Liberal Party To Keep Shooting 'Till They've Blown Their Feet Right Off

  
Ralph Goodale practically swears revenge on dissident Liberals

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff apparently just can't control his caucus.

During a whipped vote on a Liberal motion to include contraception -- and, in thinly-veiled words, abortion -- as part of Canada's commitment to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's G8 maternal and child health package, several Liberal MPs either skipped the vote or openly defied the party whip.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale promised "consequences" for those involved.

"When that happens on votes that do involve the whip process then there are internal consequences," Goodale said. "That's something that the party administration will take care of through the whip's office. It's a matter of internal discipline."

"Members know that when they go against what is the official position of the party on a vote that is a matter of principle, like this one, that they will perhaps satisfy the consequences," Goodale continued. "Their perks of office my be constrained."

Among those "perks" are included the privilege of lobbing queries during question period.

"This will be dealt with," Goodale promised. "It will be dealt with effectively."

It would be difficult for Goodale to be more transparent: the message the Liberal party seems to be poised to send to MPs like Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo and John McKay is that when Michael Ignatieff decides to use abortion as a wedge issue, they will disregard their conscience and vote how Ignatieff tells them to vote.

That won't go over well in a Liberal caucus -- and, evidently, Liberal Party -- that is far more divided on the topic of abortion that Michael Ignatieff had given credit for.

It's the kind of thing that may leave one wondering how long it will be before MPs like Szabo, McTeague or McKay may consider crossing the floor to sit with the government -- or at least leaving the Liberal caucus to sit as independents.

And just as pro-abortion advocates must be asking themselves about the precise level of commitment the Liberal Party holds to their agenda today, anti-abortion Liberals must be asking themselves how welcome their views are within that party.

With an extreme kee-jerk reaction to their self-inflicted humiliation, Michael Ignatieff and Ralph Goodale may reveal deeper cleavages wtihin the Liberal Party than they had ever imagined before.

Michael Ignatieff With (Fertilized) Egg on His Face

  
Liberal Party scandal mongering falls short

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper called upon the G8 to undertake a maternal and child health initiative, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff seemed to think he had been handed a golden opportunity.

By calling on Harper to ensure that the maternal and child health initiative included funding for abortion, Ignatieff must have imagined he could paint Harper as a right-wing extremist and pander to the pro-abortion movement by re-opening the abortion debate.

That move has left Ignatieff with egg on his face, as his party narrowly lost a non-binding motion to ensure that abortion and contraception were included in the plan.

Read that again: Ignatieff couldn't even pass a non-binding motion on the topic.

A number of anti-abortion Liberal MPs declined to show up for the vote, and three Liberal MPs -- Paul Szabo, John McKay and Dan McTeague -- voted against the motion.

"We've been very clear from the outset that this package, this program, would not include abortion," Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner said recently. "That's not what we want to talk about. It's not the direction that we want to go."

Unfortunately, Ignatieff very much did want to go in that direction, and fell short in his blatant attempt to pander to the pro-abortion movement -- a great many pro-abortion activists must be asking some rather serious questions about the Liberal Party's commitment to their starkly ideological agenda today.

Hopefully, Michael Ignatieff will think twice before he so obnoxiously attempts to exploit the perpetual controversy of abortion again.

Ann Coulter Set to Escalate the Free Speech War

Coulter's complaint to be most recent of numerous political stunts in CHRC

As the battle over Canada's Human Rights Commissions has gone on, one of the great tragedies over the matter has been the sheer number of times Canada's human rights commissions have been used to prepetrate political stunts.

The most recent of these stunts is set to be a complaint Ann Coulter has promised to file over the cancellation of her scheduled speech at the University of Ottawa.

“I’m sure the Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of it,” Coulter announced. “I think I’m the victim of a hate crime here. Either what (Francois Houle) did was a hate crime, or the whole commission is BS.”

Houle, a provost of the University of Ottawa, wrote Coulter a letter recommending that she familiarize herself with the limits of free speech in Canada.

"We, of course, are always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus," Houle wrote. "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

Ezra Levant, who has been accompanying Coulter on her speaking engagements, described the letter as a veiled threat.

University of Ottawa Students' Federation President Sheamus Wolfe has insisted that Coulter isn't welcome on the University of Ottawa campus. That particular veiled threat was made good on, as University of Ottawa officials cancelled the speech in fears that the protest could turn violent.

The venue for Coulter's speech had to be evacuated after a fire alarm was pulled.

The experience must have been frustrating for many of Coulter's admirers. Speeches by left-wing firebrands like Ward Churchill have taken place at many Canadian universities without terminal interruptions. During her Monday night speech at the University of Western Ontario, Coulter complained about a double standard that may facilitate such differences.

"It’s almost like there is one standard for conservatives and one completely different one for liberals," Coulter complained. "A word is either offensive or it’s not. In a world of political correctness, all words are banned unless they’re used against conservatives."

This is, of course, the language of self-imposed martyrdom. Coulter's remarks to a Muslim student at UNO seemed designed to provoke some sort of reaction, and she would up getting what she wanted.

Now, she clearly intends to use Canada's Human Rights Commission as a venue for a political stunt -- one likely not unlike the one Syed Soharwardy perpetrated against Levant, when he withdrew his complaint over Levant's publishing of the infamous Prophet Muhammad cartoons after Levant had spent an exorbitant amount of money defending against the complaint.

At the end of the day, however, Francois Houle and the University of Ottawa have given Coulter what she desires most: publicity, and means by which to elevate herself into martyrdom again.

In the soon-to-be-immortal words of Adrian McNair: way to go, bozos.




Other bloggers writing about this topic:

The Reaction - "Ann Coulter: Liberal"

Russ Campbell - "Ann Coulter: Right-wing Lightning Rod"

Just Right - "Ann Coulter and Free Speech in Canuckistan"

My, But How Quick the "Progressives" Are to Swallow Regression

"Progessive" approves of Duceppe's extremism out of anti-Conservative fervour

Despite the extraordinary measures taken to evade criticism by the most dedicated of the Chickenwankers, it isn't all that difficult to keep tabs on what that particular lunatic is up to.

In the most recent amusing dispatch from Sister Sage's Musings, CK blogs that recent remarks by Gilles Duceppe comparing Quebec separatists to the Free French of World War II are absolutely fantastic -- mostly because conservatives don't like it, and even accusing Stephen Harper of being a separatist:

"'Squabble and Divisiveness'? Really? He’s attempting to unite Quebecers. As for squabble and divisiveness that you refer to; well, where’s the problem? Afraid that perhaps Gilles might play it better than Steve? Oh, like Steve never made any anti-Quebec statements in his career.

This is classic Steve calling the kettle black here; not only because of his games of divide and conquer against the opposition parties and with Canadians in general, but, what many seem to forget is that ol’ Stevie himself attempted to engineer the break-up of Canada. I seem to remember a letter written by Stevie to Ralph Klein in 2001, all about creating a firewall around Alberta. I suggest you click on the link and read this firewall letter to remind us of how much Stevie loves Canada to remain all together in love and singin’ 'Coombaya'."

Apparently, CK's standard for "anti-Quebec statements" is Stephen Harper factually pointing out that the 2008 Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition agreement represented a deal with separatists. (Some comically accused Harper of "Quebec bashing" for that.)

As for Stephen Harper's "firewall letter" being an attempt to "engineer the break-up of Canada", few claims could possibly be more comical. Among the recommendations in the famed letter were instituting a provincial police force, setting up an Albertan pension fund, and reassert provincial jurisdiction over health care policy.

Astute Canadians would recognize these recommendations very quickly. They are the same powers already asserted by Quebec and (in the case of a provincial police force) by Ontario.

The letter also recommended using the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the matter of Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate Reform onto the federal agenda. The only remotely radical proposal in the letter was for the province to collect at least the provincial portion of income tax revenue. Again, this is a power that Quebec already exercises.

Interestingly, Quebec's use of such powers has yet to precipitate the break-up of Canada -- something perfectly apparent to all Canadians, including the signatories of the firewall letter.

This is for good reason. These measures all significantly increase the level of provincial autonomy, but they stop far short of full sovereignty. In short, provincial autonomy doesn't equal provincial separation, and CK could stand to hear it if she wasn't so busy trying to evade criticism and debate.

If the firewall letter doesn't provide sufficient evidence for rampant separatism in Alberta, CK insists that many conservatives have mused about separating from Alberta. She's even heard them:

"In addition to that firewall letter, I have heard many an Albertan conservative musing about themselves pulling out of Canada as they feel the rest of Canada (mainly Quebec) are thieves. Wonder why that never makes the headlines of so-called mainstream media? Oh yeah! It’s Harpercon media. Wonder why Stevie never condemns them for their misanthropic behavior?

Oh and Stevie, Soudas and the rest of the Harpercons: I want to thank you for succeeding, yet again, in alienating Quebecers. Remember Stevie, it ain’t just separatists who endorse and vote for the Bloc."

Of course, anyone who cared to look would have serious difficulty locating a separatist party in Alberta that polls at a level even approaching political relevance in Alberta. It certainly isn't anything like in Quebec where separatists have formed the government on a number of occasions and held referendums.

Alberta separatists have largely been ignored by the media because they're marginal and irrelevant. In Alberta's political history, Albertan separatists can boast the election of one (1) single-term MLA.

Nothing at all like Quebec.

Moreover, CK once again parrots the line that criticizing the Bloc Quebecois alienates Qubeckers, noting that not all of the Bloc's voters are separatists.

Which is true enough. A portion of the Bloc's voters are individuals like CK who seem to have deluded themselves into believing that the BQ is a "progressive" political party, despite the vile, pervasive, and quite undeniable racial ideology that forms the basis of the party's political culture.

The Conservative Party could, of course, waste its energy trying to accomodate such fools. But considering the amount of mental energy they've expended ignoring what every other Canadian who has cared to look recognizes as plainly as the nose on their face, that wouldn't merely be a waste of energy, but a colossal waste of time.

Regressive Separatists, Not "Resistance Fighters"

Bloc Quebecois has very little to "resist"

Many Canadians must remember 2008's infamous coalition crisis, when then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion hatched a plot that he insisted during an election that he wouldn't -- a plot that involved, essentially, a deal with the devil himself.

When Dion concluded a coalition agreement with Jack Layton and the NDP, they included the Bloc Quebecois as a silent partner -- they wouldn't receive any cabinet seats (granting plausible deniability to the affair), but would support the government.

Many supporters of the coalition even insisted that the Boc isn't actually a separatist party.

But BQ leader Gilles Duceppe has been more vocal on the matter of separatism recently, and it should be incredibly difficult to make that argument.

Speaking to a general council meeting over the weekend, Duceppe declared that the Bloc Quebecois is a "resistance movement".

"For now, we're members of a resistance movement," Duceppe announced. "But members of today's resistance movement are tomorrow's victors. Long live a sovereign Quebec!"

Considering how much Canada has given to Quebec -- la belle province has been a net recipient of transfer payments from the other provinces -- one may wonder precisely what it is that Quebec has been "resisting".

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon certainly seems to wonder.

"It happens to be the most ludicrous and ridiculous statement I've heard a sovereigntist make in 20 years," said Cannon. "I would hope he would indeed take the first opportunity to clarify his positions."

In some other recent comments that should make any ethnic minority in Quebec significantly uncomfortable, Duceppe made it fairly clear.

"Canada can continue to impose its multicultural ideology, the old Trudeau ideology, on Quebec," Duceppe recently told the House of Commons. "Canadian federalism has nothing to offer Quebec."

There's been no question that there's a regressive racial ideology underlying the Bloc Quebecois -- Duceppe is merely the most recent to let that cat out of the bag.

Only when the Bloc was providing the Liberal Party with an easy path to party would they dare ignore Duceppe frantically trying to stuff the feline back in again -- and the next time the Bloc may help the Liberals get back to the government, they'll very likely ignore it again.

As for the rest of Canada, the racial radicalism of the Quebec separatist movement can never be ignored again.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Luke Savage - "A Possible Turning Point"

Chrystal Ocean - "Dmitri Soudas: Non-Critical Thinker"

Glorified Backbenchers?

One more reason to elect the Senate

In an article appearing in the London Free Press, the suggestion is floated that ehc new Senate, in which the Conservative Party holds a plurality, may not be all that different from the old Senate.

Conservative Senate leader Marjory LeBreton insisted that opposition bills will be treated fairly, but that government bills will also be subject to less "filibustering" in the Senate.

Progressive Conservative Senator Elaine McCoy, however, objects to the notion that the Senate would simply push the government's legislation through the upper chamber.

"That's a very odd attitude for a senator to have, that's a backbencher's (attitude)," McCoy grumbled. "I'm not sure that the new senators are being oriented to anything other than that sort of obedience."

Of course, if McCoy wants Senators to be empowered to exercise such judgement, that's just another reason why the Senate needs to be elected.

Canadians have the right to exercise their own judgement on any official who would claim to exercise any kind of significant judgement on their behalf -- especially as far as the legislative process is concerned.

Whether or not McCoy understands this notion will not be seen until Conservaitve legislation on Senate elections is voted on by the Senate.

The Ragged Edge of Prejudice

A significant portion of the third part of Folk in America deals with the close links between the folk music scene and the civil rights movement during the 1960s.

Among other artists, Bob Dylan performed at rallies for Martin Luther King Jr in support of racial integration.

The film also highlights the role of the famed New Port folk festival in helping to facilitate the process by bringing many black folk musicians out of retirement to perform live for the first time in years.

The power of music to challenge racial prejudices has been recognized for decades. Elvis Presley brought black rythm and blues and gospel music to an audience that had long been insulated from such stylings. Before long, black culture didn't seem nearly as alien and threatening to many people as they once did.

But Folk in America also reminds us that there are limits to the tolerance of any group, even those purported to be the most enlightened.

It was at the very same New Port festival where so many black folk artists were brought out of retirement, Bob Dylan committed what was regarded by so many folk enthusiasts as a cardinal sin -- he went electric.

Musical purists who were the most eager to accept racial integration -- and rightly so -- were among those least eager to accept musical integration between folk music and rock n' roll. Just as those who resisted racial integration were doomed by history, so were those who resisted musical integration. By the time the Beatles arrived in the United States, the matter was a fait accompli -- much like racial integration was largely inevitable by the time of JFK's arrival.

The march toward musical integration continues today in some ways that would have previously been deemed unthinkable. The combination of folk and country music with rap and hip hop still finds intense resistance, yet such musical stylings continue to find larger and larger audiences continually in search of something new and fresh.

But there are purists among each musical style who fervently resist such integration. While it may be en vogue to dismiss such critics as racially intolerant, this fallacy is largely supported by the notions that few musical genres have ever been as black as rap, and have never been as white as country.

Yet artists like Charley Pride or Eminem (say nothing about Vanilla Ice -- period) would beg to differ. Artists like Kid Rock or Buck 65 even more so.

Mark Francis: Super Douchebag

One would have to think that the bizarre amount of existential angst that Chickenwanker Mark Francis feels at the very notion of having to engage with anyone he may disagree with has seemingly slowed his blogging down recently.

Lingering at the top of his blog is a blogpost -- one of many on the internet -- suggesting that former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer benefited from some sort of political interference in his case.

Yet the detail that Francis and the other far-left ideologues trying to milk this case to discredit the Conservative law-and-order agenda have conveniently overlooked the illegal procedure used during the strip search of Jaffer.

Which leads one to wonder if perhaps individuals like Francis believe that individuals like Jaffer aren't entitled to enjoy the benefits of their Charter rights:

Unfortunately, Mark isn't answering any such questions.

One shouldn't confuse the matter for approval or excuse for Jaffer's apparent actions. But the law is the the law, and that doesn't change when applying the highest law in the land to a conservative -- no matter how much individuals like Mark Francis may want it to.

Don't Be So Bloody Sensitive

Liberals back FNUC out of "cultural sensitivity"

In an era in which being insufficiently sensitive to any number of things can result in a complaint to a human rights commission, a great many people are feeling pressure to twist themselves in the name of cultural sensitivity.

For the Liberal Party of Canada, the demands of cultural sensitivity also seem to include supporting the embattled First Nations University of Canada, which recently had its funding cut by the federal government and government of Saskatchewan.

At issue are numerous issues -- ranging from questions of academic freedom related to the search of computers (an arbitration board eventually found insufficient evidence for violation of academic freedom), governance issues related to the Board of Directors, and questions regarding financial mismanagement.

The FNUC board of governors recently offered a plan to solve some of the problems at the university, a plan of which Minister of Indian Affairs Chuck Strahl seems skeptical.

There are many good reasons to support an institution like FNUC.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale insists that FNUC should be supported because many of its students allegedly wouldn't continue their education due to an alleged lack of cultural sensitivity.

That isn't a terribly compelling reason to support FNUC.

To begin with, many of Canada's universities have Native Studies departments where students at institutions like the FNUC could study in an environment every bit as culturally sensitive as FNUC.

But one can't help but wonder what kind of "cultural sensitivity" it is that Goodale believes the FNUC supplies. Many aboriginal leaders have expressed disagreement and even outrage at the views of Tom Flanagan, who is an outspoken critic of the current model of first nations governance.

The answer to such criticisms is not to insulate students from them. Rather, the proper way to answer such criticisms is to debate them -- an approach taken by the University of Manitoba when students and faculty objected to a speech by Flanagan at the institution.

On the other hand, to insulate aboriginal students from criticisms of their governance model does them a great disservice -- it doesn't lead them to confront any of the numerous shortcomings of that model (including an absolultely massive democratic deficit) so that they may one day fix them.

So, the lesson for Ralph Goodale and the Liberal Party should be: don't be so bloody sensitive.

Sensitivity has its time and place -- a university campus is rarely one of them.

0% Sense in 10% Fliers

Time for "ten percenter" mailings to end

One of the news stories that has generated a quiet buzz in Canadian politics was a recent vote to ban the controversial "ten percent" fliers MPs are elligible to send out.

In recent years this practice has been abused by MPs mailing fliers into ridings held by other parties. The Conservative Party is not the only party to abuse this practice, but they've been the most prolific.

MPs are allowed to send fliers to a number of households equal to 10% of the number of votes they received in that riding during the last election.

The purpose of those fliers is supposed to be to provide information to the constituents of those ridings, but far too often the mailings have been used for crass partisan politics.

The time has long come for the 10% fliers to be stopped. MPs have no business mailing fliers into another MPs riding for any reason. Whichever party is doing the mailing, or whichever party holds the riding makes no difference whatsoever in this regard.

If a party wants to send fliers to residents of a riding they don't hold, there are simple ways for them to do this: nominate a candidate, and start campaigning. The fliers can be sent by that candidate, at the candidate's or party's expense -- not by a rival MP at public expense.

The Conservative Party caucus has, sadly, expressed its attention to ignore the vote to ban the mailings as a "non-binding motion".

Fortunately, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office has since issued a statement insisting that the Conservative Party supports ending the practice, contingent on the agreement of Board of Internal Economy.

Given the way the Conservative Party has used these 10% mailings -- the mailings targetting Liberal MP and long time anti-semitism battler Irwin Cotler (who, among his efforts, can be credited with bringing the number of Nazi war criminals hiding in Canada to public attention) were particularly unfounded and disturbing -- one will believe that the Tories have stopped using these mailings when one sees it.

But it's simply beyond question that it's time for the practice to end -- and it must end now.

Strawman Argument Epic Fail

Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey apparently wants to mock Jill Stanek for making a "potential people" argument that Audrey doesn't find compelling.

Unfortunately for Audrey, there's just one problem:

Yep. That's Audrey, who loves to accuse her opponents of making strawman arguments, but indulges herself in them at every opportunity she gets.

Enormous Thriving Plants: dishonestly blogging about February 9's news today.

Attention Quebec Progressives: The PQ Doesn't Need You Anymore

Parti Quebecois ends preferential treatment of SPQ Libre

Once upon a time, Syndacalistes du Progessives du Quebec Libre had a very special relationship with the Parti Quebecois.

That is, until Pauline Marois tired of him. Now, the very special relationship -- replete with special memberships for the members of the SPQ Libre and special representation at party events -- is over.

According to SPQ Libre leader Marc Laviolette, it's apparently unmistakable: the PQ is shifting rightward.

“I think it’s obvious the PQ is turning to the right,” Laviolette insisted. “We’ve seen it with Mme. Marois’s declaration on the public sector demands and now this decision by the executive.”

Laviolette insists that Marois can broke no dissent within the party.

“There can be a minority point of view in a party. It should allow the expression of various points of view," Lavoliette continued. "Only Madame Marois doesn’t like it if you go against her point of view. I’m sure that if we’d said yes to everything we would have continued to be recognized as a political club.”

For her own part, Marois insists that the SPQ Libre's special status was alientating other members of the PQ.

But it's hard to overlook the timing of Marois' move: she's cutting the SPQ Libre off just as the Action Democratique du Quebec is reaching a point of critical weakness.

Should the ADQ manage to collapse entirely, that could leave significant portions of conservative voters in Quebec effectively up for grabs. It seems unlikely that a hardline separatist group like SPQ Libre would shift its allegiances to the federalist provincial Liberals (unless, of course, they believed they could sway the party to the cause of separatism).

Pauline Marois and the Parti Quebecois may even be content to let SPQ Libre break away entirely and form its own separatist party if the benefits it can accrue by attracting marooned members of the ADQ.

Of course, the Parti Quebecois has never legitimately been a progressive party -- the racist ideology the party was founded on seems to preclude true progressivism.

Pauline Marois and the PQ don't seem to need progressives like SPQ Libre anymore, and is ready to show it's true colours -- that of an extremist movement that is willing to do anything it needs to do in order to achieve its goal.

Typical Zerb, Typical Sleaze

Antonia Zerbisias concocts imaginary world in which gun registry saved OPP officer

With the tragedy that befell Ontario Provincial Police Constable Vu Pham still fresh in the minds of Canadians, it should be considered unsurprising that Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias intends to take full advantage.

Zerbisias, as many should recall, has a significant obsession with the long gun registry. Her numerous columns on the topic are a continual re-hash of poorly-conceived and largely-undefended arguments in favour of the long gun registry that, although they are tailor-made to be ideologically soothing to supporters of the registry, don't hold much basis in logic.

Among the various instances of anti-Conservative grandstanding, however, Zerbisias offers this particular nugget:

"Candice Hoeppner, the Manitoba Conservative MP who last May introduced the bill to kill the registry, would write, in an opinion piece published by the London Free Press, 'The long-gun registry is a massive Liberal policy failure and it needs to end. It makes no sense to force law-abiding individuals with firearms licences to register their long-guns. It makes no sense to believe the registry will prevent a gun crime from taking place.'

Well, that's true. It certainly didn't save Constable Vu Pham, who died just northwest of London."

It's remarkable that Zerbisias would spare such candor in her writing -- it certainly doesn't happen very often.

But if one wonders precisely why Zerbsias would insist that the gun registry must be maintained even if it doesn't prevent crime, one may lose their mind at the logical inconsistency of Zerbisias' next remark:

"But it may have saved Barbara Preston, the wife of the accused killer, Fred Preston, 70, who died last night.

Numerous news reports and sources indicate that Fred Preston, despondent over the separation last year from his childhood sweetheart, had headed out to find her.

What happened on that lonely back road on Monday is still unclear. What is known is, Pham, on his way to that 'domestic' call, was shot when he attempted to stop a white pick-up truck. A gun fight broke out, killing Pham and, eventually, Preston."

Zerbisias then goes on to insist that gun control is a matter of gender politics -- which is a canard of magnificent proportions.

First off, gun control is not an issue of gender politics. Secondly, the long gun registry is not actually a tool of gun control.

But even beyond that, Zerbisias' "logic" resembles nothing of the sort. If the long gun registry failed to prevent Fred Preston from driving out to confront his wife with a gun, and failed to prevent the death of Constable Pham, then one may wonder how Zerbisias expects anyone to believe that it would have prevented the death of Barbara Preston.

No. It was the intervention of Constable Vu Pham that saved the life of Barbara Preston.

Antonia Zerbisias oddly doesn't seem to care about that particular detail. Rather, all she seems to be interested in is using Pham's death for some anti-conservative grand standing.

It makes one wonders precisely what standard of editorial scrutiny Zerbisias' work is subjected to at the Star. When this kind of lunacy can so easily be published in the Lifestyles section of that paper, it makes one suspect that the answer is "not much".

The Missing Link of Folksy Copyright Law

Woody Guthrie's music reminds one of a central fact about not only folk music, but about modern cultural products in general: under many conditions, the contemporary notion of authorship can be rendered antiquated.

Guthrie freely admitted that much of his music was borrowed from previous folk musicians, and from songs that were part of what legal scholars deem the "cultural commons". In many senses, Guthrie wrote and re-wrote songs that had already been written and played for generations, meaning that many previous musicians served an authoring function in his music.

As one considers cultural products in the modern context, many different levels of authorship emerge. Music is written not by one individual, but by various musicians, mixed by sound engineers, packaged with art created by graphic designers, and this process is supervised by a team of producers and executive producers.

Through the recording process, a myriad of people fulfil various portions of the author function, usually under the employment of a large multi-national corporation.

In the United States, objections have been raised to the repeated extensions of copyright, in some cases, up to the lifetime of the author plus another 70 years, after which that product is to enter the cultural commons, and be considered public cultural property.

There's a fallacy at the heart of this notion, however. It's predicated on the assumption that a cultural work -- be it music, a book, a movie, or almost anything else -- was created by one and only one creator.

In the case of modern music, it could be argued that multinational corporations that fulfill an author function -- by virtue of having organized the entire process -- could hold onto a copyright indefinitely. After all, corporations are not bound by biology to have a finite lifespan. Rather, the lifespan of a corporation is larely determined according to its financial success or failure.

Moreover, recognizing the various author functions within a cultural product leads to some other challenges. A copyright law that recognized such differences would have to recognize that it may not be logically feasible to copyright a finished product as if it were indivisible, leading separate individuals to seek separate copyrights over their own contributions to that finished product.

A postmodern copyright law for a postmodern era could lead to some complications that even the most brilliant legal scholar may not predict.

How the "Progressive" Left Handles Dissent

Readers of the Nexus must certainly recall a post from yesterday taking Chickenwanker CK to task for her approach to the recent Eileen Olexiuk revelations -- very directly suggesting that the CBC ought to have suppressed the story.

CK gamely attempted to rebut with this little nugget of brilliance:

"Perhaps it's also time for you to be truthful, like your other neo-con friends. Just admit that Muslims don't count and that the torture must go on...we all know that's what you're thinking."

Leave it up to one of the Chickenwankers to retaliate with one of the most inflammatory -- and baseless -- accusations imaginable.

For her follow-up act, CK managed to muster this:

Which is kind of hilarious when one thinks about it. After all, in contrast to her own site, the comment policy at the Nexus is remarkably open -- only one intellectually-useless tool has ever been banned at the Nexus, and that was merely because he never has anything to contribute.

As opposed to the Chickenwanker way, which is to ban anyone who dares stand up to you and win.

Whereas when one's dealing with the Chickenwankers, they'll do you one better when banning you from their comment sections doesn't silence dissent sufficiently -- they'll deny you the "privilege" of reading at all!

Which leads one to beg the obvious question:

What's the problem with that, again?

Why Mt Churchill Is the Wrong Hill to Die On

Ward Churchill acted unethically, dishonourably, and he paid the necessary price

When former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill was fired for numerous cases of academic misconduct, it sparked numerous complaints from the far left.

Churchill had drawn unwelcome attention to himself by publishing an academically dubious essay in which he described the victims of 9/11 as "Little Eichmanns". Eventually, that attention led to the investigation of numerous cases of plagiarism and forgery by the University of Colorado professor.

He was even able to convince a jury that he had been fired for the essay, and not for his misconduct. The jury rule in his favour, but awarded him only a single dollar -- demonstrating that they had concluded that his "Little Eichmanns" essay was a factor in his firing, but that he had still committed academic misconduct.

More recently, Churchill has applied for reinstatement at the University of Colorado -- and he is being backed by the American Association of University Professors and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Both of these organizations, however, are making an egregious error by backing Churchill.

First off, the ACLU and AAUP may be shocked to learn that freedom of speech doesn't indemnify plagiarism. If it did, a great number of university students expelled for the act would have grounds to seek reinstatement at the institutions that expelled them.

It doesn't, and they do not.

But the AAUP in particular is doing itself a tremendous disservice by backing Churchill.

As Mitchell S Handelsmann points out, even if the "Little Eichmanns" essay was in any way a factor in Churchill's firing, it doesn't change the fact that he was guilty of academic misconduct:

"A few years ago, here in Colorado, Ward Churchill got into trouble for things he wrote about the 9/11 attacks. Politicians called for his ouster. Meanwhile, charges of academic misconduct started to surface, inlcuding plagiarism and fabricating facts. A faculty committee found evidence for this misconduct, and Churchill was fired from his job in 2007. In 2009 a jury decided that he was wrongfully fired for his essay about 9/11, but they only awarded him $1 in damages, perhaps because they recognized that he really did behave unethically. (As US News asked, what if you conduct a witch hunt and actually find a witch?)"

The stakes for the AAUP deal with public perceptions of university professors.

As Handelsmann notes, stories like Churchill's cast a pall over academia, making a great many more of them seem dishonest than actually are:

"The media does not report instances of exemplary ethical behavior; those stories would be too numerous and too boring. Thus, the pictures we get in the media are really skewed. We know that most professors are doing very good, very honorable, and very non-newsworthy things every day. So we're sometimes embarrassed but always hopeful."

Catapulting Ward Churchill's case into the national spotlight again would only case deeper aspersions over academia as an institution. Worse yet, it makes it appear as if the American Association of University Professors may approve of Churchill's conduct. It makes it seem as if the AAUP condones plagiarism and forgery.

The Ward Churchill case is the wrong hill for the AAUP to die on. Worse yet, the AAUP will harm the reputations of associated academics who don't deserve to have their repuations harmed in the name of defending a lionized figure of the far left.

Joe Comartin: Civil Libertarian

NDP MP: Illegal strip search a "sweet deal"

When it comes to being soft on crime, few manage to be softer than the NDP.

But the Conservative Party is being accused of being selectively soft on crime by an NDP Member of Parliament. Oddly enough, that MP is being fairly selective himself.

The NDP, many may recall, tend to be rather big fans of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and for good reason. Among some of the unfortunate (however necessary) effects of the charter is that many criminals who have their Charter rights violated can often walk free on a charge.

As it turns out, that's what happened recently for former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer. Many may recall that Jaffer was recently arrested for reckless driving, impaired driving, and drug possession.

More recently, Jaffer was cut a plea bargain by an Ontario court, which let him walk free after paying a $500 fine.

For his own part, NDP MP Joe Comartin doesn't like it.

“I’m wearing my lenses as a defence lawyer and thinking, ‘Boy, it would be great if I could get my client a deal like that,’” Comartin recently remarked. "I’m inclined to think that there is no reason to be suspicious that there was political interference or anything of that sort but I think it behooves the prosecutor ... or Ontario’s Attorney-General to tell the Canadian people why this happened.”

As it turns out, the Toronto Star has spared them the trouble.

The Star learned that a rookie officer with the Ontario Provincial Police followed improper procedure while strip searching Jaffer. Therefore, the matter was dropped in order to avoid a challenge due to a Charter rights violation.

Of course, with 27 years experience as a trial lawyer, one expects that Comartin likely turned down very few opportunities to have a case tossed due to a Charter violation.

And while one certainly doesn't have to like Jaffer's good fortune -- which was recognized by the Judge in the case -- one has to respect civil rights.

Moreover, respecting Jaffer's civil rights is not the same as approving of his conduct (which is, to say the least, extremely disappointing, to put it mildly), nor does it equate to political interference.

Charter rights apply to former Conservative MPs as much as they apply to anyone else. No one has to like what Rahim Jaffer did in order to respect that. Joe Comartin could stand to learn that.

Torture Derangement Syndrome

Please, please, pleeeeeeeease pay no attention to Liberal Party complicity in torture

When dealing with The Chickenwankers, that collection of "Progressive" bloggers who lacks the courage to decide for themselves who may or may not comment on their blogs, one can expect one thing above all others:

The intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of The Chickenwankers truly knows no bounds.

A typical case in point is Sister Sage's Musings proprietor CK. In a recent post there, she decides that the CBC is afflicted with "Liberal derangement syndrome" for reporting on the most recent development in the allegations regarding the torture of Afghan detainees:

"It never seems to stop. This time, it appears that the CBC is now afflicted with LDS. It is now helping the Harpercons do that whole 'blame the Libruls' thang back in order to deflect and distract. Yikes!"

Apparently, in the mind of CK, the role of the CBC isn't to report the news -- not by a long shot. Rather, CK seems to think that the role of the CBC is to suppress any story that doesn't directly benefit her ideological agenda.

And it would now seem that the CBC is off the reservation.

For those not in the know, it turns out that Liberal party received even more warnings about the potential torture of Afghan detainees than a recently re-revealed story in La Presse indicated.

Recently, Eileen Olexiuk, who was the second-in-command of the Canadian embassy in Kabul, recently reported that she warned the Paul Martin government on many occasions that torture was common in Afghan prisons.

Her warnings went unheeded.

"I don't think anybody really cared, quite frankly," she said.

The Martin government had apparently considered establishing a Canadian detention centre in Afghanistan, or handing detainees over to US Forces to be held in their facilities. Both options were rejected out of fear of a Guantanamo Bay-esque scandal.

Instead, the Liberals ignored the warnings regarding torture, and negotiated a prisoner transfer agreement with the government of Afghanistan that did not allow Canadian forces sufficient monitoring powers over detainees transferred -- an oversight that the Stephen Harper government has since corrected.

An apologist for anything left-wing no less esteemed than fellow Chickenwanker John Baglow insists that if the Liberal Party is guilty of anything, it's of signing a flawed PTA.

Baglow previously insisted that the obvious Liberal complicity in torture be discounted out of "Canadian fairness". "Canadian fairness" apparently doesn't apply to the governments that actually fix the problems left behind by their predecessors.

CK goes on to insist that the Liberal Party isn't very troubled by the notion that their complicitly would -- or, rather, already has -- come to light. Admittedly, Ujjal Dosanjh certainly doesn't seem worried.

"We want to be transparent, and learn what mistakes were made, and who knew what and what was hidden from the public, either by the Liberal government or the current Conservative government," Dosanjh insisted.

Of course, Dosanjh has every reason to be confident. His party has been doing everything it can to make an issue out of the highly-questionable Richard Colvin allegations for months, all while the media declined to report on the pre-2006 timeline.

All but overheard in Liberal Party circles was "seriously, do you believe this? Do you fucking believe this? It's a matter of public record that our government negotiated and signed the PTA under which the torture took place, and the media isn't saying 'boo'. We get to tar the Conservatives for our supreme fuck up! Do you believe this? It's too good to be true!"

If CK and John Baglow are guilty of anything, it's of two things.

The first is trying to sell something that was too good to be true. They both knew, just like any Canadians who have paid even passing attention to this story, that the Liberal Party made the torture of detainees transferred by Canadian forces possible in the first place.

The second, clearly, is an act of historical revisionism. They are just as guilty as anyone else for the phenomenon of the orphan timeline, a bizarre rhetorical approach to the matter that has attempted to omit the entire pre-2006 timeline and the entire post-2007 timeline from the public discourse.

Having invested so much time and energy in peddling a derangement syndrome to anyone foolish enough to listen to them, they simply cannot bring themselves to admit that if the Conservative government is guilty of anything it's of not taking torture allegations seriously enough. The Liberal Party is clearly guilty of the same.

Considering the well-known Al Qaida/Taliban tendency to falsely claim torture, it would be hard to blame either.

The difference between the two, of course, is that the Conservative Party didn't sign a fatally flawed Prisoner Transfer Agreement despite having been warned.

The Liberals did.

CK and John Baglow may consider themselves free to desperately try and spin that.

The NDP: Last, Best Defenders of Patronage

 NDP objects to patronage cuts

If any one portion of the federal budget could be considered implicitly safe for the government to cut, it should be patronage.

Unless, of course, one takes into account the NDP.

It turns out that the NDP is rather offended by some planned discontinuation of some 245 Governor-in-Council appointments across 200 government agencies.

"We expect a real assault on the public service," predicted NDP MP Pat Martin. "We're braced and we're ready for it and we're going to push back if [Stockwell Day] does intend to declare war on the public service. He's in for the fight of his life."

"There's really very little fat to be trimmed unless you want to look at whole government programs," Martin insisted. "This is what has us nervous."

The savings from the axed patronage positions are far from astronomical: in fact, they amount to a mere $1.24 million.

"This goes along with our overall approach to what we're doing in government to maximize our efficiencies," Day asserted. "Service to the public will not be affected."

These are very small cuts.

It's simply astounding that such a small cut -- to some of the most blatantly political positions within the government -- in a government that employs tens of thousands of people can provoke such panic from the NDP.

Of course, this is all just part of the apocalypse that the NDP and its supporters have been predicting ever since Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day and the Conservative Party came to power in 2006.

If the elimination of a mere 245 patronage appointments truly is an apocalypse, it's certainly one that Canadians could sleep through.

Better Yet, Let's Not

Enshrining of "Atheist heroes" seems an awful lot like canonization

Like an annoying rash that proves perpetually resilient to medicine, the Rational Response Squad just refuses to go away quietly, regardless of how many times it humiliates itself.

Indeed, Brian Sapient and company have proven to be particularly resilient to their numerous self-humiliations. Whether it's losing a televised debate to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, alienating relevant atheists by slandering them, or getting knocked the fuck out for financial impropriety (or mere incompetence), the Rational Response Squad has demonstrated a particular predilection for self-inflicted wounds.

They've also proven to be particularly adept at hypocrisy.

An intriguing case in point is the recent move to place "atheist heroes" on a pedestal. Sometimes the hilarity goes far deeper than the hypocrisy.

For example, in a recent post urging his followers to support "atheist heroes", Sapient draws attention to a campaign waged by a group at the University of Texas at San Antonio by the name of Atheist Agenda.

Sapient treats the group's "smut for smut" campaign -- in which they exchange religious scriptures for pornography -- as a recent development. The problem is that one of the videos Sapient links to is nearly fully one year old. But even beyond that, Sapient's treatment of the campaign falls into some basic logical pitfalls that only someone capable of losing to Kirk Cameron can be trusted to fall into.

Sapient extends his congratulations to Atheist Agenda for having "found a way to be controversial thereby grabbing attention and literally forcing theists to think".

But the problem for Sapient is that he, like his followers, have yet to grasp a very simple concept: ridicule is not really an argument. In fact ridicule, as the RRS has so often indulged themselves in it, is founded on the idea that the beliefs or viewpoints of others are unworthy of logical consideration -- a basic cop-out in the face of intillectual debate, and a strain of ad hominem argument that has become particularly virulent in modern discourse.

Ridicule does not force anyone to think. In fact, ridicule causes people to recoil, and leads to a discourse that is increasingly toxic and resistent to rational debate -- one that the Rational Response Squad actively and intentionally fosters.

But this isn't even the deepest depth of Sapient's folly.

It's become increasingly impossible to ignore the means by which atheism promotes itself using the same means as any other religion. They relentlessly proselytize. They continue to reserve for themselves the right to extol scientific works in manners akin to sacred texts. Now they're even enshrining their own heroes within the imagination of their cohorts -- an act tantamount to canonizing their own saints.

It's just another indulgence that fundamentalist atheists like Brian Sapient and the Rational Response Squad have granted themselves.

But if anyone begins to fear that the Rational Response Squad is being taken too seriously, they need fear not: they could always lose another debate to Kirk Cameron.



Bonus spankage - Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey apparently takes exception to the idea that Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor would lose to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, and so wants to attempt to re-cast that entire debate to the topic of the "Crock-o-duck".

Contrary to what Audrey would like her readers to believe, that Sapient and O'Connor could manage to lose to someone who bases their argument on that kind of premise just reminds one how intellectually helpless Sapient and O'Connor really are.

There's a reason why their arsenal of argumentative tactics is limited to ridicule. Debating like grown-ups is simply too much work for someone whose intellectual gifts are as limited as Sapient's and O'Connor's -- or, for that matter, Audrey's.

As for Audrey, she's just trying to cover for a previous humiliation. Readers may make of that what they will.

Political Anthems of a Distant Yesteryear

Folk in America is a three-part BBC documentary mini-series exploring the rise of folk music in North America.

As the film reveals, folk music presented musical stylings that were at once quaint and deeply political. The disaffection felt by the Southern United States following the end of the civil war in time gave way to the disaffection felt by a region depressed by the economic disadvantages it faced comparable to the industrialized Northern states.

The music became particularly popular in mining regions like the Appalachians, where they became protest anthems of a long-lost yesteryear.

The yesteryear that produced the folk musicians spoken of in the film seem all the more distant because they haven't merely been displaced from the current day in terms of time -- it has also been displaced by an economic model that was only beginning to be explored at the time when record companies first began to produce folk music.

The popularization of southern folk music provided a model for the popularization of other regional musical forms. A classic example would be the rise during the 1970s of Reggae music. In time, various regional musical stylings would be deeply incorporated into the genre that we today know as folk music.

Like folk music from the Southern United States, reggae music became popular at a time when the Jamaican economy had little else to offer. In fact, the recording industry was one of the driving forces of the Jamaican economy during the 1970s, and it relied heavily on record exports, as a depressed domestic economy provided fewer opportunities for Jamaican artists to sell their music.

Not that they didn't manage -- Jamaicans were often noted to choose between spending their meagre earnings on necessities of life or on the newest LP by their favourite reggae artist.

But in time as reggae popularized it also commercialized, taking on elements of other popular forms of music. In some cases, this helped give birth to new musical genres like Ska or dancehall reggae. In other cases, it simply resulted in stale or uninspired attempts at reggae.

In the time before the popularization of folk music, and the various regionalized genres that have become incorporated within it, music was cultivated within tightly-woven communities and within the home. This lent a vibrancy to the music that many musical genres lack today.

With the rise of web 2.0 and new options for musicians to produce and market their own music, this model has become partially resurgent. But wherever commercial success is to be found, the desire to mass produce potentially profitable products -- such as music -- will lurk.

And when music is mass-produced, the first thing to suffer is the passion and creativity that lends itself to truly time music -- such as early folk.

The Art of the Unfair Criticism

Frequent readers of the Nexus must almost certainly by now know your not-so-humble scribe's opinion of Keith Olbermann: normally, Olbermann is just intelligent enough to sound intelligent, but simultaneously enough of a lunatic to frequently make himself sound like a lunatic.

But there are legitimate reasons to criticize someone, and there are illegitimate reasons.

The recent criticisms offered by PJTV's Alfonzo Rachel squarely slide into the latter category.

Complaining that Olbermann didn't accept an invitation to attend a Tea Party rally in Texas, Rachel accused Olbermann of "hiding behind his daddy". As it turns out, Olbermann's father is in intensive care, preventing Olbermann from leaving New York City.

A great number of negative things could be said about Olbermann's commentary. He is unquestionably bombastic. He thrives on sensational hyperbole, and his recent performance on Jon Stewart's Daily Show seems to acknowledge that he knows it.

But it simply isn't fair to criticize Olbermann for taking care of his sick father -- nor should he feel obligated to hold his tongue on his criticisms of the Tea Party movement (no matter how wild they may often be) until his father is (hopefully) better; nor could he be expected to anticipate any challenge offered by his political rivals.

As far as being a political commentator goes, Alfonzo Rachel excels in the same manner as Keith Olbermann -- that of being an infotainer. He often excels in this particular role, particularly when he works with Steven Crowder. But as far as insightful commentary goes, he could hardly be considered to excel.

Olbermann can at least effectively disguise his infotainment as inspired and informed commentary. Rachel does this far less effectively, and when he targets Keith Olbermann despite the illness of his father, he falls far short of reasonable or responsible.

Alfonzo Rachel would serve himself -- and his viewers -- far better by restricting himself to the art of the fair criticism.

Huh. So Now Social Engineering Is Bad

Dobbin: Social engineering only illegitimate if it's from the right

Writing in an essay published on the ideologically-parochial Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin articulates a few more of his "Stephen Harper the anti-democrat" arguments.

Among some of the points raised in the essay, Dobbin decries what he calls "right wing social engineering":

"One of the most popular concepts on the political right over the years has been the notion of 'social engineering.' The phrase is intended to describe a process by which liberals and the left 'engineer' society - that is, set out to remake it -- by implementing government programs, intervening in the economy, and redistributing wealth so that there is a measure of economic equality (in a system defined by inequality). The implication is that these changes were undemocratic -- imposed by politicians, intellectuals and bureaucrats."

The problem for Dobbin is that in many cases such programs were indeed imposed by politicians. A prime case-in-point is that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's wage and prize freeze. Trudeau had mocked that policy when it was proposed by then-Conservative leader Robert Stanfield. He then promptly implemented a policy he had essentially promised not to -- after being elected on the back of a rejection of it.

A more recent example is that of Stephane Dion's ill-fated coalition -- an idea that Dobbin had floated well in advance of Dion's attempt. Dion had explicitly rejected the notion of a coalition government when it was floated by NDP leader Jack Layton, only to be thoroughly rebuffed by the Canadian public.

Dobbin's made it clear that he in no way disapproves with left-wing bait-and-switch politics. But when conservatives get elected on the platforms they run on, it suddenly becomes underhanded social engineering:

"Yet rightwing social engineering is exactly what Stephen Harper intends to do, and has already done in many ways. We are now a far more militarized culture than when he came to office four years ago -- with an aggressive 'war-fighting' military. Our foreign policy is now in lock-step with the US This has never been debated in Parliament nor has the Conservative Party actually run on such policies. In spite of the fact of widespread support for new social programs like universal child care and Pharmacare, such programs are ruled out by the Harper government. While his minority government status has so far prevented an assault on Medicare and the Canada Health Act, Harper is on record as supporting increased privatization and two-tier Medicare."

Of course, Dobbin may have been disappointed to learn that Canadians supported increases in military spending not only well in advance of Harper becoming Prime Minister, but also well in advance of Harper becoming the Leader of the Opposition.

Foreign policy typically isn't debated in Parliament, unless it requires the ratification of a treaty, a declaration of war, or supply legislation. Canadian foreign policy is decided by the Prime Minister of cabinet, and has been this way since Canada won the right to decide its own foreign policy.

If this represents an assault on democracy, it was launched well before Harper became Prime Minister. As with other things, details that were once simply accepted details of Canadian politics have suddenly become intolerable to Dobbin under Harper's governance.

"This is true social engineering if by that term we mean the illegitimate remaking of Canadian society and governance. When all the social programs and activist government programs that the prime minister objects to were implemented there was widespread public support for them. Governments were responding to social movements demanding these things: unemployment insurance, Medicare, subsidized university education, Family Allowances, public pensions, old age security. These programs were not imposed by a cabal of liberal and socialist intellectuals and bureaucrats -- they were rooted in the expressed values of Canadians."

This, frankly, is an assertion that will be quickly accepted by Dobbin's far-left base, but it doesn't actually pass the laugh test.

There's a broad gulf of difference between widespread public support and the demands by a limited number of groups for certain privileges in the eyes of the Canadian state.

This argument runs particularly thin when one considers the sheer number of "civil society organizations" created by the Trudeau government through funding doled out by Canada's Secretary of State.

Canadians have very rarely been given the opportunity to render judgement on institutions such as the Status of Women Canada, which tended to focus its efforts on funding a great deal of activism. Naturally, many groups were favoured to their ideological nature, while others were excluded for theirs.

The Court Challenges program became typically troublesome when activist groups began using it to legislate through Canada's courts of law -- all too often the Supreme Court.

This broad collection of activities represented the embedding of a chosen ideology within what Barry Cooper aptly termed the embedded state.

After Harper changed the mandate of the Status of Women to provide real services for women in the community, and dismantled the court challenges progam (though he has yet to replace it with a more suitable program), Canadians had the opportunity to reflect on that during a General Election.

They returned him with a stronger mandate to govern, although the Liberal Party, NDP and Bloc Quebecois attempted to usurp it at Dobbin's urging.

But a Dobbin essay just wouldn't be a Dobbin essay without a foray into complete fiction:

"Harper's determination to remake Canada in the image of unregulated capitalism is illegitimate because it aims at dismantling what decades of democratic engagement has created. It is even more outrageous given the fact this fundamental shift is being undertaken by a government which received support from less 23 per cent of the eligible voters in Canada. Canadians have not changed their minds about these programs and values - if anything support has been reinforced by the perceived threats to these gains. These things are the fruits of democracy -- its ultimate litmus test. Harper's plan to rid the country of this legitimate evolution of social and economic change is true social engineering, and profoundly anti-democratic."

If Stephen Harper had any "determination to remake Canada in the image of unregulated capitalism", one would expect that, at some point, Harper would be moving to do away with the regulation, as opposed to exporting the Canadian model to the rest of the world. Harper has already announced his plans to promote Canada's financial regulation system to the rest of the world when Canada hosts the G8 Summit later in 2010.

But then one remembers that this is a Murray Dobbin essay -- one in which the desire to spread ideological panic takes the driver's seat, logic rides as a passenger, and the corpse of fact is stuffed away in the trunk.

It's a world in which Canadians supported a broad variety of ideological programs because Dobbin said so, Stephen Harper plans to deregulate Canada's economy despite never taking any steps to do so, and in which social engineering is bad -- but only now that he wants to accuse the other guys of doing it.

There's No Reason Why All the Dishonest Cretins Shouldn't Get Theirs

One of the most amusing aspects of dealing with some of the most dedicated lunatics of the far-left blogosphere is how they react when they're called on their own hypocrisy.

A particularly amusing case is that of Sparky, who fancies himself a decicated fighter of conservative hypocrisy.

Yet when one of Sparky's friends is caught like a deer in the headlights on her own hypocrisy -- needling Ezra Levant over self-promotion while overlooking her own shameless self-promotion and peddling an argument founded on a false equivalent (treating Levant placing an ad for his book on his blog as the same as Jack Layton pulling a woman's arm out of the way so he can be seen on TV) -- Sparky's response is actually rather amusing.

It becomes clear that Sparky wants to pretend that Layton wasn't getting rather pushy in his fervent mania to exploit Canada's hockey gold medal for self-promotion. Yet, it's amazing to note that even in a place that is often very friendly to Jack Layton -- like the CBC -- very few people seem to see the matter the way that Sparky does:

That particular comment had been "thumbs up"ed by a margin of five to one by the time it had been screen capped.

Likewise, CBC readers agreed with this comment, 21 to 6 -- a margin of more than three to one.

Moreover, more people seem to recognize that, of all the people at Gretzky's on Sunday afternoon, Layton seemed to be the only one getting so pushy:

That comment was agreed with, 37 to 4 -- a margin of very nearly ten to one.

Nor should one think that it was in any way a coincidence that Layton had himself firmly parked in front of a camera, despite the NDP talking points that the tools at the Groupthink Temple have bought hook, line and sinker.

 

The amusing thing about the entire affair is that it really ought to not be quite such a big deal. One need not defend Layton's actions in order to recognize that, as this reader points out:

Which is where, for the most part, the voice of reason starts to weigh in. Did Layton get a little pushy/grabby with that particular individual? The video speaks for itself. Of course, no one got hurt, and while the incident may say something unflattering about Layton's character, it doesn't substantially discredit him.

So then one may wonder why it is that individuals like Sparky are so desperate to defy the video record of the event in question.

After all, it isn't as if anyone sees the matter the same way that Sparky does. If he can't see Layton's behaviour for what it was, he sorely needs to get his eyes checked.

It is, amusingly, the modus operandi of individuals like Sparky and Audrey. When caught with their pants down, they simply pretend like it didn't happen. In the end, it's actually that uncomfortable facade that will continually keep giving this particualr story new life -- and keep giving them new opportunities to humiliate themselves.

Ummm, No. Sorry.

'Nuff said.

Justin Trudeau to Stephen Harper: Don't Govern the Way My Dad Did

Trudeau family avoiding a painful inward journey

Writing in an op/ed published in The Mark, Justin Trudeau offers some advice to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that partisan Liberals would likely delight in reading:

"Even though it makes my job as a member of the Official Opposition a little easier, I am genuinely disappointed that this Conservative government didn’t hold true to the principles that brought it to power.

And I’m not even talking about their abject failure to be fiscally responsible or their enthusiasm for patronage and pork. I’m referring to the basic premise of the old Reform Party, the call for a government that is open, accountable, and respectful of democratic values and the rights of its citizens.

Instead, over the past four years, Stephen Harper has carefully nurtured and encouraged a level of cynicism about politics and politicians heretofore unseen in Canada. Instead of championing the conservative principle of less government, he made people believe less in government.

He started by selling us policies that were simple and catchy, but had little real impact (think GST cuts instead of income-tax cuts, or $100 child-care cheques instead of actual child-care spaces). Add to that his propensity to launch vicious personal attacks on anyone – politician or citizen – with the temerity to disagree with them, and his tried and true Bush-era tactic of loudly repeating semi-truths and falsehoods often enough for them to take hold, and it’s no wonder that a weary populace has been turning away from the goings-on in Ottawa.

The fact that Stephen Harper didn't anticipate the strength of the prorogation outrage is proof that he overestimated the effectiveness of his campaign of induced cynicism. And, yet again, underestimated Canadians' faith in our democracy. Because for all the undeniable short-term partisan advantages of wedge issues, attack ads, and the politics of division, Canadians resist because we know that we deserve better.

We are a people of differences, in languages, religions, backgrounds, histories, cultures, and colours, but we are a people bound together by values that run deeper. We are open, compassionate, and generous. We seek justice, liberty, and opportunities for all. But above everything, we respect each other, and demand that respect in return.

And that’s why Stephen Harper’s strategies of secrecy, small-mindedness, and cynicism will ultimately fail, because simply put: Canadians will never trust a government that does not trust Canadians."

Which is all rather amusing coming from the son of a man who alienated Canadians so much that his party actually hid him away during elections -- he had so inspired the disdain of enough Canadians that his party was better off campaigning without him.

Trudeau campaigned on the promise of "participatory democracy", only to backtrack and insist that "participatory democracy" simply entailed the privilege of Liberal Party members to advance knowledge of the government's plans. He campaigned on the promise of a "just society", only to backtrack and insist that Jesus Christ had promised it first (which, indeed he had; the trouble being that Jesus Christ didn't make that promise while campaigning to become the Prime Minister of Canada).

Trudeau also mercilessly trampled the jurisdiction of the provinces at every opportunity, and centralized power within the Prime Minister's office at every opportunity that presented itself. To top it all off, when Trudeau finally delivered on his promise to patriate Canada's constitution, he insisted on doing so at a time when a separatist government -- that would have never agreed to sign the Constitution -- was in power, opening the door to decades of endless separatist wranglings.

So, whatever else one may make of Justin Trudeau's advice to Stephen Harper, it ultimately boils down to this:

Don't govern the way Pierre Trudeau did.

Done and done.

Self-Awareness, as the Lunatics Do It

Big talk from someone who's clearly avoiding a very painful inner journey.

Murray Dobbin Writes the Most Telling Paragraph in the History of the Global Warming Debate

Sometimes they let the mask slip

For years, those skeptical of climate change alarmism (however the alarmists may be defining the change) have been told that the debate over the matter was settled. Moreover, they were told that the alarmists were merely acting in the global pulbic interest, and that the skepticism of those skeptics was an obstacle to, quite literally, saving the world.

With the alarmist side of the climate change debate increasingly beset by the kind of scandal that can only come when they take the most generous of liberties with the very foundations of scientific discourse, it's simply impossible to put an overabundance of faith in those assertions.

After all, it turns out that the climate change debate may never have been about saving the world at all, only about changing it to the liking of climate change alarmists. The following paragraph from a recend op/ed penned by Murray Dobbin seems to make it rather clear:

"We need to keep reminding ourselves that if we want to inspire people to change the world we have to do more than scare the hell out of them. The issue of global warming is becoming less and less important to Americans (I haven't seen recent polling regarding Canadians) and the reason, according to a couple of prominent environmental analysts, is what they call apocalypse fatigue."

In other words, the arguments of climate alarmists have never been about "saving the world". They've merely been abotu implimenting a specific political agenda, one that encompassed Kyoto, then threatened to run entirely amok at Copenhagen.

Dobbin goes on to write about the decreasing levels of belief in the alleged oncoming apocalypse. He notes that numbers of those who bought into the panic were declining as recently as September 2009 -- before the damning Climategate emails.

But consider how much more revealling Dobbin's admission is if the first two paragraphs of his column are switched in place:

"The numbers are not encouraging. The major increase in public attention and concern brought about by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth film, and his media blitz, seemed to promise a permanent change in attitude. But according to Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger that concern is rapidly decreasing. 'Belief that global warming is occurring had declined from 71 per cent in April of 2008 to 56 per cent in October [2009] -- an astonishing drop in just 18 months. The belief that global warming is human-caused declined from 47 per cent to 36 per cent.'

We need to keep reminding ourselves that if we want to inspire people to change the world we have to do more than scare the hell out of them. The issue of global warming is becoming less and less important to Americans (I haven't seen recent polling regarding Canadians) and the reason, according to a couple of prominent environmental analysts, is what they call apocalypse fatigue."

What climate alarmists seem to be learning right now is that they can't put the genie back in the bottle -- that they can't coverup their dishonest hubris once its been fully exposed to public scrutiny.

As Murray Dobbin makes clear, climate alarmism isn't about saving the world. It never has been. It's about fear-mongering and politics played to win. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with the latter in and of itself. But the former simply must not be tolerated.

Why Canada Believes

In the days following any major event of international significance, the question is often asked:

What do we have to show for it?

The answer to this question is often based economically -- decided by the comparison between the money spent to host the event, compared to the amount of revenue attracted by it.

It's often based on the amount of international renown the event earns -- generally judged by whether it's praised or panned by international critics.

But the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics will, in time, be judged by the sentiments it inspired in the Canadian people -- as a breakthrough in which Canadians were reminded of the great things that this country can accomplish.

Reminders shouldn't be necessary. After all, Canadians managed to settle a country nestled among one of the the most inhospitable environments imaginable, and in time made it a welcoming place of refuge for peace-loving people all over the world.

After disappointing Olympic outings in Montreal and Calgary in 1976 and 1988, many Canadians surely must have begun to wonder if Canadians would ever win Olympic gold on Canadian soil. In 2010, Canadians didn't merely win gold -- they owned it, even if they fell short of owning the whole podium.

But more importantly than that, Canadians sent a message to the rest of the world, and reminded themselves of one fact: Canadians love their country just as much as anyone else.

The rest of the world -- who have often come to think of Canadians as unpatriotic -- didn't always appreciate this lesson. One British writer went so far as to tell Canadians to "keep it down", while another denounced the opening ceremony while pretending to be Canadian.

Not all Canadians caught the Olympic fever. Malcontents who march up Whyte Avenue giving the Nazi salute to jubliant Canadians celebrating a national triumph are free to hate their country, as they very evidently do.

But as Canada just now finishes its 17 Days of Canada day, we have been reminded that Canadians very much believe in this country, and that unlike the Heather Mallicks and Charlie Smiths of the world, they don't need to think of Canada as a specifically ideological construct in order to love it, and be proud of its achievements.

Canada believes in itself, and for the first time in far too long, even remembers it.

The days ahead are rife with opportunities to remember some of our country's achievements. The 2012 World Cup will be contested very close to the day Canada defeated the Soviet Union in the famed Summit Series. It will also be the 25th anniversary of the 1987 Canada Cup.

The Sochi Olympics will even present us with an opportunity to avenge the 1974 WHA Summit Series loss by winning Olympic gold on Russian soil.

As far as defining moments go, many Canadians will gladly take the 2010 Olympics as one for Canada. Canada's pride -- and its belief -- has been well-earned, and will endure.

Canadians may never think of Canada the same way again, because we may never forget what we, as a country, can do together.