle of these people to define their own identities despite the stigmatization that accompanied the aforementioned labelling, and their determination to take the bull by the horns and solve their own problems.
Risking Utopia is a book that is first and foremost about building a more inclusive -- but, more importantly, less divisive -- society in which people are encouraged to be not only more indepedent, but more cooperative with one another. In a sense, Manji envisions a society that is in many levels interdependant, but within which no one is a burden on anyone else. Furthermore, everyone is welcome.
Sadly, if you're like me, you may find it frustrating that Manji herself may not be ready for the utopia she envisions. Like many writers of leftist stripes she singles out those dreaded "neo-conservatives" for special criticism, and makes it clear there is no place for them in the society she claims to envision.
Nonetheless, the book enshrines a glorious idea, and is a true winner from a gifted writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)