Find Some People Willing to Vote For You, George

Then we'll talk

Like many people, Green Party of Alberta leader George Read has a beef with the Alberta Elections Act.

Read seems to think that the Elections Act bilked his party out of $19,750 in non-refundable candidacy deposits. Money that otherwise could have been used to advertise and promote the party.

His issue revolves around the $500 deposit collected from candidates for provincial elections. $250 is refundable once the candidate files all the necessary paperwork to actually run. The remaining $250 is refundable only if the candidate wins, or if the candidate at least claims 50% of the winning candidate's votes.

"This is just a penalty against people who don't do well in the political process," Read insists. "Just because you didn't do well isn't a reason for someone to be penalized."

Of course not. In the Green party, they believe that not doing well in the political process is somehow still entitled to a seat. (But that's another story.)

But Read isn't just getting mad -- he wants to get even. He's written a letter to Alberta Justice Minister Alison Redford threatening to launch a Constitutional challenge if the Elections act isn't amended to refund the entire deposit to candidates.

He's even set a deadline of September 10, 2008. And if the government doesn't amend the Elections act accordingly, they's-a-gonna-geddit.

In response to the letter, Redford has promised to review recommendations stemming from the past two provincial elections.

Read, being the leader of the Alberta Greens (a party infamously inept when comes down to actually campaigning), has naturally missed the point. The portions of Alberta's Elections Act that he wants to contest aren't meant to discourage or hinder candidates or their supporters from participating in the election. They're meant to cut back on a potential glut of single-issue candidates with little to no hope of winning an election (hey! That kind of sounds like the Green Party!).

Plenty of other parties, like the Communist party and Separation Party of Alberta, ran candidates with little to no hope of victory. But you don't hear them crying for an extra $250 for each of their defeated candidates.

Of course, being the leader of the Alberta Greens, Read has one other quality hindering his ability to accept political irrelevance: that is, delusions of relevance.

In a province where he already has to compete for a razor-thin pool of potential supporters with Brian Mason and the only marginally less politically irrelevant NDP (for the record, here Mason is pictured holding a press conference on what appears to be his front lawn), George Read at this point should be feeling more like Charlie Brown, unable to ever quite kick that damn football (good grief).

A more pragmatic leader would look at a situation like this and wonder "why bother? Maybe I'll just go ahead and join the NDP".

Not George Read. He looks at a situation in which his party simply doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning and figures he'll just sue the government. Somehow, that'll make everything all better.

But it won't. Even if the Alberta government changes the Elections Act to his liking and he gets his extra $20,000 next election, George Read will still face a nearly insurmountable challenge:

Finding some people who are willing to vote for him. Good luck with that one, George.

Hey, Weren't Republicans Supposed to be the Religious Ones?

Just asking...

If one were to ask certain observers of American politics, they would probably be told that the American Republican party was at the forefront of mixing religion in politics.

Much has been made about George W Bush's religiosity. "Concerned parties" everywhere objected to Mike Huckabee and his belief in creationism. Some have even insisted that the combination of Christianity and conservative politics has put the United States on the road to fascism.

So if this is the case, and Republicans are so religious, and this is such a bad thing, why is it that the Republicans' presumptive presidential nominee barely mentioning religion at all, and the remaining nominees for the Democrat nomination battling it out on the topic of religion?

In fact Clinton and Obama made a direct appeal to religious voters at a weekend debate at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's Messiah College.

Meanwhile, John McCain has remained remarkably quiet about his religious beliefs (for the record, he's an Episcopalian-turned-Baptist), to the extent that the Evangelical community -- another target of "concerned parties" and traditionally a reliable source of support for Republicans -- is largely split over whether or not they'll support him.

Right now if religion is much of an issue for anyone in the 2008 Presidential campaign, it's the Democrats. Yet there seems to be remarkably little criticism of this particular religious turn, and the worst criticism seems to be directed at Clinton and Obama by one another.

One has to wonder where the "interested parties" are on this particular matter. But then again, one is hardly surprised, either.

...And One Other Thing...

Maybe the Conservatives aren't "the party of big business" after all

In the closest thing that passes for a shocking revelation over at the Toronto Star, their editorial board has reviewed recently-released financial records from the 2007 Ontario provincial election and realized that corporations and unions donated almost as much money to the incumbent Ontario Liberals as the provincial Progressive Conservatives collected in total.

Their great conclusion? By golly, those big corporations sure do like to stay on the government's good side.

But the unspoken, actually more logical conclusion would probably be that maybe the Conservative party aren't such corporate toadies -- or at least not just the only party made up of corporate toadies.

But that kind of non-partisan honesty would probably be too much to ask for from the Toronto Star.

The Kids Are Alright

All the height of Jon Stewart and all the funny, too

Watch out Stephen Colbert, America has a pint-sized answer to you.

Calling themselves Swift Kids for Truth, these prepubescent pundits have taken aim at the art of negative campaigning, reminding us that some of the "sophisticated political messaging techniques" being pushed by political consultants these days were mastered on schoolyards everywhere long, long ago.

The ads mostly take aim at Hillary Clinton (who may have called this on herself with her "3AM" ads), and most importantly, they're funny as hell.

Hillary Clinton - Anti-cookie:



Rudolph Guiliani - Says "9/11" a lot, so it's important:



John Edwards - Metrosexual:



Hillary Clinton - "Holy shit! She's a dude!":



Barack Obama - His name is hard to say:



Hillary Clinton - Whitewater!:



And, a quick message from the Swift Nannies (for Truth!):



Of course, it would be facetious to suggest these kids hatched this entire idea on their own. All the more likely, the Swift Kids are the brainchildren of Larry Gibbard Jr and Terry Nathers. They probably have their own political agenda, but in the meantime, the comedy is fantastic.

Ironically, they've been around since at least December 2007. But CNN just caught on.

A Backward Way to Prosecute a War

Benchmarks needed before a withdrawal date set, not after

Canada's role in Afghanistan is important.

It's important to our country's national security -- preventing a regime known for harboring terrorists from returning to power. It's important to internationalism -- proving that organizations like NATO can still work. It's important to the Afghan people -- bring them an opportunity to truly embrace the freedoms offered by a democratic government.

As such, Canada's role in the Afghanistan war is worth doing. But anything worth doing is worth doing right.

During his current visit to Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier stressed the importance of setting benchmarks for what we expect Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan to accomplish before the mission can be considered to be a success.

"We have to go back in Canada and will have a discussion about the future of our mission, so we will have to set benchmarks on the training of the ANA, the training of the ANP," Bernier said. "It was important to have a meeting with the general and other officials to understand pretty well what is the challenges that we face concerning the training of the national army and the national police."

And he's right. It is important to understand the challenges Canada faces in Afghanistan and also to understand how we will meet them.

But that was even more important before the establishment of a withdrawal date, not after.

What seems to be at play in this situation is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a country can be successful in a mission like Afghanistan.

Leaving Afghanistan before Canada's mission there is accomplished is a recipe for disaster. The Taliban returning to Afghanistan would certainly not be the passive-aggressive Taliban of pre-2001, content to merely harbor terrorists like Osama Bin Laden within its borders. Upon reclaiming power in Kabul, the Taliban could be expected to become even more aggressive, likely supporting terrorism much more directly than before.

But accomplishing the mission means meeting the goals. So one clearly can't set a withdrawl date before one fully understands what these goals are, and what needs to be done in order to accomplish them.

In, frankly, going too far to accommodate Liberal inconsistency Maxime Bernier and the Conservative party have succeeded in making Barack Obama's Iraq dilemma our own Afghanistan dilemma.

In order to meet the artificial goal of Canadian withdrawal by 2011, we run the very real risk of not meeting the goals that will make peaceful withdrawal possible in the first place.

In particular, Afghanistan remains 20,000 soldiers short of the target of 80,000 troops by 2011.

That's an awfully big gap to have to close.

The successes in Afghanistan -- whether opponents to the war want to acknowledge them or not -- to date remind us that the war in Afghanistan can be won. But setting timetables for withdrawal that will make it more difficult to achieve our goals isn't doing anyone -- the troops who actually have to worry about achieving those goals -- any favours.

If Maxime Bernier and the Conservatives really wanted to make it possible for Canada to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2011 they would have decided what the goals would be before setting that date.

To do otherwise -- as they have -- is a backward way to prosecute a war.

More Dress-Up Fun With Marty Rayner

His mouth is writing even more cheques his brain can't cash

Martin Rayner's bizarre behaviour of late may turn out to have a more rational explanation than it would seem.

He may be experiencing something of an identity crisis.

Rayner recently took time out of his... eh, busy... schedule to respond to this particular comment, found on a post at Return of the Trusty Tory:

"Red Tory, please, for the sake of clarity, remove Tory or any other symbol of Canada or Conservative from your name as you are nothing but a Canada hating, America bashing apologist. You would be best served in the mosque of a radical imam or the Communist party of Canada, which, it appears the Liberals have become."

For the sake of fairness, it's necessary to point out that the commenter is a bit of a nut. Mr Rayner is perfectly entitled to take issue with being accused of hating Canada.

He's said nothing to suggest to anyone that he hates Canada.

The nonsense about Muslim Imams and the Communist party clearly indicates that the commenter is more than a little unbalanced.

But Rayner's own response indicates that the commenter has managed to strike a nerve:

"Look, as long as I have preeminent ranking on Google for the term “Red Tory” and in the absence of any truly compelling argument that I am in some respect unworthy of that estimable term, I’m keeping the name. In the meantime, allow me to draw your attention to what was said by many about one of my fondest personal heroes Oscar Wilde way back when…"

Rayner's response seems to be best embodied in the insistence that "if Google says so, then it must be true". (The sad state of western society when allegedly educated individuals look to Google as the absolute arbiter of truth will remain uncommented on here -- for now.)

Beneath the inane rantings, the commenter raises an important point: how is it that Mr Rayner can justify blogging under the pseudonym "Red Tory" when so much of his behaviour strongly indicates that he has little idea what a Red Tory actually is?

In order to understand why, one needs to direct their attention to an excellent definition of Red Toryism offered by the seemingly now-defunct Deep Red Tory:

"A red tory is a compassionate conservative, driven by a concern for community over individualism, the collective well-being over personal self-interest, Burke over Mill, social responsibility over token rights, societal responsibility over state responsibility, fiscal responsibility over socialism, and responsible government over mob rule."

In particular, attention needs to be paid to the concern for community over individualism -- it's become thematic for various commentators over the last twenty years in particular, from Benjamin Barber to John Ralston Saul.

To put it most simply, Red Tories prefer strong democracy -- built around a participatory model -- to thin democracy -- built around a corporatist, negotiatory model.

Building community is at the very heart of strong democracy. But one has to keep in mind precisely what is necessary to build a community in the first place, then make it strong enough for participatory democracy.

At the very core of participatory (strong) democracy is a social compact that acknowledges that all citizens have a stake in their community. As such, all the citizens of a community have a right -- and an obligation -- to participate in the political life of their community.

But one also has to consider what kind of conditions need to exist in order for all of a community's citizens to participate in that community's political life.

Recently a farce was intentionally made of the concept of civility, a farce that Rayner himself was obnoxiously dismissive of.

Certainly, the exercise was, as Rayner himself notes, "facetious". It was less an attempt to refine the conduct of the Canadian political blogosphere and more a slap in the face to the very concept of civility.

Now, in all fairness, it's important to note that the importance of civility should be imposed to nearly all of Canada's bloggers (myself here at the Nexus included).

But civility is necessary to build the kind of environment in which a participatory (strong) democracy can prosper. Strong democracy is built on the principle that all of a community's citizens are equal citizens.

It's safe to say that someone who believes he can dismiss 30% of his country's population as "retards" is not prepared to engage in a participatory democracy on the pretenses that those so-called "retards" are his equal. Equally so for someone like Rayner who consistently condones that kind of conduct.

In fact, it's safer to say that individual will do everything he can to avoid having to "dirty his hands" engaging with such people under the pretenses of equality, and will probably avoid that by making his community's political environment as toxic, discouraging and unwelcoming as possible.

A legitimate Red Tory would stand up and oppose the behaviour of individuals like this -- not act as an apologist (or, as he himself insists, "intemperate") for them.

A legitimate Red Tory may not like the ideas espoused by their fellow citizens, but is more interested in consensus building -- Barber's metaphor of building a communal menu that reflects community tastes -- rather than fostering corporatist factionalism between "interest groups" -- Barber's metaphor of fighting over whose individual tastes the communal menu will reflect.

A legitimate Red Tory should recognize that even those with whom they disagree can serve the purposes of Red Toryism. For an example we can turn to Deep Red Tory's four interrelated principles of Red Toryism:

"1. Tradition & Incrementalism: The tory philosophy is one in which society evolves gradually, remains stable but not static, and relies on tradition as a guide for the future."

Most Red Tories don't favour social conservatism. But a committed Red Tory should recognize that, even as they personally favour progressive political values, social conservatives who would otherwise be viewed as political opponents can instead serve as a "brake" on those progressive values, preventing fast-and-hard Utopian societal upheaval, and all the instability that inevitably comes with it.

"2. Organicism & the Social Fabric: Core to the red tory ideology is the belief that society is more than a sum of its parts. It was Burke who invoked the term "social fabric" as a metaphor to describe society as a collection of individuals who, when woven together like threads, produce a much stronger and grander entity."

But in order for such a "stronger and grander entity" to be created, one has to work with the parts that are available. A strong social fabric cannot be woven without all of its members. As such, even the political beliefs and ideologies with which one disagrees or one disapproves of must have a place -- most importantly, an equal place -- in that social fabric.

The idea is to create a society wherein the bonds of citizenship and mutual obligation are so strong that efforts at accommodation are actually unnecessary.

3. Ascription & Imperfection: The very essence of toryism is rooted in the Protestant belief in human imperfection, and the existence of a ‘natural hierarchy’ in society such that only the most capable should assume positions of authority. For red tories, while the social ladder exists, it is still accessible to those with lower social status, who may climb it gradually through their lifetimes and initiative, or over the course of several generations."

Even the dissent of those who disagree with the direction in which a community serves a purpose. It reminds citizens of the imperfections in their society, and serves as the impetus for the continual -- incremental -- progressive improvement of that community.

This dissent can come from the left (typically, the engine although sometimes the brake) or the right (typically vice versa).

"4. Paternalism & Noblesse Oblige: In essence, then, toryism is a belief system that combines paternalism and collectivism through the concept of ‘noblesse oblige’. In the tory view of community, one discovers a sense of mutual obligation – of duties and privileges, rights and responsibilities – such that those in positions of privilege owe concern to those of lower social and political status, while the latter owe a certain degree of deference to elites. Labeled "tory democracy", this set of values may help to explain the ebbing of red toryism in an age of declining social and political deference."

Of course, this fourth principle is a matter of some debate. There are those that argue that low taxes allow for more money left in the hands of those who earn it, allowing for more charity (although they themselves have to remember Irving Kristol's insistence that if the market wants to be predominant, then it must accept responsibility for eliminating poverty).

Of course, others argue that only the state can manage all of a community's needs, and that the unencumbered free market rarely provides for the needs of the underprivileged. This, more often than not, has turned out to be true.

The role of a Red Tory should be to build a consensus between the two -- not overwhelmingly side with one against the other, as many people seem to think Rayner has done.

The fact that Rayner would take time out of his day to respond to a half-baked admonition from a largely anonymous individual suggests in itself that he is a little conflicted about his professed beliefs.

Either he never really knew what a Red Tory is in the first place, or has simply lost his way.

One way or the other, he should actually find it harder to justify his insistence that he's a Red Tory than simply "well, Google says so". Whether or not he's capable of being honest enough with himself to realize it has yet to be seen.

The Final Refuge of the Intellectual Coward

Apparently, some denizens of the left-wing blogosphere have no idea what "lies and fabrications" are

Readers of the Nexus may recall what the first refuge of the intellectual coward is.

And today Martin Rayner has reminded us what the last refuge of the intellectual coward is: dismissing inconveniently factual points as "lies".

After all, Marty, if "you can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives" doesn't summarize your expressed beliefs, what else was the point of this particular spittle-feckled temper tantrum?

If you truly take exception to that interpretation of your impotent tirade, then feel free to elaborate on it.

We all know you have the attention span of an ADD-afflicted gnat, so we won't hold you to any serious debate on this matter. There's no reason to expect you to spontaneously conjure the cojones anyhow.

You've never had the guts before, and it's unlikely you ever will.

All the Fun Things You Can Be On Your Own Say-So

Martin Rayner misses the point -- again -- in spectacular fashion

Speaking of people who just don't get it, here's a classic example: Martin Rayner aka "Red Tory".

Some may recall Rayner's impotent sputtering in response to a recent post here at the Nexus that insisted that Canadian Cynic and his mindless coterie of sheep aren't progressives.

Rayner's response? "You can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives."

Well, unfortunate for mr Rayner, there are numerous ways of defining progressivism.

But the point really goes much deeper than this, and one is surprised that he just can't seem to grasp it. (No one is surprised that the demagogues over at Cynic's blog don't get it -- we've long ago realized they just aren't all that bright.)

The underlying question is: how does one justify a claim that they are part of an organization, institution or movement? By their own say-so? Or are there requirements?

For example: could one consider oneself a Jew merely by their own say so? Or do they have to possess the beliefs that characterize Judaism, live according to the philosophy of Judaism, or possess some formal relationship with a Synagogue?

It's no different than progressivism. If an individual can be demonstrated to not legitimately hold the beliefs that -- by any number of definitions -- characterize progressives, refuses to behave in a manner that characterizes a progressive philosophy, and possesses no formal relationship with the progressive movement (although the progressive movement is notably large enough that no one person could possess a formal relationship with it, unless indirectly) then that person can't call themselves a progressive.

Having accepted Mr Rayner's insistence (that one can claim to be something despite failing to meet the requirements), I've decided to indulge myself in the following things:

-I am now a citizen of Ireland. I've always wanted to be a formal citizen of Ireland. And despite the fact that I wasn't born there, and have no formal affiliation with the state of Ireland, I am now an Irish citizen. Because I said so.

-I've always thought it would be kind of cool to be a prince. Despite the fact that I wasn't born into the House of Windsor, and have never married into it, I now declare myself a member of the British Royal family. Because I said I am. Apparently, that's enough.

-I've always wanted to be part of a multi-platinum selling rock band as well. As such, I'm declaring myself to be a member of Metallica, despite the fact that I don't play any of the instruments the band uses, have never met any members of the band, never tried out, and never been formally affiliated with the band. But I'm now a member of Metallica because I say so. In Martin Rayner's dream world, this is enough.

To top it all off, I'm a member of the Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties. I don't share the beliefs of any of these parties and haven't paid a membership fee to any of them, but I'm a member of all four. Because I say so.

Marty's dream world may not quite be the real world, but it's much more fun than the real world. Still, it's not quite reality, is it?

(This is the kind of shit that really shouldn't have to be explained to people.)

Dear Wanks: Stephane Dion Has Your "Separation of Church and State" Right Here

Are anti-religious protesters equal-opportunity protesters?

It seems like a silly thing, but there were people in Canada who shit kittens the second Prime Minister Stephen Harper started saying "god bless Canada".

"Is it just me or does anyone else find it ominous that Harper says 'God bless Canada'?" asked Linda McQuaig in a column at Rabble.ca.

"Stephen Harper is a radical neocon theocrat [and] the media is too even-handed," insisted Jeff Monaghan, who would eventually be arrested for leaking confidential documents during his employment at Environment Canada.

"God Bless Canada is an obvious aping of American politicians finishing their speeches with 'Thank you. God bless America'," wrote one frantic (and unidentifiable) demagogue. "'God Bless Canada' does not mean 'I love Canada'. I am honestly please. At best, it means 'I love Alberta'. Harper hates Canada."

When Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory suggested the Ontario government should fund all religious schools, as opposed only to Catholic schools, Toronto Star readers sounded off repeatedly about the "separation of church and state".

Now, Liberal leader Stephane Dion has announced he'd like to provide a $75 million fund to help places of worship targeted for vandalism by varying bigots protect their property.

Which, although laudable, naturally makes a lot less sense than providing religious organizations with tax dollars in order to fund education.

The fact is that Dion's proposal is actually quite benign. As was John Tory's plan to fund faith-based schools, and as is Stephen Harper saying "god bless Canada".

Will those who protested Harper and Tory in the name of separation of church and state now protest Stephane Dion?

One severely doubts it, but only time will tell.

Picking a Strange Hill to Die On

Richard Warman suing several bloggers, but how strong is his case?

In the latest news from the blogosphere, lawyer and alleged human rights profiteer Richard Warman has filed suit against several bloggers.

Claiming defamation and seeking $50,000, Warman is suing the National Post, Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan, Mark Fournier, his wife Constance Wilkins-Fournier, and FreeDominion.ca.

Naturally, numerous bloggers are pleased as punch about it.

Equally naturally, the paintiffs are not so pleased about it (You mean defendants, right, dummy? -ed).

A good deal of the alleged defamation seems to stem from the infamous "Anne Cools" post, wherein he allegedly wrote, under the guise of "90sAreOver":

"“Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats. Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place… And that place was NOT in public!"

The comments have seemingly been traced back to Warman through the IP address from which they were posted.

Although there is clearly some reasonable doubt as to whether or not it was Warman who was actually using that IP address at the time.

Then again, that doubt may be a little less reasonable. If Warman had no history of doing what it's been suggested he's done, that would be one thing. But that isn't the case.

When himself put before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Warman himself hasn't always stood up to scrutiny, particularly on the topic of his internet dealings. Furthermore, he has done something that closely resembles lying under oath (which is perjury in a proper court of law).

Consider the following, taken from a transcript (via Levant) from a 1 February, 2007 hearing during the course of Levant v. Lemire:

"Kulaszka: Did you ever sign up a user account at the message board?

Warman: No, I don't believe I did.

Chairperson: I want to be clear I understand that. Did he sign up a user account?

Kulaszka: A user account at the message board.

Chairperson: That would enable you to participate in the messaging. Is that what that would do?

Warman: Yes. No, I didn't need to. I could access everything that I needed to as a guest.

Chairperson: So, as a guest, only to view. But you did not sign up in order to add material to it?

Warman: No, I did not."

Yet, it turns out that Warman did, in fact, sign up an account on the website in question, and was eventally forced to admit to it.

Among his other postings as "Lucie" was the following:

""Theres a reason it's called "White" Nationalism and why the founders of NS excluded sexual deviants that are like a Cancer to our movement...""

Charming stuff. But onward, where Warman admits that he, in fact, was "Lucie".

"Kulaszka: If you could go to tab 3, the respondent's binder. Three pages from the back. Do you recognize this user account called "Lucie"?

Warman: Sorry, I stand corrected. Yes, I do. That is an e-mail address that I used.

Kulaszka: When did you use it?

Warman: It indicates on Saturday, November 15th, 2003 at 1:03 pm and on Saturday, November 15th, 2003 at 3:03 pm.

Kulaszka: You made two log-ins?

Warman: That's what it states here."

With this particular episode in mind, the allegations raised over the Anne Cools post is a strange hill for Richard Warman to choose to die on.

If Warman could produce concrete proof that he wasn't responsible for the post in question, that would be one thing. But whatever evidence has led Mark Fournier to believe Warman is the guilty party, along with his past -- confirmed -- episodes in so-called "covert posting", is enough for Levant, Fournier and company to legitimately argue that they believe Warman is responsible.

The legitimacy of such an opinion now established, the only thing Warman's lawsuit could really be about is libel chill -- dredging up fear of a libel suit in order to silence his detractors.

One certainly can't accept Warman's insistence that he didn't on his own say-so. Not based on past experience.

Unless he can conclusively prove that he didn't post under the name 90sAreOver, in which case the opinion that he did so would be clearly disproven. In the meantime, those opinions -- that he did so -- remain legitimate, and those who hold the opinions have the right to express them.

Currency Issue Getting Really Fucking Stupid

Get rid of the $5 bill? Are you fucking shitting me?

When Winnipeg NDP Member of Parliament Pat Martin introduced legislation to abolish the penny, the response turned out to be a little mixed.

Some, recognizing the fact that hoarding issues make the penny fiscally more costly than beneficiary, supported the bill. Others, uncomfortable with the idea of rounding all the nation's economic transactions up (or down) to the nearest five cents, haven't.

Now, the economic "genuises" at Desjardins Economic Studies have suggested the Royal Canadian Mint do away with not only the penny, but also the nickel, quarter, and $5 bill.

So, not only does Desjardins think that all economic purchases in Canada should be rounded up or down to the nearest five cents, but should be rounded to the nearest ten cents.

At face value, it almost starts to make cents. (Fuck! That's not funny. Don't let it happen again - ed.)

"Canadians increasingly hoard low-denomination coins rather than use them to pay for their cash purchases," the report insists. "In fact, due to the resulting strong "artificial" demand, the RCM (Royal Canadian Mint) must produce more Canadian coins and cannot free up some of its production capacity to produce more lucrative foreign coins."

The report really demonstrates a near-complete ignorance on what the priorities of the Royal Canadian Mint should be. The priorities of the RCM should be to produce coins for Canada, not for other countries (although the export of coins for use in other countries does help to cover the cost of operating the RCM).

It also demonstrates an inability to see the bigger picture.

At first glance, it makes sense to abolish the penny when one considers the greater economic cost of producing the coins.

Desjardins issued a report last year which calculated that producing the penny costs Canadians $130 million per year -- approximately $4 per citizen.

Yet one also needs to consider the explicit costs of rounding product pricing up -- or down -- to the nearest five cents or, worse yet, to the nearest ten cents.

To start off, it's not terribly fucking likely that your local 7-11 will adjust the price of a Slurpee so that it can more effectively be rounded down. In all likelihood, they'll adjust prices so they have to be rounded up. It just isn't smart business to round prices down and incur an economic loss.

Even if they did, the firms that sell us the products we use on a day-to-day basis would likely incur staggering losses.

In either case, either the extra money -- in all likelihood adding up well in excess of $4 a year -- being coughed up by Canadian consumers or the losses incurred by those businesses that are altruistic (but ultimately foolish) enough to adjust their prices to be rounded down would represent a deadweight loss, which is always a social loss.

Money gone from your pocket with no return; money lost to business coffers, meaning less profit to distribute amongst shareholders -- most of whom are what Stephen Davis, Jon Lukomnik and David Pitt-Watson refer to as "citizen investors" (in other words, us).

Of course, there is the argument that the modern economy is largely electronic in nature, with most purchases being completed via debit or credit card. Thus, some would argue, the increased costs should only apply to those paying in cash, and that the extra expense is simply the cost of using cash.

The greatest impact, however, would be felt on purchases small enough that they would be costly to complete electronically (via credit or debit card) on a regular basis. Consider the cost of a large Tim Horton's coffee -- $1.38 a cup. When applicable taxes -- assuming one lives in a province with no Provincial Sales Tax -- are added, this coffee costs $1.42 a cup.

Rounding that cup of coffee up would cost -- assuming that the consumer in question only consumes one of these per day (not fucking likely in this country, they probably consume more) -- 1095 cents per year, or $10.95. (Duh - ed.) In the unlikely scenario that Tim Horton's agreed to round the price down, the firm would incur a loss of $7.30, compounded across all of their daily customers.

Remember that this is Canada we're talking about here. Tim Horton's coffee has become a staple of our culture.

The deadweight losses incurred are bad enough when only rounding to the nearest five cents. Imagine rounding that to the nearest ten.

Yep, this idea is that fucking stupid.

Of course, there are options that one can use to creep around these costs -- Tim Horton's, in particular, offers a new Quickpay Tim Card, and abolishing the penny would certainly give millions of people incentive to get one, pushing Canada's economy even further into the electronic realm.

Which would seem to take some of the bite out of the abolition of the penny, or (as the nearsighed dimwits at Desjardins favour) the dime.

But all this begs a question: why not just abolish all of Canada's bills and coins and really fuck over the people who prefer cash to debit and credit cards?

No question the banks would be in favour of that -- all of the interest they could charge to a new glut of credit transactions, and ATM and debit fees to beat the motherfuckin' band.

Which really makes you realize who the fine folks at Desjardins are really looking out for with this particular idea -- themselves, and their fellow bankers. Or, maybe even the six Jewish bankers who rule the world. (Not funny! - ed.)

So either the folks at Desjardins are really smart and think the rest of us are fucking stupid, or are really fucking stupid and just think they're being smart about this.

Readers should draw their own conclusions regarding that little riddle.

Earth to Jack Cafferty: No Shit

Hindsight is 20/20, especially when foresight tells you the same fucking thing

On his blog at CNN.com, Jack Cafferty seems to have unwittingly stumbled upon what will, in all likelihood, stand as the revelation of the year for clueless people.

Awarding the Summer Olympics to China was a big, biiiiiig mistake.

Of course, some people have only realized this as a result of recent events:

"Controversy sprinkled with violence and ill will is accompanying the Olympic torch as it makes it way across what is supposed to be a 23-city international tour designed to build interest and good will for the summer Olympics.

Stops in London and Paris produced large-scale demonstrations by people protesting China’s human rights record. The torch has now made its way to San Francisco, where the flame is being kept in an undisclosed location for security reasons. Possibly Dick Cheney’s house."

Yep, nobody in the world could tell that awarding China -- a country with one of the world's worst human rights records -- was a bad idea until some people decided to start fucking with the Olympic Torch relay to extent that, at one point, it had to be transported by bus.

Yes, you read that right.

"Yesterday - protesters there scaled the Golden Gate Bridge and tied a Tibetan flag and two banners calling for a “free Tibet”. There’s a 6-mile relay planned in San Francisco tomorrow, but already one runner dropped out because of safety concerns.

Meanwhile, the President of the International Olympic Committee tells the A.P. that the group’s board will discuss Friday whether to end the international part of the Beijing Olympic torch relay because of all these protests."

Now, if only it were that simple. While the Torch relay has proven to be an excellent opportunity for protesters to make their feelings about the Beijing games known, the fact remains that they will find ways to protest.

Not that Chinese officials care a whole lot about that. In fact, they've extended their typical Orwellian public relations tactics to dealings with the international media.

"Beijing organizers have said the month-long international relay won’t be stopped. In fact, the vice president of the Chinese organizing committee insisted the Olympic torch has been quote, “warmly welcomed by the local people” in each city. Communist China’s version of Baghdad Bob."

Yep, and that warm welcome just so happened to include scaling San Francisco's Golden Gate bridge to hang a "free Tibet" sign and French protesters extinguishing the torch numerous times (the latter case being the exact polar opposite of a warm welcome).

But it was "warmly welcomed by the local people" because a Chinese spokesperson said so. Just like Tiananmen Square never happened because the Chinese media was largely forbidden to cover it, and forced to parrot the state's propaganda whenever it was mentioned.

"Here at home, there have been growing calls for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremony of the games. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is the only head of state to join with Mr. Bush and announce he’ll attend. Several world leaders have decided to skip the ceremony and many others remain undecided."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also announced he won't be attending.

It's also been reported that Canada's federal cabinet is considering a full-out boycott of the games although Harper has doubts about the effectiveness of such a boycott.

Although it should be remembered that China, one of the world's worst polluters, also has smog problems that are making many athletes rethink participating in the first place.

"Of course, this whole scenario might have been prevented ages ago if the IOC had listened to those who argued against awarding the Olympic Games to China in the first place because of their human rights record.

Here’s my question to you: Did the International Olympic Committee make a mistake awarding the summer games to China?"

And here's your answer, Jack: fuck, yes they did. Oh, did they ever.

Of course, it isn't as if they didn't have a choice. Bids from Paris, Osaka and Toronto were rejected in favour of the country that is currently the world's largest human rights abuser. (Istanbul, Turkey had also submitted a bid, but considering its own history in regards to its Armenian, Greek and Kurdish population it should have been rejected under the same principles that should have necessitated Beijing's rejection.)

It's truly amazing how quickly the International Olympic Committee was willing to toss aside the very principles they claim make it so important. On its website, the IOC insists "The Games have always brought people together in peace to respect universal moral principles."

Principles such as "it's wrong to torture your own citizens". Principles such as "it's wrong to oppress people for their religion". Principles such as "it's wrong to run your citizens over with tanks if they protest in favour of democracy".

You know, those universal moral principles. The very ones that then-IOC president Juan Samaranch deemed unimportant.

(He has since revealled that he hopes China will support Madrid's 2016 bid for the games -- a little quid pro quo, perhaps? Not much unlike the quid pro quo that cost Jamie Sale and David Pelletier their rightfully-earned Gold Medal in Salt Lake City?)

So, yes. Awarding the Olympics to China was, to put it lightly, a massive fucking mistake. The tarnish it has left on the Olympic rings is one that Juan Samaranch, and those who voted with him, will ultimately have to answer for: if not before his colleagues at the IOC, then in the pages of history.

Of course, that's only the half of it. The protests are unsurprising. Anyone who knew about China's human rights record -- and we all know it came up during the selection process -- knew that these protests would happen.

If those protests alone, in hindsight, make it obvious the Olympics shouldn't have been elected to Beijing, then foresight had to say the same thing.

Not Quite the Voice of Reason

Prime Minister won't take further action on Lukiwski

It's unlikely that the scandal swirling around a Conservative MP and some homophobic comments he made on a video tape in 1991 will die a quiet death following a public apology and an announcement today that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not be disciplining Lukiwski any further.

The tape -- as it has been played and re-played since being made public -- featured, among other things, Conservative MP and Parliamentary Secretary Tom Lukiwski making some virulently homophobic comments (although, considering the party environment in which they were being made, can't quite be taken at full value, although they are nonetheless distressing).

"Let me put it to you this way -- there's As and Bs," Lukiwski explained. "The As are guys like me. The Bs are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases."

The tape, discovered by NDP staffers in their new offices in the Saskatchewan legislature, almost immediately made it public.

"Obviously I just found out in the last 30-40 minutes that some comments I made back in 1991 have been made public and I just want to publicly say I am truly, truly sorry," said Lukiwski. "I have the utmost respect, I have no prejudice against gay people whatsoever. Those comments do not reflect the type of person I am and I'm very, very sorry."

Of course, Lukiwski's professed "respect" for homosexuals is far from apparent in the comments he made on tape.

Naturally, Lukiwski's apology wasn't quite enough, even for those who demanded it in the first place. "Does the prime minister realize that his tepid response to these hateful remarks against gays and Canadians suffering from AIDS tells Canadians that hate, bigotry and prejudice are just fine in his Canada?" demanded Liberal MP (and former Progressive Conservative) Scott Brison.

"Does the prime minister not realize if he does not act on this matter, if he does nothing, then he owns it?" added Ralph Goodale.

Harper, on the other hand, wasn't buying any of that. "It is my view that when such an apology is sought, such an apology should be accepted," Harper announced.

Upon first consideration, it would seem that Harper is trying to be the voice of reason on this particular issue. But there are deeper considerations at hand; considerations which seem to escape him.

Of course, no one is suggesting that the Prime Minister should cave in every time the opposition attempts to make homophobia a partisan issue; especially considering the fact that it has afflicted all of Canada's major political parties.

But attitudes like Lukiwski's simply must be addressed. Continuing to count him among his government's inner circle after the public airing of such a tape is more than simply bad politics: it really does send the wrong message.

Unfortunately for Harper, his decision not to discipline Lukiwski any further does resemble tacit approval of the comments. Considering the increasingly fickle nature of modern politics, he needs to realize that the resemblance enough is sufficiently damning.

And while the increasingly unforgiving, partisan and bloodthirsty nature of the opposition -- demanding that he be sacked despite the fact that they already got what they claimed they really wanted in the first place -- cannot be discounted, sometimes discretion really is the better part of valour. This is one of those times.

While Stephen Harper would probably be among the first to consider himself the "voice of reason" on this topic, the fact is that he's fallen quite short of it on this occasion.

Lukiwski probably should be demoted in the wake of this scandal. It may only play into the hands of those who favour fickle politics, but it is politics nonetheless.

"The comments I made should not be tolerated in any society. They should not be tolerated today, they should not have been tolerated in 1991 and they should not have been tolerated in the years before that," Lukiwski himself announced.

While his apology may well have been perfectly sincere, actions speak louder than words -- a fact that Harper himself could stand to remember. If Harper won't remove him as Parliamentary Secretary, then Lukiwski should resign.

As Close to a Boycott as We Should Get

Harper sitting Beijing Olympics out

With all the human rights-related protest in advance of this summer's Olympic games in China reaching a fever pitch, many continue to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics.

Today, Canadians among them received news that Canada is going to get as close to that as it's going to get. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not attend the opening ceremonies.

"I would continue to urge China to respect human rights and peaceful protest, not just in Tibet but everywhere," Harper announced. "And I would also encourage the government of China to understand that its growing wealth, its growing profile in the world and of course the profile of the Olympics will put a greater and greater spotlight on its record in this regard."

"My strong advice would be to take these concerns seriously because I think they are likely to grow rather than diminish if we see a repetition of the current pattern."

Of course, it's a long way short of a full-out boycott, and many of those who have been calling for a boycott likely won't be satisfied by it.

But frankly those who are calling for the boycott just happen to be, conveniently, the people with the absolute least to lose from such a boycott. Put oneself in the shoes of an athlete who has been training their entire lifetime to pursue their Olympic dream, and it doesn't take long to figure out that denying these people their (likely) once in a lifetime opportunity simply wouldn't be right.

Harper sitting out the Beijing Olympics sends a message to China. Perhaps not as strong as message as many people would like, but a message nonetheless.

It's as close to a boycott as Canada is going to get, and those with a minimal personal investment in the Olympics should be satisfied with it. They likely won't be, but they should be.

More Found Documents: Captain Arsehole of the Blogosphere

Suddenly, it all makes sense

Now, suddenly over at the domain of Canada's most hateful douchebag, it's suddenly become unacceptable to make fun of people for how they look. (But only suddenly.)

One almost wonders why. Then, one remembers:


Yep. That's why.

He may now resume getting drunk and pissing himself.

No Joke: Air Farce to Make its Final Flight

Tarnished Canadian institution to be put out of its misery

When it was announced yesterday that the Royal Canadian Air Farce would be disbanding at the conclusion of an abbreviated 16th season, many people assumed it was nothing more than an April Fool's gag.

The date is now 2 April and it seems official: the Air Farce will dissolve following next season.

It seems someone in the CBC has finally resolved to put the show, a sad empty shell of its former self, out of its misery.

Believe it or not, there was a time when the Air Farce used to be funny. It used to be a weekly non-partisan send-up of our political leaders and Canadian culture in general.

Then guys like this guy got his hands on the show. Ever since then, the show has been on a not-so-gradual slide into gratuitous partisanship.

In the meantime, they did manage to find time to make fun of some Canadian culture they clearly never had time to get familiar with in the first place:



And go out of the way to malign our neighbors to the South:



(Ironically, the Canadian version of the show -- entitled Are You Smarter Than a Canadian Fifth Grader? -- is hosted by an Air Farce alumnus.)

It is sad to see the Air Farce going off the air. But considering the long, sad decline of the show, it might be for the best.

Those of us who loved the show back when it actually used to be good will try to remember the Air Farce the way it used to be: funny.

April 2008 Book Club Selection: The People's Machine, Joe Matthews

Arnold Schwarzenegger ushering in a new era of politics

Arnold Schwarzenegger is, without a doubt, a marvel of modern politics. Moreover, he may be the first legitimate political pioneer politics has seen in decades.

Schwarzenegger's evolution in the public eye has been truly remarkable. From claiming the governorship of California with 48% of the popular vote (as one in a field of more than 100 candidates that also featured a porn star and a sumo wrestler) to inspiring public ridicule by calling on the people of California to be his "power lifters" to rebounding from a cataclysmic round of special initiative referendums to earn a glowing approval rating, Schwarzenegger has consistently shaken off low expectations to not only earn the respect of Democrats and Republicans alike, but defy stereotypes in such a way that he literally forced people worldwide to reimagine politics.

In The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Politics, Joe Matthews follows the governator's career from its humble beginnings as an Austrian bodybuilder/immigrant to one of the world's most famous people, to the defeat of his 2005 round of special elections.

In the meantime, Matthews provides those interested with a new blueprint for political success. What Theodore White's The Making of the President has been to the past thirty year's worth of would-be political visionaries The People's Machine will be to the next generation of political hopefuls.

Of course, not all of them will be able to actually use it.

As one would expect, Schwarzenegger's tale essentially begins during his reign as one of Hollywood's top draws -- although fame is a big part of it, it doesn't end there. Schwarzenegger's greatest asset, it turns out, is the revolutionary style in which he marketed his movies. It was during his time marketing such films as Terminator 2 and True Lies that Schwarzenegger stepped out from his rule as movie star and became the fully-fledged pitchman with the ability to sell himself to the entire state of California.

When Schwarzenegger finally made the decision to jump into politics, the skills he learned doing this time -- his skill with a deft soundbite and mastery of the art of spectacle -- served him well.

Those able to master the glitzy and polished salesmanship that has become Schwarzenegger's trademark and mix it with a candidate enjoying a considerable degree of fame will almost certainly have a good deal of success.

To prove that, one needs look no further than the success Warren Beatty and his closest counterpart, former Minnesota governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura for proof of that.

It's suggested over and over in the book that today's movie stars will be tomorrow's politicians. Whether or not this constitutes what one would consider a favorable state of affairs, one has to consider how politically active movie stars -- and celebrities in general -- have become and wonder if maybe, just maybe, it's true.

Should that happen, Schwarzenegger's governorship will almost certainly be looked to as a pivotal point in political history. Matthews' book will, in turn, be elevated to significant historical importance.

Dion Digging for the Wrong Dirt

Worse things than largely benign Reform policy afoot

In his naivete, Stephane Dion probably imagines he's finally hit that home run he's been itching for.

In debate over controversial new immigration rules contained, of all places, in the 2008 federal budget, Stephane Dion drug some old Reform party immigration policies back from history.

How far in history? About 20 years.

The document, written by Stephen Harper while he was still serving as the policy chief for the then-fledgling Reform party, outlined the party's immigration policy.

"[This] may look like an attempt to deliver promises made by the Reform party 20 years ago," Dion insisted.

Yet, then one has to look more closely at the "smoking gun" that Dion seems to think he's uncovered.

"Immigration should not be based on race or creed, as it has in the past; nor should it be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada, as it increasingly seems to be," the document outlines.

The policy called for a number of changes to immigration policy, none of which are terribly malignant. It called for immigrants to have the necessary skills and training required by the job market. It insisted that immigration should serve an economic purpose. It suggested that family sponorships should be restricted to spouses and children under the age of 18 (parents, grandparents and extended family should be required to apply through regular channels). It also insisted that genuine refugees -- those who had legitimate cause to fear oppression -- be admitted to Canada.

The document also noted that the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution may have needed to be invoked in order to deal with illegal immigrants already landed in Canada -- something the government should be doing regardless.

The simple fact of the matter is that, whether supporters of the current government like to admit it or not, the current immigration bill is a failure of the big promise that the Conservative party campaigned on: accountability. More specifically, accountability's handmaiden, transparency.

One could not possibly argue that smuggling an immigration bill into a budget bill that anyone who's being paying attention over the past few months simply knew the Official Opposition wouldn't vote against represents anything even resembling transparency.

In all likelihood, one would have to expect the move was calculated in an attempt to avoid the criticism being directed at the party now.

It wasn't a wise decision. If anything, it only gives more ammunition to demagogues who want to insist the Conservative party has a hidden agenda. After all, it certainly looks that way.

It should be the lack of accountability and transparency that Dion is outraged about. Accusing a government that more than 400,000 foreigners into the country of having an anti-immigrant bias is simply too far off the mark.

And 'Lo and Behold: A Point Proven

Wow. They just. Don't. Get. It.

Some readers of the Nexus may recall yesterday's response to online hatemonger Canadian Cynic's "day of civility".

In the face of such a slap in the face to political discourse, it was necessary to point out that individuals like Canadian Cynic, who claim to be progressives, are not progressives.

Which, of course, drove good old Marty Rayner into a sputtering, incoherent rage. The truth really hurts, it would seem.

Considering the rebuking of his rage here at the Nexus, it's unsurprising that it would bubble over at his own blog, as henceforth:

"Doughy pantload and professional freeloader, oops, sorry… “sociology student”… Patrick Ross launches into yet another one of his painfully tiresome, windy and wholly ill-informed attacks on his nemesis and unrequited love-object, Canadian Cynic. This time he builds his ridiculous argument on the feeble contention that Cynic is not a “Progressive”…

Oh dear, here we go again with semantic labels and ideological definitions. In this case, Patrick hangs his baseball cap on a short blurb from the obscure website of some undistinguished outfit called “The Progressive Living Foundation” that defines “progressivism” as follows:

"…a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. To coin a phrase, progressivism champions government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’"

Gee, could that be a little more vacuous or fluffy? One hardly thinks so. Let’s see if we can come up with something more edifying. Wikipedia is often a good place to start:"

Oh, yes. Wikipedia. Sure, Marty. Let's start with a "source" that would net one a zero on any serious academic paper.

Let's start with a "source" renouned for the content tampering that is known to occur.

This being noted, let's indulge Mr Rayner:

"…A general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers’ rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges."

Of course “Progressivism” is a colossally broad, nebulous sort of term and therefore difficult to define with any precision."

No duh, Marty, but let's not stop you from trying. After all, let's consider this further passage from the source originally cited:

"Economic elites emerge in every society and invariably seek to promote their own interests, all too often against those of taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. By definition, economic elites enjoy greater wealth, and therefore influence, than the ordinary citizen, and they typically attempt to exploit these advantages politically, using them as leverage to obtain still greater wealth and influence."

Hmmmm. So let's see, economic elites -- who also tend to be political and cultural elites -- impede progressive politics, which "represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents."

In other words, progressivism is meant to advance the interests of those who fall in between the economic elites and the revolutionary socialists and anarchists who insist on a complete overthrow of the system.

Sounds an awful lot like... what was that term, again? Oh, yeah. "Ordinary people".

Seems an awful lot like the very definition that I used. But in his simmering rage poor ol' Marty just isn't capable of reading between the lines.

"It’s interesting to note the vast array of disparate individuals deemed to be “progressives” in the Wikipedia entry; from Upton Sinclair to Thorstein Veblen, and Dennis Kucinich to Woodrow Wilson. But to put a somewhat finer point on matters, John Halpin, senior advisor at the Center for American Progress offers up this insight:

“Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic.”

Unfortunately, this sort of delicate attitudinal nuance is apparently incapable of penetrating Patrick’s fantastically dense mullet, resulting in him just moronically squawking the dimestore mantra that “Progressivism represents the interests of ordinary people.” Well, duh. What political movement doesn’t make similar claims?"

Really, Marty? Do you really think so?

Let's consider the comments of Eric Alterman, author of Why We're Liberals, who insisted "liberalism is the ideology, progressivism is the strategy."

Let's put Marty on a time out here for a couple of minutes so we can define "dynamic" for him:

1. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic: the dynamic president of the firm.
2. Physics.
a. of or pertaining to force or power.
b. of or pertaining to force related to motion.
3. pertaining to the science of dynamics.
4. of or pertaining to the range of volume of musical sound.
5. Computers. (of data storage, processing, or programming) affected by the passage of time or the presence or absence of power: Dynamic memory must be constantly refreshed to avoid losing data.
6. Grammar. nonstative.
–noun
7. a basic or dynamic force, esp. one that motivates, affects development or stability, etc.

According to this definition, which Rayner seems to favour, progressive politics "pertains to effective action" and "affects development or stability".

Yes, that is much more descriptive than a politics that rejects elitism and acts in the interests of ordinary people. But the greatest hilarity is only yet to come:

"Following on from this stupendously dim revelation is a lot of cheap, utterly meaningless blather (over 800 words, all signifying nothing whatsoever) about “Cynic and his coterie of vicious hooligans” that don’t bear repeating or even skimming really, but behold this brilliant gem:

"What either fail to recognize, or fail to admit, is that the freedom for those who disagree with them to express their views without fear of attack or harassment is part and parcel of a progressive social contract in which people -- each presumably as equal as the next -- are permitted to hold to hold their own opinions, recognize their own interests, organize in order to pursue their interests, and express their opinions in that regard."

Yeah, well I’ll certainly keep that in mind when Frank Hilliard launches into his next spirited defense of the individual rights of people who choose to “pursue their interests” by driving whilst intoxicated or when he starts hysterically shrieking that Halal certification on certain lamb products is a sure sign that the imposition of Sharia Law by the treacherous Islamofascists in our midst is close at hand. Likewise, I’ll try to remind myself to be a little more sensitive to Kate McMillan the next time she endorses the “free speech” of a self-confessed “full time Nazi” who advocates the wholesale murder of homosexuals based on a commandment from Scripture."

The larger point that Marty seems to be missing is that no one is suggesting that he and his compatriots shouldn't be allowed to criticize individuals like Hilliard, McMillan, myself, or anyone else with whom they disagree.

But if Rayner wants to criticize people, then the onus is on him to be clear about what it is that he's actually criticizing. What he fails to understand is the greatest failures to this end vis a vis an ad hominem attack. Notably, that an "ad hominem attack is a fallacy:

"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."

If Martin Rayner and Canadian Cynic really find the ideas of Hilliard, MacMillan or myself so atrocious, then perhaps they could find it in themselves to dispute the ideas.

In fact, in choosing to attack character instead of ideas, Rayner and Cynic actually offer a tacit admission that they can't. Ironically, the ideas they find so abhorrent come away from their criticisms stronger than before because of this, except in the minds of like-minded hatemongers.

So instead of debating ideas they settle for attacking character -- Rayner himself proves that in the course of his post. (One is also reminded about numerous challenges to debate the ideas instead of merely attacking the messenger, all of which went unanswered). In the process they clearly intend to exact such a personal toll on people whose ideas they abhor that these people will feel discouraged from expressing them.

"Perhaps others can back me up on this, but the last time I glanced at my “Progressive” membership card, I don’t recall there being any requirement that I check my brains at the door and automatically subscribe to the ludicrous notion that all ideas and opinions are of equal merit."

Certainly not. But one has to start with Martin Rayner and his "progressive membership card" -- he doesn't have one. He isn't a progressive.

"I forget the exact wording, but it may in fact even have suggested something to the contrary — that some ideas are catastrophically dumb and therefore quite deserving of being figuratively pilloried and mocked to death. Like say… much of the flatulent nonsense of Patrick Ross."

Unsurprisingly, Rayner just doesn't get it. This shoudn't surprise anyone by now.

In the end, Rayner just simply fails to comprehend the meaning of progress:

1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.

It raises a number of questions vis a vis Martin Rayner:
1. Whose goals should progressivism advance? Those of the largest number of people possible? Or merely his?

2. What kind of development or growth is fostered by a political discourse built upon the foundation of ad hominem attacks?

3. What kind of steady improvement of our society should we expect if entire groups of people are harassed out of participating in political discourse?

Well, there are some simple answers to be offered.

Certainly, progressivism could work toward only the goals of people like himself. Perhaps the development or growth would be something that he would be satisfied, but one has to consider the resentment that would bubble amongst the masses of people driven to the fringes and thus banished to permanent dissatisfaction with such development or growth. Could it really be considered a steady improvement if the society that Rayner envisions is built upon such a powderkeg?

One has to remember the thing about powderkegs: sparks tend to make them explode.

But then again, one also has to remember that the vicious and toxic discourse favoured by Marty and his compatriots would only lead our society to a place where only certain people -- the people with the so-called right ideas -- are allowed to participate in political debate.

This would not lead us toward a dynamic politics in which change is possible, but rather toward a stale politics in which change has been rendered impossible because the so-called wrong ideas have been forced out at the expense of intellectual pluralism.

This isn't progress. This is regression. Sadly, it's clearly the kind of politics that Martin Rayner envisions -- a world wherein political debate begins and ends with the word "retard" and there's little to no room for actual ideas.

But if Rayner wants to prove differently, the ball's in his court: start accepting the challenge to divest himself of ad hominem attacks and debate the ideas.

Unfortuantely, we know he won't. The ball may be in his court, but he's too scared to dribble it out.

He won't debate honestly. It's yet another reason why he isn't a progressive.

FSIN: No Jews is Good Jews

Ahenakew, FSIN spared tough questions

If there's any big issue that faces Aboriginal Canadians today, it's probably still racism.

And so, this being the case, it's unsurprising today that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations today struck another blow against racism by reinstating David Akenahew to its senate.

Wait -- was that a blow against racism or a flow in favor of it? Oh, bother.

Akenahew, it turns out, is a known racist and anti-semite. In a December 2003 interview, Akenahew insisted that Hitler was "clean[ing] up the world" during the Holocaust when he "fried" millions of Jews, whom Akenahew referred to as a "disease".

"But ah, the Germans used to tell me, and I got to know them well because I played soccer against them and with them and so forth. But they used to tell me that you guys are blessed. What we know about the Indians in Canada. They are blessed. But that blessing is being destroyed by the, by your immigrants that are going over there. Especially the Jews, they say, you know. The Second World War was created by the Jews and the Third World War, whatever it is, right now that war ... that wages on Israel in the Arab countries. I was there too. But there’s gonna be a war because the Israelis and the “Bushies”, you know, the bully, the bully, the ah the bigot and so forth in the United States that tells you that if you’re not with me you are against me."

"The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. ... That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries."

"How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?"

In 2005 Akenahew was convicted of promoting hatred and was fined a whole $1000. In 2006 that conviction was overturned.

FSIN Chief Lawrence Joseph insisted that every little thing's gonna be alright, as Akenahew apologized for the statements and allegedly never repeated them.

Except that he did.

During his 2005 trial, Akenahew continued to insist that Jews started the Second World War.

"So you still believe today, in 2005, that the Jewish people started the Second World War?" asked Crown Prosecutor Brent Klause.

"Yes," Akenahew agreed.

To make matters even more insulting, Doug Christie, Holocaust denier defender extraordinaire conjured the audacity to suggest that reporter James Parker should have been charged with a hate crime instead.

"Who distributed the allegedly hateful words?" Christie insisted. "If it had been Dr Ahenakew, no one else would have heard them other than him and Mr Parker. Mr Parker had a story that was the best he could hope for in his life."

In other words, don't blame his client for making the comments in the first place. Blame the tattle-tale. It's the classic bully's defence.

Christie argued that Ahenakew made the comments in the midst of a "private conversation", despite the fact that many of the reported comments were made during a press conference.

The Star Phoenix, meanwhile, has paid its own price for reporting the comments in the first place, as a reporter sent to cover the FSIN's press conference today was denied entrance.

"Having been forewarned about the possibility of being black-listed by the FSIN, I wasn't surprised at their decision to ban StarPhoenix reporter Betty Ann Adam from attending today's press conference," announced StarPhoenix editor Steve Gibb. "However, I was extremely disappointed that the FSIN would carry out such a petulant threat to shoot the messenger rather than simply having the fortitude to come clean and explain their highly questionable decision to reinstate David Ahenakew."

"First Nations people deserve better than to have their leaders respond like schoolyard bullies when asked to explain controversial actions taken behind closed doors without so much as any advance notice of their planned action," Gibb added.

One now has to wonder if all the condemnation of Akenahew's comments was merely feigned. The FSIN quickly accepted Akenahew's resignation. Now that Akenahew has had his conviction overturned, it seems they're all to eager to embrace him once again.

Today, the FSIN voted 43-3 in favour of reinstating Akenahew. To date only Chief Rowland Crowe, chairman of the FSIN Senate, has seen fit to resign.

"I think it's time right now that we need not the distractions but to deal with the real burning issues we have and we have a lot of them in our communities," he announced.

The FSIN has responded to all the criticism by insisting it has the right to run its organization as it sees fit. Apparently, it sees fit to count a known anti-semite amongst its leadership, and invite all the distraction that will entail.

In the process, they're blocking out the media, and refusing to answer the key questions that must be asked.

The Akenahew reinstatement is a farce, and leads one to wonder exactly how much of what has already transpired was, likewise, a farce.