Tuesday, February 28, 2006
I don't need or love Paul at 64
Many decades ago, a hip rocker asked in his oh-so-cute, bring-home-to-mom, king of way: "will you still love me? will you still need me, when I'm sixty four."
That icon is thereabouts today and guess what? Chuckercanuck doesn't love him. Chuckercanuck certainly doesn't need him. Oh, Paul, how I long for yesterday when you stuck with writing catchy tunes.
Word is from the Animal Liberation Front of Chelsea that Sir Paul, white knight of the Beatles, will take to the ice flows this season to call attention to the seal hunt. He finds the bang! bang! of Maxwell's seal club hammer an appalling act of barbarism against Earth's cuddliest creatures. So off he goes, to be the walrus of the gulf.
Animal rights are not something that Chuckercanuck would like inserted in our Charter. But one day, the NDP will push for it and the Liberals will do their 0darndest to deliver - thanks to pioneers like Sir Paul. Most arguments in favour of animal rights are grasping bits of delusion talk. Behind them, lies the spiritual porridge of new-age, post-modern dot-connecting. There is no dissecting this irrationality - it is indivisible and incomprehensible. "Go with the flow." That phrase is the basic thread of this animal rights ideology. (Hitler was a vegetarian - if that isn't a caution, what is?)
Granted, there are legitimate reasons for vegetarianism, like having Jain for a last name. Animal rights, however, does not qualify. Its taking Bambi too literally. A doe doesn't actually give a shit about the plight of a rabbit. But it does provide a piece of heaven if braised in beer with oignons, garlic and juniper berries, served next to roasted vegetables and a wilted spinach salad.
Sir Paul's cause is lost on me - all I see is a wrinkled, farting rock star harassing people trying to make ends meet in a vain attempt to remain relevent. Says one seal-hunter to the next, "oh, Paul says if we just sing Let It Be, the landlord will disappear."
Celebrities come with an in-built audience, if a cause can barnacle itself to that celebrity, it gets at that audience. A celebrity becomes a spokesperson for the cause. A spokesperson gets confused for a leader. The substance of leadership falls away and soon enough we are all wading in the shallow waters of scientology.
Sir Paul, stay home, start a blog and issue a statement. Keep Bono with you as well. If Modonna has an idea about post-secondary education, encourage her to contact her local MP. These causes curry no favour with Chuckercanuck by exposing him to the bubble-gum moralizing of Hollywoodies.
That icon is thereabouts today and guess what? Chuckercanuck doesn't love him. Chuckercanuck certainly doesn't need him. Oh, Paul, how I long for yesterday when you stuck with writing catchy tunes.
Word is from the Animal Liberation Front of Chelsea that Sir Paul, white knight of the Beatles, will take to the ice flows this season to call attention to the seal hunt. He finds the bang! bang! of Maxwell's seal club hammer an appalling act of barbarism against Earth's cuddliest creatures. So off he goes, to be the walrus of the gulf.
Animal rights are not something that Chuckercanuck would like inserted in our Charter. But one day, the NDP will push for it and the Liberals will do their 0darndest to deliver - thanks to pioneers like Sir Paul. Most arguments in favour of animal rights are grasping bits of delusion talk. Behind them, lies the spiritual porridge of new-age, post-modern dot-connecting. There is no dissecting this irrationality - it is indivisible and incomprehensible. "Go with the flow." That phrase is the basic thread of this animal rights ideology. (Hitler was a vegetarian - if that isn't a caution, what is?)
Granted, there are legitimate reasons for vegetarianism, like having Jain for a last name. Animal rights, however, does not qualify. Its taking Bambi too literally. A doe doesn't actually give a shit about the plight of a rabbit. But it does provide a piece of heaven if braised in beer with oignons, garlic and juniper berries, served next to roasted vegetables and a wilted spinach salad.
Sir Paul's cause is lost on me - all I see is a wrinkled, farting rock star harassing people trying to make ends meet in a vain attempt to remain relevent. Says one seal-hunter to the next, "oh, Paul says if we just sing Let It Be, the landlord will disappear."
Celebrities come with an in-built audience, if a cause can barnacle itself to that celebrity, it gets at that audience. A celebrity becomes a spokesperson for the cause. A spokesperson gets confused for a leader. The substance of leadership falls away and soon enough we are all wading in the shallow waters of scientology.
Sir Paul, stay home, start a blog and issue a statement. Keep Bono with you as well. If Modonna has an idea about post-secondary education, encourage her to contact her local MP. These causes curry no favour with Chuckercanuck by exposing him to the bubble-gum moralizing of Hollywoodies.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Colere Bleu
Last week, the borough of Ville Marie in Montreal released an investigation into city blue collar workers. It found 9 had spent 90 hours to fill 9 pot holes. This week, the Montreal Gazette reported on an investigation of their own. The results were nauseating. If you asked a guy on the street how lazy city blue collar workers are, he'd answer, "very lazy." The Gazette proved that the correct answer to that question is, "very, very lazy." As in, if Paul Martin would describe it, he would be forced to say, "very, very, very, clealy lazy."
One, they spend most of their time parked outside apartment buildings. Two of them sleep in the idling pickup, while the 3rd crew member goes into the building for no obvious reason. He emerges and they drive circuitously to the next apartment building for another guy to disappear into. (Maybe city workers roam the city, putting smiles on the faces of our needy widowed ladies). Two, lunch takes about 2 hours and no hour goes by without a coffee break. Three, when tallied, they accomplish less than an hour of work a day.
The union responded to the Gazette story with a letter. They blasted the investigated workers as imbeciles who undermine the fight against privitization. Then, the union goes on to blast city management for failing to put enough city workers on the job in Ville Marie to fix the pothole crisis. And this makes sense, if more workers are thrown on the case, the fewer "smile-making" visits each crew will have to make. That means, less time in the apartments of lonely ladies, and more time filling the city's potholes.
The union shrewdly observes that so long as citizens perceive the quality of city services as high, the urge to privatize city services is low. Only the most rabid ideologues would be callling for privatization. But, right now, there is a simmering rage amongst citizens because the investigations only confirm what we witness every day on our way to and from work, chores and life. We see daily abuse of the concept of an honest day's labour on our streets. We resent it quietly because the union controls so much of the quality of our life, we dare not challenge it.
They are right to involve city managers in the blame. Privatization has a sympathetic audience because so many of us who own property have seen gross increases to our property taxes. So many extra hundreds of dollars have been taken from Chuckercanuck, that he can sympathize with that lady in PEI:
When the city of Montreal published my tax bill, I felt molested by a ravenous donkey while a crowd jeered, "circus freak! idiot-dork!"
They should never be allowed to offend me with a tax bill like that again.
One, they spend most of their time parked outside apartment buildings. Two of them sleep in the idling pickup, while the 3rd crew member goes into the building for no obvious reason. He emerges and they drive circuitously to the next apartment building for another guy to disappear into. (Maybe city workers roam the city, putting smiles on the faces of our needy widowed ladies). Two, lunch takes about 2 hours and no hour goes by without a coffee break. Three, when tallied, they accomplish less than an hour of work a day.
The union responded to the Gazette story with a letter. They blasted the investigated workers as imbeciles who undermine the fight against privitization. Then, the union goes on to blast city management for failing to put enough city workers on the job in Ville Marie to fix the pothole crisis. And this makes sense, if more workers are thrown on the case, the fewer "smile-making" visits each crew will have to make. That means, less time in the apartments of lonely ladies, and more time filling the city's potholes.
The union shrewdly observes that so long as citizens perceive the quality of city services as high, the urge to privatize city services is low. Only the most rabid ideologues would be callling for privatization. But, right now, there is a simmering rage amongst citizens because the investigations only confirm what we witness every day on our way to and from work, chores and life. We see daily abuse of the concept of an honest day's labour on our streets. We resent it quietly because the union controls so much of the quality of our life, we dare not challenge it.
They are right to involve city managers in the blame. Privatization has a sympathetic audience because so many of us who own property have seen gross increases to our property taxes. So many extra hundreds of dollars have been taken from Chuckercanuck, that he can sympathize with that lady in PEI:
When the city of Montreal published my tax bill, I felt molested by a ravenous donkey while a crowd jeered, "circus freak! idiot-dork!"
They should never be allowed to offend me with a tax bill like that again.
Government's Capone Bids Adieu
As you know, Chuckercanuck has been fiercly interested in liquor retail and distribution since the early days of this black hole in cyberspace. Quebec's SAQ has been fixing booze prices since the Loonie started running laps around the iron-lunged Euro. In the wake of the price fixing revelations, VPs have resigned, prices have been slashed (well, lightly scratched), and this week, the crown corporation's big enchilida has tendered his resignation.
All of this amounts to fireworks set to distract us from the real issue:
Why does a government-run monopoly of importation, distribution and retailing of booze exist in Quebec?
How do the citizens benefit from this?
The negatives are clear: high prices, limited selection, inefficient end-user distribution. Add to this, pricing conspiracies that only monopolies or near-monopolies can commit. Then, a pinch of putting booze consumption at the mercy of a single union.
No one - not the government, not the media, not the SAQ itself - has made an argument for why the government still carries this appendage into the 21st century. Explaining how the SAQ came to be in answer to why the SAQ exists now is no answer. Is it taken for granted that the citizen knows why the SAQ is a valuable contributor to our society?
If so, this is a mistake. I couldn't give you an answer. I haven't met anyone who can either. So, I suggest someone take up the banner of a crown monopoly on booze. Otherwise, the only voice that will get a hearing is Chuckercanuck's. And that voice will continue to say the same thing:
Dismantle the SAQ. Privatize, Liberalize, Exorcise! Leave milk and honey to other lands, I'm happy with whiskey and Spanish reds.
All of this amounts to fireworks set to distract us from the real issue:
Why does a government-run monopoly of importation, distribution and retailing of booze exist in Quebec?
How do the citizens benefit from this?
The negatives are clear: high prices, limited selection, inefficient end-user distribution. Add to this, pricing conspiracies that only monopolies or near-monopolies can commit. Then, a pinch of putting booze consumption at the mercy of a single union.
No one - not the government, not the media, not the SAQ itself - has made an argument for why the government still carries this appendage into the 21st century. Explaining how the SAQ came to be in answer to why the SAQ exists now is no answer. Is it taken for granted that the citizen knows why the SAQ is a valuable contributor to our society?
If so, this is a mistake. I couldn't give you an answer. I haven't met anyone who can either. So, I suggest someone take up the banner of a crown monopoly on booze. Otherwise, the only voice that will get a hearing is Chuckercanuck's. And that voice will continue to say the same thing:
Dismantle the SAQ. Privatize, Liberalize, Exorcise! Leave milk and honey to other lands, I'm happy with whiskey and Spanish reds.
Friday, February 24, 2006
I'm starting to blame the victim
Have you heard of the kerfuffle at the University of Prince Edward Island? The president caught wind of a university newspaper's plan to publish those cartoons - you know, the super-deadly evil ones from Denmark - and halted its distribution after only a few hundred copies escaped into the public.
One part of the story that grabbed me was the reaction of a PEI resident to the cartoons (in today's National Post): "I feel like I was raped in the street while people watched."
I have no access to this woman's mind. I cannot assess whether she is just spewing hyperbole or she is, under the guiding grace of Dr. Phil, truly broadcasting her inner feelings to the world. I do know this, however: do not hire her to man a hot-line of any sort; social services are likely a poor fit for her, career-wise.
"You think that's bad," she responds to the shattered, needing person,"did you see those cartoons? I felt raped in the street while people watched! By comparison, a rough husband is a mere inconvenience!"
From Chuckercanuck's perspective, if given a choice between a public raping or having blasphemous cartoons published in journals I don't have to look at, I lean towards option number 2. Right now, I'm recollecting the "Christ Piss", a photograph of a Crucifix in a glass of the artists piss. I saw it in a documentary about censorship many years ago, but its the kind of image you remember. Even with the memory of Christ Piss pressed to the front of my brain, I choose someone else's blasphemy over my own public raping. Call me crazy.
A necessary ingredient to peace and personal security is a tolerance for blasphemy. Smart folks have told Chuckercanuck so, many times. That woman should forever have the freedom to liken the limited publication of blasphemy to a public raping. But only because Chuckercanuck has the right and duty to denounce that sentiment as false and infantalizing.
If a resident from PEI felt raped by those Danish Cartoons, then here is an unprecendented case where the only appropriate thing to do is blame the victim.
One part of the story that grabbed me was the reaction of a PEI resident to the cartoons (in today's National Post): "I feel like I was raped in the street while people watched."
I have no access to this woman's mind. I cannot assess whether she is just spewing hyperbole or she is, under the guiding grace of Dr. Phil, truly broadcasting her inner feelings to the world. I do know this, however: do not hire her to man a hot-line of any sort; social services are likely a poor fit for her, career-wise.
"You think that's bad," she responds to the shattered, needing person,"did you see those cartoons? I felt raped in the street while people watched! By comparison, a rough husband is a mere inconvenience!"
From Chuckercanuck's perspective, if given a choice between a public raping or having blasphemous cartoons published in journals I don't have to look at, I lean towards option number 2. Right now, I'm recollecting the "Christ Piss", a photograph of a Crucifix in a glass of the artists piss. I saw it in a documentary about censorship many years ago, but its the kind of image you remember. Even with the memory of Christ Piss pressed to the front of my brain, I choose someone else's blasphemy over my own public raping. Call me crazy.
A necessary ingredient to peace and personal security is a tolerance for blasphemy. Smart folks have told Chuckercanuck so, many times. That woman should forever have the freedom to liken the limited publication of blasphemy to a public raping. But only because Chuckercanuck has the right and duty to denounce that sentiment as false and infantalizing.
If a resident from PEI felt raped by those Danish Cartoons, then here is an unprecendented case where the only appropriate thing to do is blame the victim.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Madonna is a Liberal
Madonna's been hospitalized for a hernia - very rare for women - after her stripper pole routine at a fancy celebrity awards show (some statue, who really cares) stretched her past her limits. The news beat out the Liberal's annoucement of a shadow cabinet, obviously. But seen together, it is difficult not to draw parallels between the situations.
As institutions, both are plums verging on prunedom. Each deploys any and all means to appear young, vital and sexy. So far, both have been very successful with these efforts. But lately? Bathetic and risking hospitalization.
So the latest grab at media attention is the shadow cabinet, a focused group of 85 critics and associate critics charged with keeping the 27 ministers on their toes.
I know its semantics, but you can't have more shadows than shaded objects, right? So why did they do this?
Very, very clearly, martinites still run the show. Of the three plays they have, one-up-manship is what they consider "their secret weapon". Used sparingly, according to them, and its devastating. Remember the election? You know how we said $5 billion over 5 years? Well now its $10 billion over 10 years!!! And we rubes are supposed to slack our jaws and cry "golly!". Here it is again - they have 27 ministers? well, we'll have 3 times as many and another 4 as gravy! That's how we do it better.
And there's that martinite concept of focus - nothing like piling on more warm bodies on the problem to get you "focused". My mom always says, "many, many cooks make a broth wunderbar!"
So people have undertaken the pointless task of analyzing the suitability of critics. Belinda Stronach was made Transport critic. Good, good. Magna has no interest there. Everyone got a critic's role. Because Liberals like to play fair. There was this ugly bit about big fish critics and small fish critics; but like a nursery school Christmas pageant, everyone gets a role to be super-duper excited about. "Hey Ma, I'm Tree Number 3!"
Then there's the bit about healing. Liberal spin explains that they gave every man, woman and child a critic's post in order to foster a sense of healing and reconciliation within the party. But there are 15+ MPs that the Liberal Party wouldn't trust to be critic for crafts and hobbies. Today, those people are the big losers.
Yes, I've heard that some of these MPs didn't want a critic's role. Likely, some of them have concocted semi-reasonable explanations for saying "no" to critic for amateur sport or critic for paranormal activities. While we wait to hear these rationales, let me tell you, fellow citizens: if your MP can't be bothered to take up a critics role when the Liberals Party will call you whatever you want if you'd just sit in their caucus - you have failed your citizens. We don't need lazy, wimpy people in parliament who cannot handle a minor critic's role.
To that gaggle of rejects, Chuckercanuck offers this advice: there are only so many indignities that one should suffer for the good of a party.
Are you playing sound technician to Joni Mitchell? Or Madonna? Will you be able to advance the cause of good government by supporting this teenage-swarming approach to official opposition? Or, will your constituents and this country not be better served by joining in coalition with the Tory caucus - further protecting government from Liberal leadership tomfoolery?
ps. I haven't noticed a role for Francis Scarpallegia. Chuckercanuck was born on the speculation that he would be a natural and welcome addition to the Tory Caucus. The Liberals continue to have a dragging effect on national unity - issue numero uno in his riding. There would be wide acceptance of a switch to the Tories for that very reason: stabilize the confederation. Furthermore, his abiding interest in the Great Lakes basin means he could help Rona Ambrose pursue real, measurable progress on this fantastic cause. Mr. Scarpallegia, if you read this blog: cross the floor, please!
As institutions, both are plums verging on prunedom. Each deploys any and all means to appear young, vital and sexy. So far, both have been very successful with these efforts. But lately? Bathetic and risking hospitalization.
So the latest grab at media attention is the shadow cabinet, a focused group of 85 critics and associate critics charged with keeping the 27 ministers on their toes.
I know its semantics, but you can't have more shadows than shaded objects, right? So why did they do this?
Very, very clearly, martinites still run the show. Of the three plays they have, one-up-manship is what they consider "their secret weapon". Used sparingly, according to them, and its devastating. Remember the election? You know how we said $5 billion over 5 years? Well now its $10 billion over 10 years!!! And we rubes are supposed to slack our jaws and cry "golly!". Here it is again - they have 27 ministers? well, we'll have 3 times as many and another 4 as gravy! That's how we do it better.
And there's that martinite concept of focus - nothing like piling on more warm bodies on the problem to get you "focused". My mom always says, "many, many cooks make a broth wunderbar!"
So people have undertaken the pointless task of analyzing the suitability of critics. Belinda Stronach was made Transport critic. Good, good. Magna has no interest there. Everyone got a critic's role. Because Liberals like to play fair. There was this ugly bit about big fish critics and small fish critics; but like a nursery school Christmas pageant, everyone gets a role to be super-duper excited about. "Hey Ma, I'm Tree Number 3!"
Then there's the bit about healing. Liberal spin explains that they gave every man, woman and child a critic's post in order to foster a sense of healing and reconciliation within the party. But there are 15+ MPs that the Liberal Party wouldn't trust to be critic for crafts and hobbies. Today, those people are the big losers.
Yes, I've heard that some of these MPs didn't want a critic's role. Likely, some of them have concocted semi-reasonable explanations for saying "no" to critic for amateur sport or critic for paranormal activities. While we wait to hear these rationales, let me tell you, fellow citizens: if your MP can't be bothered to take up a critics role when the Liberals Party will call you whatever you want if you'd just sit in their caucus - you have failed your citizens. We don't need lazy, wimpy people in parliament who cannot handle a minor critic's role.
To that gaggle of rejects, Chuckercanuck offers this advice: there are only so many indignities that one should suffer for the good of a party.
Are you playing sound technician to Joni Mitchell? Or Madonna? Will you be able to advance the cause of good government by supporting this teenage-swarming approach to official opposition? Or, will your constituents and this country not be better served by joining in coalition with the Tory caucus - further protecting government from Liberal leadership tomfoolery?
ps. I haven't noticed a role for Francis Scarpallegia. Chuckercanuck was born on the speculation that he would be a natural and welcome addition to the Tory Caucus. The Liberals continue to have a dragging effect on national unity - issue numero uno in his riding. There would be wide acceptance of a switch to the Tories for that very reason: stabilize the confederation. Furthermore, his abiding interest in the Great Lakes basin means he could help Rona Ambrose pursue real, measurable progress on this fantastic cause. Mr. Scarpallegia, if you read this blog: cross the floor, please!
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Palestinian Authority has a New Donor
Iran promises to replace any funding cut off from the Quartet to the Palestinian Authority as a result of Hamas forming government. That's the story of the day.
The signals Iran is sending have progressive and unambiguous. The mullahs have calculated that whatever gains can had in this next generation are to be had here and now - while America's resources remain tied up in Iraq.
It begins with the re-installation of its nuclear "energy" program and resistance to transparent, complete auditing from IAEA personnel. Then, the newly-elected president holds a holocaust denial conference and affirms the national ambition to wipe Israel off the map. Now, Iranian largesses will fund most of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. (I can't see how Hamas, who hold the right to return so deeply, can be comfortable with a government that contemplates using a nuclear weapon on that land Hamas so cherishes.)
$60 oil gives Iran some sway and its historical inertia tends to make it a bossy place. We must keep a careful eye on this story - Iran has played the Hamas victory with cunning and to ignore these little advances until they become an unavoidable menace is so pre-Y2K.
Meanwhile, its going to screw up in Palestine and waste a lot of money greasing the wrong palms. The Palestinians will come to hate the Mullahs of Iran as much as the citizens of Iran do.
The signals Iran is sending have progressive and unambiguous. The mullahs have calculated that whatever gains can had in this next generation are to be had here and now - while America's resources remain tied up in Iraq.
It begins with the re-installation of its nuclear "energy" program and resistance to transparent, complete auditing from IAEA personnel. Then, the newly-elected president holds a holocaust denial conference and affirms the national ambition to wipe Israel off the map. Now, Iranian largesses will fund most of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. (I can't see how Hamas, who hold the right to return so deeply, can be comfortable with a government that contemplates using a nuclear weapon on that land Hamas so cherishes.)
$60 oil gives Iran some sway and its historical inertia tends to make it a bossy place. We must keep a careful eye on this story - Iran has played the Hamas victory with cunning and to ignore these little advances until they become an unavoidable menace is so pre-Y2K.
Meanwhile, its going to screw up in Palestine and waste a lot of money greasing the wrong palms. The Palestinians will come to hate the Mullahs of Iran as much as the citizens of Iran do.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Sweeney Todd, Demon Coach of the Olympics
Have you heard about the Austrian coach found in posession of, among other things, a blood transfusion machine? The equipment and drugs were discovered in a series of raids resulting from an anti-doping investigation.
If I'm to understand the blood transfusion machine: in order to pass blood tests, you simply exchange your current, doped up blood for clean blood, presumably your own blood from a cleaner time. What happens when these people don't have their own clean blood banked in some freezer? Say some happless, but devoted coach only managed to smuggle the transfusion machine and no blood? Its the makings of a Three's Company episode gone terribly wrong.
The coach hunts down some O negatives on the street, swaps their clean blood for doped blood he had in the freezer. By the time of the transfusion, he'll have a couple of options for the athlete. He contemplates pretending the blood is clean banked stuff from the athlete herself. Like replacing the goldfish you killed when housesitting for a friend. But she would fire him if she knew about the con.
Coach: okay, good news/bad news.
Athlete: bad news, first.
Coach: I didn't manage to bring your blood.
Athlete: (shocked) I'm dead, coach. My blood's worse than the Erie canal.
Coach: Good news, then. I have clean blood.
Athlete: What do you mean?
Coach: I found two matches, both volunteered. They don't even know who its for, they just know its for the motherland.
Athlete: What noble sacrifice. Am I to choose?
Coach: Well, its rather easy, if you ask me. The second volunteer stumbled upon me later in the day when I was almost ready to give up. The first is an ederly lady, 72, by her identification. The second, a spritely lass, 21.
Athlete: Yes, easy choice. I would like the 21 year old girl's blood.
Coach: I anticipated as much and have it hooked up to the machine. We'll keep the old lady's blood as backup. Plus, I think Hans has the same blood type.
The athlete wins gold in her event. She goes on to gold-winning performance in subsequent Olympics even as she approaches 40. Before each major competition, her blood is swapped for the blood of a young virgin. The coach is compromised as he murders to feed the athlete's appetite for this precious fluid.
If we can perfect heart transplants, maybe we should set up a government program that links up elite athletes and compatible hearts with superior performance to the athlete's current heart. The government pays for the heart transplant - its really a swap - and rewards the donor with some tax advantages.
It is funny that before these Olympics, I thought genetic doping was the most depraved frontier in performance enhancement. But blood swapping like vampires in an Andy Warhol movie? Unthinkable.
If I'm to understand the blood transfusion machine: in order to pass blood tests, you simply exchange your current, doped up blood for clean blood, presumably your own blood from a cleaner time. What happens when these people don't have their own clean blood banked in some freezer? Say some happless, but devoted coach only managed to smuggle the transfusion machine and no blood? Its the makings of a Three's Company episode gone terribly wrong.
The coach hunts down some O negatives on the street, swaps their clean blood for doped blood he had in the freezer. By the time of the transfusion, he'll have a couple of options for the athlete. He contemplates pretending the blood is clean banked stuff from the athlete herself. Like replacing the goldfish you killed when housesitting for a friend. But she would fire him if she knew about the con.
Coach: okay, good news/bad news.
Athlete: bad news, first.
Coach: I didn't manage to bring your blood.
Athlete: (shocked) I'm dead, coach. My blood's worse than the Erie canal.
Coach: Good news, then. I have clean blood.
Athlete: What do you mean?
Coach: I found two matches, both volunteered. They don't even know who its for, they just know its for the motherland.
Athlete: What noble sacrifice. Am I to choose?
Coach: Well, its rather easy, if you ask me. The second volunteer stumbled upon me later in the day when I was almost ready to give up. The first is an ederly lady, 72, by her identification. The second, a spritely lass, 21.
Athlete: Yes, easy choice. I would like the 21 year old girl's blood.
Coach: I anticipated as much and have it hooked up to the machine. We'll keep the old lady's blood as backup. Plus, I think Hans has the same blood type.
The athlete wins gold in her event. She goes on to gold-winning performance in subsequent Olympics even as she approaches 40. Before each major competition, her blood is swapped for the blood of a young virgin. The coach is compromised as he murders to feed the athlete's appetite for this precious fluid.
If we can perfect heart transplants, maybe we should set up a government program that links up elite athletes and compatible hearts with superior performance to the athlete's current heart. The government pays for the heart transplant - its really a swap - and rewards the donor with some tax advantages.
It is funny that before these Olympics, I thought genetic doping was the most depraved frontier in performance enhancement. But blood swapping like vampires in an Andy Warhol movie? Unthinkable.
Monday, February 20, 2006
We Need More Floor-Crossers
Michel Gauthier, the Bloc's house leader, suggests the Bloc will support the Tory agenda in the near term to ensure stability and progress on Quebec priorities. Likely, a number of the Bloc caucus have been in a deep funk since the election. Symbollic loses abound - from % of popular vote to the felling of popular incumbent Richard Marceau. The journey to separatism has steepened and a cross-wind blows that once was at their back.
10 seats went to the Tories. Unimaginable at the start of the campaign for almost everone. 37 seats saw the Tories finish 2nd. Thanks to WestJet and Banff, Quebeckers were as much excited by a Calgary PM as they were apprehensive. Bloc MPs read the tea leaves and see a quick end to their years in federal politics. The next election will hit them hard.
Unless - they ask themselves: is a separatist agenda productively pursued in federal politics? No. Does any major party advance an agenda that will help my riding? Yes. Do I help my constituents better if I join a coalition government by sitting in a Tory caucus? Yes.
One of the biggest distortions the anti-Emerson crowd unleashed on us was the "he hadn't even sat a day before switching." Did you notice the incumbency rate? This is the same gang we just sent in 2004. It tilts differently, at best. In minority governments, MPs should ask themselves how best they can represent their riding.
If 10 to 20 Bloc MPs are asking themselves some difficult questions, then I believe the time to join the Tory caucus is sooner not later. In essence, form a coalition based on an agenda which is being crafted now. Draw up the compromises now.
This applies equally to Liberal MPs thinking similar thoughts. The upcoming leadership campaign presents so many risks: what happens if the candidate you put up looks less credible than Jack Layton? There are many Liberal MPs who worry about making left-wing politics anything more than window dressing. If the Liberals swing deep left to rescue themselves, it is only fair for small-c Liberals to move into the Tory caucus and keep a reasonable, pragmatic government going.
10 seats went to the Tories. Unimaginable at the start of the campaign for almost everone. 37 seats saw the Tories finish 2nd. Thanks to WestJet and Banff, Quebeckers were as much excited by a Calgary PM as they were apprehensive. Bloc MPs read the tea leaves and see a quick end to their years in federal politics. The next election will hit them hard.
Unless - they ask themselves: is a separatist agenda productively pursued in federal politics? No. Does any major party advance an agenda that will help my riding? Yes. Do I help my constituents better if I join a coalition government by sitting in a Tory caucus? Yes.
One of the biggest distortions the anti-Emerson crowd unleashed on us was the "he hadn't even sat a day before switching." Did you notice the incumbency rate? This is the same gang we just sent in 2004. It tilts differently, at best. In minority governments, MPs should ask themselves how best they can represent their riding.
If 10 to 20 Bloc MPs are asking themselves some difficult questions, then I believe the time to join the Tory caucus is sooner not later. In essence, form a coalition based on an agenda which is being crafted now. Draw up the compromises now.
This applies equally to Liberal MPs thinking similar thoughts. The upcoming leadership campaign presents so many risks: what happens if the candidate you put up looks less credible than Jack Layton? There are many Liberal MPs who worry about making left-wing politics anything more than window dressing. If the Liberals swing deep left to rescue themselves, it is only fair for small-c Liberals to move into the Tory caucus and keep a reasonable, pragmatic government going.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
DaVinci, Employment Insurance Office
I have never watched an episode of DaVinci's City Hall. This past week, CBC announced that it would no longer run and Mr. DaVinci would join "the senate of the less fortunate": monthly EI checks until the actor, Nicholas Campbell gets picked up to do CSI: Vancouver. While DaVinci's City Hall dies in six episodes, CSI: Vancouver will thrive for 8 seasons, win Campbell 3 Emmies and get translated into 11 languages.
***
My own, troubled history with DaVinci began somewhere around the second season of his inquest/inquisition. The CBC put on the Newsroom - a show as good and groundbreakin as any television anywhere - and on the strength of that, I gave myself a half-assed shot of patriotism, tuning into the gritty, hard-boiled drama of Vancouver's crime-infested streets.
The trouble with a moody serial is that each character remains precisely in the same mood, show after show after show, to the point where what once passed for brooding heroics appears cartoonishly manic by the end of a full season. Two young, sexy characters - both cops - are falling for each other; but not even once, who either of them smile or display enthusiasm. Because that's not gritty reality, it doesn't fit the mood.
DaVinci is an uncontrollable madman who could only rise to power in a city as unhinged as Vancouver. In the role of coroner, he approximated Torquenada - First Grand Inquisitor of Spain - accusing everyone of crossing his self-defined sense of justice.
To parallel the real life on which DaVinci is supposedly based, DaVinci runs for mayor and gives birth to DaVinci City Hall. The fiction in DaVinci is the mood - roiling with anger like the little guy in Of Mice and Men. The CBC ran the same promo perhaps 100 times in hopes of enticing me.
It was hardly a seven-veiled dance. There's DaVinci, stammering, yelping, growling into the phone. He's clearly very upset. His jazzy saxophone leitmotif leads a sexy voice that coos, "DaVinci's City Hall." As she ends, DaVinci hollers as he pulls the phone away from hm, "You're right we're going to talk about this, we're going to have a sit down on this." His eyes are bulging and he holds the phone like it was the person's neck as he stabs the words SIT DOWN into the air.
All the while, DaVinci prowls from end to end of his desk. Back and forth. Back and forth. It looks like an agitated cat - by cat, I mean Bengal tiger on exhibit at the zoo. Back and forth. Coiled, tensed, pounce-ready. DaVinci looks on the edge of violence, fenced in by the mayor's desk. "SIT DOWN" he screeches like he had the conch, covered in pig's blood.
My wife and I watch this promo at the end of our day, exhausted by work and kids, eased by a cool libation. Everytime we hear him promise with great hostility a future sit-down, we respond just as super-nanny taught us:
We get eye-level with DaVinci and in a low, steady voice, we say, "No, Mayor DaVinci, you're going to have a sit down. For five minutes. Facing the corner. And your going to think about your bad behaviour."
If this gritty drama is so real, then I don't want to be watching when he finally walks into the Mayor's office with three loaded guns looking to "blow off some steam."
The CBC has a responsibility to tell Canadian stories, it reminds us at every turn.
But there are some other responsbilities too, like the one about not giving us depressing crap to watch. Or, the one about not foisting period pieces reminding us how miserable life was 100 years ago. I've seen eulogies for DaVinci and condemnations for the CBC. I say: good for you CBC, just because its terrible, doesn't mean its Canadian.
If I want life-affirming television about Canadians by Canadians - I go watch Trailer Park Boys. The CBC planners should look there if they want to learn what Canadian stories look like.
***
My own, troubled history with DaVinci began somewhere around the second season of his inquest/inquisition. The CBC put on the Newsroom - a show as good and groundbreakin as any television anywhere - and on the strength of that, I gave myself a half-assed shot of patriotism, tuning into the gritty, hard-boiled drama of Vancouver's crime-infested streets.
The trouble with a moody serial is that each character remains precisely in the same mood, show after show after show, to the point where what once passed for brooding heroics appears cartoonishly manic by the end of a full season. Two young, sexy characters - both cops - are falling for each other; but not even once, who either of them smile or display enthusiasm. Because that's not gritty reality, it doesn't fit the mood.
DaVinci is an uncontrollable madman who could only rise to power in a city as unhinged as Vancouver. In the role of coroner, he approximated Torquenada - First Grand Inquisitor of Spain - accusing everyone of crossing his self-defined sense of justice.
To parallel the real life on which DaVinci is supposedly based, DaVinci runs for mayor and gives birth to DaVinci City Hall. The fiction in DaVinci is the mood - roiling with anger like the little guy in Of Mice and Men. The CBC ran the same promo perhaps 100 times in hopes of enticing me.
It was hardly a seven-veiled dance. There's DaVinci, stammering, yelping, growling into the phone. He's clearly very upset. His jazzy saxophone leitmotif leads a sexy voice that coos, "DaVinci's City Hall." As she ends, DaVinci hollers as he pulls the phone away from hm, "You're right we're going to talk about this, we're going to have a sit down on this." His eyes are bulging and he holds the phone like it was the person's neck as he stabs the words SIT DOWN into the air.
All the while, DaVinci prowls from end to end of his desk. Back and forth. Back and forth. It looks like an agitated cat - by cat, I mean Bengal tiger on exhibit at the zoo. Back and forth. Coiled, tensed, pounce-ready. DaVinci looks on the edge of violence, fenced in by the mayor's desk. "SIT DOWN" he screeches like he had the conch, covered in pig's blood.
My wife and I watch this promo at the end of our day, exhausted by work and kids, eased by a cool libation. Everytime we hear him promise with great hostility a future sit-down, we respond just as super-nanny taught us:
We get eye-level with DaVinci and in a low, steady voice, we say, "No, Mayor DaVinci, you're going to have a sit down. For five minutes. Facing the corner. And your going to think about your bad behaviour."
If this gritty drama is so real, then I don't want to be watching when he finally walks into the Mayor's office with three loaded guns looking to "blow off some steam."
The CBC has a responsibility to tell Canadian stories, it reminds us at every turn.
But there are some other responsbilities too, like the one about not giving us depressing crap to watch. Or, the one about not foisting period pieces reminding us how miserable life was 100 years ago. I've seen eulogies for DaVinci and condemnations for the CBC. I say: good for you CBC, just because its terrible, doesn't mean its Canadian.
If I want life-affirming television about Canadians by Canadians - I go watch Trailer Park Boys. The CBC planners should look there if they want to learn what Canadian stories look like.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Invasion of the Grit Body Snatchers
Something has happened to Bill Graham - when I read the interview he had with the Globe & Mail, I couldn't help but wonder if he'd become addicted to lead pencils. Clearly, something has poisoned his brain and it no longer functions the way it once did. Or, perhaps something more sinister befell him and this is day 1 of an alien invasion. One little gem he uttered deserves some attention.
"Other parties will have to decide whether they want to compromise on this, because they're the ones — the Canadian public very well knows — that put us in this position. They're the ones that created the Harper government. They're the ones that are going to have to accommodate it."
==> You want to know who created the Harper government? The Dippers and Bloquistes! That's right, Canada: you had nothing to do with it.
That plurality of votes cast for Mr. Harper and the Tories? Never happened. When you run the Liberal party, you don't concern yourself with silly things like who gets the most votes in an election. No, no. It was the Dippers and the Bloquistes - they did this.
I have a suggestion for those dummies in the Bloc and NDP: why not try your hand at creating your own government. There's a novel idea. When your strategists have their next planning meeting, item one on the agenda should read:
1. Shouldn't we busy ourselves with creating our own government? Why create a government for Harper?
or better yet, maybe they shouldn't do anything and let the Tories create a Layton government.
The interview ends with this quote:
"Some of us have to be there to be the glue that holds the party together while the constituent parts are all fighting one another to see who is going to end up being the new leader."
Which makes Chuckercanuck wonder: is he trying to be crazy glue?
"Other parties will have to decide whether they want to compromise on this, because they're the ones — the Canadian public very well knows — that put us in this position. They're the ones that created the Harper government. They're the ones that are going to have to accommodate it."
==> You want to know who created the Harper government? The Dippers and Bloquistes! That's right, Canada: you had nothing to do with it.
That plurality of votes cast for Mr. Harper and the Tories? Never happened. When you run the Liberal party, you don't concern yourself with silly things like who gets the most votes in an election. No, no. It was the Dippers and the Bloquistes - they did this.
I have a suggestion for those dummies in the Bloc and NDP: why not try your hand at creating your own government. There's a novel idea. When your strategists have their next planning meeting, item one on the agenda should read:
1. Shouldn't we busy ourselves with creating our own government? Why create a government for Harper?
or better yet, maybe they shouldn't do anything and let the Tories create a Layton government.
The interview ends with this quote:
"Some of us have to be there to be the glue that holds the party together while the constituent parts are all fighting one another to see who is going to end up being the new leader."
Which makes Chuckercanuck wonder: is he trying to be crazy glue?
Post 100
This is officially post 100 of Chuckercanuck - the blog that is revolutionizing how Canada sees itself in the world. In honour of this important milestone in our nation's history, Chuckercanuck offers his large readership what they so clearly beg for: more about Chuckercanuck - the man behind the mystery.
Here, then, are my answers to the great psychologist Jorge Della Caston's soul-bearing questions:
1. If you could pick three people in history and call them Canucks, who would they be?
Handel. Benjamin Franklin. Rene Descartes. (if everyone on the planet understood Cogito Ergo Sum, there would be peace).
2. If you could move three American cities to Canada, which cities would you move?
San Antonio, TX. Portsmouth, NH. Pittsburgh, PA. (Yes, Pittsburgh rocks like you can't imagine.)
3. If you could declare three meals as "Canadian food", what would they be?
Roast pork, studded with garlic accompanied by a spinach salad and mustard vinegrette.
Pulled pork, Carolina style.
Gnocchi Carbonara. (see a trend? I plan to open a restaurant in the Old Port of Montreal devoted to pork - I'll call it Au Por)
4. If you could pretend 3 movies were actually made in Canada, what would they be?
Annie Hall. Short Cuts. Dawn of the Dead.
5. If you could change three things about Canada, what would they be?
i - eliminate snakes.
ii - lower taxes.
iii - emancipate our culture from the chains of small-mindedness.
Here, then, are my answers to the great psychologist Jorge Della Caston's soul-bearing questions:
1. If you could pick three people in history and call them Canucks, who would they be?
Handel. Benjamin Franklin. Rene Descartes. (if everyone on the planet understood Cogito Ergo Sum, there would be peace).
2. If you could move three American cities to Canada, which cities would you move?
San Antonio, TX. Portsmouth, NH. Pittsburgh, PA. (Yes, Pittsburgh rocks like you can't imagine.)
3. If you could declare three meals as "Canadian food", what would they be?
Roast pork, studded with garlic accompanied by a spinach salad and mustard vinegrette.
Pulled pork, Carolina style.
Gnocchi Carbonara. (see a trend? I plan to open a restaurant in the Old Port of Montreal devoted to pork - I'll call it Au Por)
4. If you could pretend 3 movies were actually made in Canada, what would they be?
Annie Hall. Short Cuts. Dawn of the Dead.
5. If you could change three things about Canada, what would they be?
i - eliminate snakes.
ii - lower taxes.
iii - emancipate our culture from the chains of small-mindedness.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Grits Burned By Star Power
Homo Grittus emerges from the Emerson Affair with a walking concussion. They don't know why or what they can do about it. In the spirit of throwing dogs to bones, Chuckercanuck will now proceed to explain it to them.
The favorite line of those who look at last week and cry, "oh the humanity!" is that the voters of the riding feel betrayed. The clever ones reference polls taken that show voters voted for the Liberals, not for David Emerson. The riding's electorate are NDP/left-leaning Liberals. They would never vote for a small-c Liberal like David Emerson unless he were a Liberal.
In other words: this candidate and this riding are not compatible.
So, how does a candidate like Emerson sneak into a riding of communists? Head office parachutes him in. He is a star; a bright, burning constellation that will give life to a dying party. Plucked from civilian life for a cabinet-bound career in elected office - there to work for B.C. Find him a safe Liberal riding, shut the local people up (easy, we own them). 36 days later, uber-minister to build the B.C. base.
The star accepts the call to run. Not because the star has worked tirelessly for the party since high school. Not after 1,000 corn roasts and 1,000 ice fishing weekends with the local activists. The motivation is not local - its general civic mindedness. Said another way, does it matter what riding Ed Broadbent represented?
The Liberals recruited the star and foisted him on a riding that, so they now claim, would never vote for a fellow like David Emerson if they knew what the star really believed.
If only the Liberals hadn't rammed the riding with star power. If only they had sent any old nobody from the local town council - its just a name, what matters is the party. None of this would ever have happened.
Iggy, take note. You plopped into your riding rather turbulently. I'm not sure when people voted Liberal in your riding they had in mind your kind of Liberal - you know, the Liberal that would have sent troops off to Iraq on W's orders. Time will tell, but if that riding screams "betrayal" one day - I won't be crying.
Of course, every riding likes a star candidate. They get excited because their guy's gonna be a big shot in Ottawa. Parties wouldn't drop them in if it wasn't ultimately helpful. The problem with stars is - you can get burned playing around with them.
The favorite line of those who look at last week and cry, "oh the humanity!" is that the voters of the riding feel betrayed. The clever ones reference polls taken that show voters voted for the Liberals, not for David Emerson. The riding's electorate are NDP/left-leaning Liberals. They would never vote for a small-c Liberal like David Emerson unless he were a Liberal.
In other words: this candidate and this riding are not compatible.
So, how does a candidate like Emerson sneak into a riding of communists? Head office parachutes him in. He is a star; a bright, burning constellation that will give life to a dying party. Plucked from civilian life for a cabinet-bound career in elected office - there to work for B.C. Find him a safe Liberal riding, shut the local people up (easy, we own them). 36 days later, uber-minister to build the B.C. base.
The star accepts the call to run. Not because the star has worked tirelessly for the party since high school. Not after 1,000 corn roasts and 1,000 ice fishing weekends with the local activists. The motivation is not local - its general civic mindedness. Said another way, does it matter what riding Ed Broadbent represented?
The Liberals recruited the star and foisted him on a riding that, so they now claim, would never vote for a fellow like David Emerson if they knew what the star really believed.
If only the Liberals hadn't rammed the riding with star power. If only they had sent any old nobody from the local town council - its just a name, what matters is the party. None of this would ever have happened.
Iggy, take note. You plopped into your riding rather turbulently. I'm not sure when people voted Liberal in your riding they had in mind your kind of Liberal - you know, the Liberal that would have sent troops off to Iraq on W's orders. Time will tell, but if that riding screams "betrayal" one day - I won't be crying.
Of course, every riding likes a star candidate. They get excited because their guy's gonna be a big shot in Ottawa. Parties wouldn't drop them in if it wasn't ultimately helpful. The problem with stars is - you can get burned playing around with them.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Ethics and Principles
Andrew Coyne has been the epicenter of conservative discontent over the Emerson "fiasco". Mr. Coyne has vigourously defended the position that floor-crossing is somewhere between unprinicpled and unethical.
"In my opinion, the appointments were unprincipled at best, unethical at worst" is what he said.
Many people share that opinion. And to some extent, pretty much everyone can agree to that statement. The first big disconnect happens next: necessarily, it should be prohibited or subject to ratification through by-election. That's where people back away from the Coyne-Pure Reform position. Ah, they say to us, your pragmatic. Coyne suggests we don't think ethics has a role in politics at all.
"Unprincipled at Best"
The joys of pundification is that it allows everyone to play Gilles Duceppe: immune from the responsiblity of power and free to follow a lattice-work of principles perfect in construct. You get to be uncompromising. Do you have that luxury as Prime Minister of Canada? No. There, the operative word is compromising. And that means, majority, minority, you figure which principles you must abandon to achieve the nation's business.
An example you say?
Like David Emerson (only days before, of course), Chuckercanuck accepted the concept of a law that prohibits floor-crossing into cabinet without a by-election - to eliminate any appearance of personal greed. It doesn't fit my principles perfectly -I think every 4 years is fine and let them run their show in between with nothing more than public pressure as a balance. But, I'll compromise on some in this case, in order to make peace with my friends, and support such a bill.
Same-sex marriage. My principles would have no legal use of the word marriage. Every union would be called a civil union and leave the marriage word to religions. That's perfect. But the requirements to make such a change are much greater than simply accepting SSM and it this point, its not maketable as a concept. So, Chuckercanuck accepts SSM vs. the status quo because its better not because it itself fits my principles perfectly.
Principles are the very stuff one must begin compromising in order to live with people who think differently from you. Leadership is not chess - its Jenga. Ethics, as Andrew Coyne distinguishes, is different.
"Unethical at Worst"
Mens rea, anyone? To reach this smell test, I think a stronger case needs to be made revolving around intent. A month ago, in the heat of the campaign, David Emerson called Stephen Harper the Charles Manson of Canadian politics - along with his desperate colleagues. The prime minister extended his invitation into cabinet not to reward a buddy, that's for damn sure.
The voters were betrayed, they screech! They voted a Red not a Blue! That's unethical! Its a loaded concept: the voters were betrayed.
I've already discussed the single-issue voter. The strategic voter. But, even with the die-hard Liberals: how many votes would the die-hard voter actually feel betrayed on by David Emerson? Serious question. On a range of issues, David Emerson will continue to vote in a pattern that totally satisfies a Liberal supporter. So what is the betrayal? Simply the blue or red aspect?
When MPs die or resign, do you know what happens? They run a by-election. Why should we bother? If we ban floor-crossing, we should also add a new rule for dead MPs. Once croaked, the party is asked to replace the MP with a new one. Its not like the actual person matters - so long as a heartbeat is registered. And outside cabinet, why should we give a shit about how many women there are? What are we doing going about individuating these party-oids?
Anyway, even if one goes so far as to call it unethical, they must then place that ethical breech on the scale of breeches. Not recycling every last tin is on one end. Launching a gas attack on one of your Kurdish villages in Norhthern Iraq is on the other end of that scale.
"In my opinion, the appointments were unprincipled at best, unethical at worst" is what he said.
Many people share that opinion. And to some extent, pretty much everyone can agree to that statement. The first big disconnect happens next: necessarily, it should be prohibited or subject to ratification through by-election. That's where people back away from the Coyne-Pure Reform position. Ah, they say to us, your pragmatic. Coyne suggests we don't think ethics has a role in politics at all.
"Unprincipled at Best"
The joys of pundification is that it allows everyone to play Gilles Duceppe: immune from the responsiblity of power and free to follow a lattice-work of principles perfect in construct. You get to be uncompromising. Do you have that luxury as Prime Minister of Canada? No. There, the operative word is compromising. And that means, majority, minority, you figure which principles you must abandon to achieve the nation's business.
An example you say?
Like David Emerson (only days before, of course), Chuckercanuck accepted the concept of a law that prohibits floor-crossing into cabinet without a by-election - to eliminate any appearance of personal greed. It doesn't fit my principles perfectly -I think every 4 years is fine and let them run their show in between with nothing more than public pressure as a balance. But, I'll compromise on some in this case, in order to make peace with my friends, and support such a bill.
Same-sex marriage. My principles would have no legal use of the word marriage. Every union would be called a civil union and leave the marriage word to religions. That's perfect. But the requirements to make such a change are much greater than simply accepting SSM and it this point, its not maketable as a concept. So, Chuckercanuck accepts SSM vs. the status quo because its better not because it itself fits my principles perfectly.
Principles are the very stuff one must begin compromising in order to live with people who think differently from you. Leadership is not chess - its Jenga. Ethics, as Andrew Coyne distinguishes, is different.
"Unethical at Worst"
Mens rea, anyone? To reach this smell test, I think a stronger case needs to be made revolving around intent. A month ago, in the heat of the campaign, David Emerson called Stephen Harper the Charles Manson of Canadian politics - along with his desperate colleagues. The prime minister extended his invitation into cabinet not to reward a buddy, that's for damn sure.
The voters were betrayed, they screech! They voted a Red not a Blue! That's unethical! Its a loaded concept: the voters were betrayed.
I've already discussed the single-issue voter. The strategic voter. But, even with the die-hard Liberals: how many votes would the die-hard voter actually feel betrayed on by David Emerson? Serious question. On a range of issues, David Emerson will continue to vote in a pattern that totally satisfies a Liberal supporter. So what is the betrayal? Simply the blue or red aspect?
When MPs die or resign, do you know what happens? They run a by-election. Why should we bother? If we ban floor-crossing, we should also add a new rule for dead MPs. Once croaked, the party is asked to replace the MP with a new one. Its not like the actual person matters - so long as a heartbeat is registered. And outside cabinet, why should we give a shit about how many women there are? What are we doing going about individuating these party-oids?
Anyway, even if one goes so far as to call it unethical, they must then place that ethical breech on the scale of breeches. Not recycling every last tin is on one end. Launching a gas attack on one of your Kurdish villages in Norhthern Iraq is on the other end of that scale.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Okay, we get the point: you don't like the cartoons
A week ago, had the Emerson affair not taken up the entire conversation, I would have got around to saying something about those Danish cartoons. I didn't and I imagined that I never would. This week begins with Danish cartoons the fuel that keeps the middle east in a vigorous boil.
Unfortunately, if the original, fiery protests did a good job of sending a message about where to draw the lead line in cartooning; this sustained protest-making in a swath of police states looks a tad manufactured by now. My advice, as Cheri Oteri would yelp in a sourthern twang: "simmer down now".
Can you imagine the night before the big protest in Damascus? I have the kids with their paint brushes. We're painting in english for the media cameras: "Behead Denmark!" I've got my sweet daughter painting an ax, daughter no. 2 has the red paint and is good for dripping and pooling it approrpiately.
Daughter says, "Daddy, why behead Denmark?"
Daddy, "well, a group of people published some cartoons that were blasphemous. It was so offensive, the whole nation must have their heads chopped off."
Daughter, "even the children?"
Daddy pauses, looks at her in the eyes: "even the children."
Daughter, "seems a bit harsh, no?"
Daddy, shakes his head in slight disappointment, "I never said life's a box of chocolate."
The police states that manufacture this stuff want the citizens of the west to look at these seething masses, these violent cauldrons and say, "these people are very different from me." They want us alienated so that their people can be isolated.
There are human beings profaning Islam in ways infinitely more disgusting than a handful of Danish cartoonists. Saddam Husein, for one, invoked the prohpet and Allah in speeches justifying his murderous rule. 9/11 was religious perversion at its sickest. Saudi religious police beating girls back into a burning school becuase they haven't covered their heads on the way out. Where are these demonstrations in defense of Islam then?
Unfortunately, if the original, fiery protests did a good job of sending a message about where to draw the lead line in cartooning; this sustained protest-making in a swath of police states looks a tad manufactured by now. My advice, as Cheri Oteri would yelp in a sourthern twang: "simmer down now".
Can you imagine the night before the big protest in Damascus? I have the kids with their paint brushes. We're painting in english for the media cameras: "Behead Denmark!" I've got my sweet daughter painting an ax, daughter no. 2 has the red paint and is good for dripping and pooling it approrpiately.
Daughter says, "Daddy, why behead Denmark?"
Daddy, "well, a group of people published some cartoons that were blasphemous. It was so offensive, the whole nation must have their heads chopped off."
Daughter, "even the children?"
Daddy pauses, looks at her in the eyes: "even the children."
Daughter, "seems a bit harsh, no?"
Daddy, shakes his head in slight disappointment, "I never said life's a box of chocolate."
The police states that manufacture this stuff want the citizens of the west to look at these seething masses, these violent cauldrons and say, "these people are very different from me." They want us alienated so that their people can be isolated.
There are human beings profaning Islam in ways infinitely more disgusting than a handful of Danish cartoonists. Saddam Husein, for one, invoked the prohpet and Allah in speeches justifying his murderous rule. 9/11 was religious perversion at its sickest. Saudi religious police beating girls back into a burning school becuase they haven't covered their heads on the way out. Where are these demonstrations in defense of Islam then?
Friday, February 10, 2006
Andrew Coyne - Principled? I don't think so.
Everyone loves Andrew Coyne, including Chuckercanuck. Any member of my family would very naturally begin a conversation with, "did you read Coyne?" It is natural as "how are you."
But once in a while, even Mr. Coyne stumbles and scotches the perfect record he works diligently to maintain.
This week, he has attacked, with abandon, Stephen Harper. He has suggested Stephen Harper's appointments of Ministers Emerson and Fortier were on par with running an illegal gambling ring. In so doing, he has demoralized a crew and fed into Liberal propadandists who've "been impressed with conservatives critizing Harper."
Here, Andrew Coyne - perhaps inadvertently - destroys a noble challenge he issued just last week. Set against a policy wonk like Harper, put another policy wonk as Liberal leader and let the battle of ideas begin. The following week, in Harper's first week as prime minister. Yup, first week as Prime Minister - he has given Stephen Harper not least leeway. Would you want Andrew Coyne for a boss? Would Andrew Coyne?
Criticism is good - but frothing to the point of comparing it to illegal activity? Hey, Stephane Dion, doesn't that sound like fun? Battle of ideas - but frig up one decision and I'll call for your execution.
Likely a mistake. If it isn't, Mr. Coyne's whole noble sentiment was as false as he suggests Mr. Harper's ethics are.
Also, this week he said "Trust the voters". A catchy tune he is writing with the Barenaked Ladies for a protest concert in David Emerson's riding (joking). He means: call a by-election (dumb idea) and let the voters decide.
Remember when he nibbled at Stephen Harper's ankles over making the Tories a middle of the road party? He screamed, "stick to your conservative ideas and sell them." Mr. Coyne, some math please:
The middle is where the bulge of voters lie. you go there, set your policies for them and you get their vote. If I'm to trust the voters, shouldn't I trust the middle?
Again, we see that Mr. Coyne's principles aren't exactly consistent. If I were him, I would say he is a hypocrite akin to the Bre-X geology team. I'm not him, so I'll assume he's not always right, makes mistakes like all of us and needs to be challenged once in a while. Otherwise, he's a great, great columnist.
But once in a while, even Mr. Coyne stumbles and scotches the perfect record he works diligently to maintain.
This week, he has attacked, with abandon, Stephen Harper. He has suggested Stephen Harper's appointments of Ministers Emerson and Fortier were on par with running an illegal gambling ring. In so doing, he has demoralized a crew and fed into Liberal propadandists who've "been impressed with conservatives critizing Harper."
Here, Andrew Coyne - perhaps inadvertently - destroys a noble challenge he issued just last week. Set against a policy wonk like Harper, put another policy wonk as Liberal leader and let the battle of ideas begin. The following week, in Harper's first week as prime minister. Yup, first week as Prime Minister - he has given Stephen Harper not least leeway. Would you want Andrew Coyne for a boss? Would Andrew Coyne?
Criticism is good - but frothing to the point of comparing it to illegal activity? Hey, Stephane Dion, doesn't that sound like fun? Battle of ideas - but frig up one decision and I'll call for your execution.
Likely a mistake. If it isn't, Mr. Coyne's whole noble sentiment was as false as he suggests Mr. Harper's ethics are.
Also, this week he said "Trust the voters". A catchy tune he is writing with the Barenaked Ladies for a protest concert in David Emerson's riding (joking). He means: call a by-election (dumb idea) and let the voters decide.
Remember when he nibbled at Stephen Harper's ankles over making the Tories a middle of the road party? He screamed, "stick to your conservative ideas and sell them." Mr. Coyne, some math please:
The middle is where the bulge of voters lie. you go there, set your policies for them and you get their vote. If I'm to trust the voters, shouldn't I trust the middle?
Again, we see that Mr. Coyne's principles aren't exactly consistent. If I were him, I would say he is a hypocrite akin to the Bre-X geology team. I'm not him, so I'll assume he's not always right, makes mistakes like all of us and needs to be challenged once in a while. Otherwise, he's a great, great columnist.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Floor-Crossing Ban
Last may, Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to join the Paul Martin's Liberals. For the rabid partisan, it was devastating. I was hotter than Texas in July. Cursing so hard, I'd make Bryan Mulroney blush. The Liberals won, they threw a lavish party and everyone knew Harper was cooked. We retreated to the electronic eddies of blogolia to lick wounds and pity ourselves.
It never occurred to me that, in Jeffrey Simpson's words, "there outta be a law against it." I felt like Seattle after the Steelers played their gadget. Plumb beat, edging on desperate.
Now, a movement is afoot to make the practice illegal - or at least, make the practice illegal when the floor-crosser is moving into government at the rank of minister. I can accept that nuanced version to stem the greedy from abusing the position. But I am against banning the practice of floor-crossing.
The prohibitionists argue that the practice is unethical. The MP is breaking contract with the voters who voted the MP to parliament. Its betrayal. A lesser point added: voters vote the party, not the candidate.
Whether the contract is broken is a function of context. Floor-crossers can cross floors for reasons that do indeed represent the people who vote them in - in fact, we want to preserve that possibility as it is a minor safeguard for democracy.
The prohibitionists submit to this point, so they say -"no ban, but you have to run in a by-election and get constituent approval." Presumably, that would filter out those legitimate cases. Trust the voters, they urge.
I do. As a voter, however, I don't want to be utterly and completed trusted. I don't want to erase the representation from my representative democracy. I do not want to know every inch of government entrails, I've hired an MP to do that for me. They learn the details, they sift the arguments, they debate the differeneces. We do not. We evaluate their performance every 4 years.
Many citizens in Montreal voted Liberal because of same-sex marriage. In my riding, those citizens voted a Libreal anti-SSM vote into paliament. These voters could care less what the vote is on the budget or spending estimates - but SSM? That's the crux of the thing. When the Liberal MP votes against SSM, those voters are betrayed.
If we ban floor-crossers, we must ban free votes. MPs can only vote party line. Every vote away from party line is unethical; for many voters, a single free vote breaks the trust. How many free votes before a by-election is triggered? Five?
Some would say free votes are votes where you do what your constituents want. But that isn't free. And unless you poll all the constituents - but if we do that, we might as well hold a referendum.
Literalist representation is not representation. My MP has to have the freedom to do something that really pisses me off: because, believe or not, even Chuckercanuck isn't right all the time.
Its ugly, but its better than the alternative: mob rule for the digital age. The voters will have their chance to judge Emerson sooner rather than later.
Aren't free votes a betrayal of the voters who put MP of Party X? The difference between a floor-crosser and a free voter is how many votes aren't with the party. If voters voted the party, not the person, then every time you vote off party line, you're being unethical.
It never occurred to me that, in Jeffrey Simpson's words, "there outta be a law against it." I felt like Seattle after the Steelers played their gadget. Plumb beat, edging on desperate.
Now, a movement is afoot to make the practice illegal - or at least, make the practice illegal when the floor-crosser is moving into government at the rank of minister. I can accept that nuanced version to stem the greedy from abusing the position. But I am against banning the practice of floor-crossing.
The prohibitionists argue that the practice is unethical. The MP is breaking contract with the voters who voted the MP to parliament. Its betrayal. A lesser point added: voters vote the party, not the candidate.
Whether the contract is broken is a function of context. Floor-crossers can cross floors for reasons that do indeed represent the people who vote them in - in fact, we want to preserve that possibility as it is a minor safeguard for democracy.
The prohibitionists submit to this point, so they say -"no ban, but you have to run in a by-election and get constituent approval." Presumably, that would filter out those legitimate cases. Trust the voters, they urge.
I do. As a voter, however, I don't want to be utterly and completed trusted. I don't want to erase the representation from my representative democracy. I do not want to know every inch of government entrails, I've hired an MP to do that for me. They learn the details, they sift the arguments, they debate the differeneces. We do not. We evaluate their performance every 4 years.
Many citizens in Montreal voted Liberal because of same-sex marriage. In my riding, those citizens voted a Libreal anti-SSM vote into paliament. These voters could care less what the vote is on the budget or spending estimates - but SSM? That's the crux of the thing. When the Liberal MP votes against SSM, those voters are betrayed.
If we ban floor-crossers, we must ban free votes. MPs can only vote party line. Every vote away from party line is unethical; for many voters, a single free vote breaks the trust. How many free votes before a by-election is triggered? Five?
Some would say free votes are votes where you do what your constituents want. But that isn't free. And unless you poll all the constituents - but if we do that, we might as well hold a referendum.
Literalist representation is not representation. My MP has to have the freedom to do something that really pisses me off: because, believe or not, even Chuckercanuck isn't right all the time.
Its ugly, but its better than the alternative: mob rule for the digital age. The voters will have their chance to judge Emerson sooner rather than later.
Aren't free votes a betrayal of the voters who put MP of Party X? The difference between a floor-crosser and a free voter is how many votes aren't with the party. If voters voted the party, not the person, then every time you vote off party line, you're being unethical.
Monday, February 06, 2006
I Voted Liberal, Mr. Emerson
"Why did you vote Liberal?" asks the strong, benevelant ghost-voice.
The string bean who's hair is slicked into a Rick Astley pompadour nods, "the Charter of Rights is very, very important to me."
Oh, he's voting Liberal because of the Charter of Rights. Only Liberals are in favour of the Charter of Rights, afterall. What's that, lowly anonymous? Its an allusion to same-sex marriage which itself is an allusion to abortion. Yes, yes. I suppose you're correct.
But what if that guy, who we all remember in the Liberal party ads, what if he's in my riding? Lac St-Louis. Picture the scene: he trots to the polling station whistling dixie scoring his ballot for the Liberals. But wait a second! Horrors! This man voted for the Liberals to defend same-sex marriage, but he's sent an anti-SSM MP to parliament. Voting blindly for a party would be a silly thing to do. Citizens have some responsibilities, you know. Learning about the candidates is one of them.
Why do people vote Liberal? Ask some citizens of Emerson's riding, as conveyed by the CBC reporting:
"I'm very, very angry. A lot of us (valley-girl emphasis on a lot of us) voted Liberal to keep the conservatives out."
Ah, strategic voting. Well, you didn't keep the Tories out, so your elan vital is gone. Why again are you angry? Wouldn't apathy be the healthier reaction? The CBC reporter told us (did he point this out to you) that if you had voted with your heart, it would be an NDP MP and we wouldn't be talking. Feel pretty foolish? Yes, I agree.
"Its for personal gain."
No, personal gain would be: five more years in corporate Vancouver making millions and living the hog in one of the world's precious cities. The trappings of political power do not yield much that Mr. Emerson hasn't acquired through his own shrewd, hard work.
At some point - maybe this weekend with the Dingwall lies blaring in the news - maybe hearing Bill Graham become as mentally tristed as his predecessor did - he decided enough. Maybe he remembered that startingly conversation he had when he stumbled into Mr. Harper in the hallway. He walks away deeply impressed and haunted by Mr. Harper's question, "how could someone so talented and reputable as you lend your reputation to this crew?" All speculation.
The Liberal noise makers have a fever for cow bell on this number, God bless them. They will pounce on every mis-step, declaring the camel's back broken each time. It hides the emptyness of their purpose. The only ideology that grips the party is "beer and popcorn" - the modern incantation of the divine right to rule.
They hope this takes reporters off the Dingwall story. It will. But its a minor blessing. As it cozies left, it bleeds right. Emerson is only the first gush of blood.
The string bean who's hair is slicked into a Rick Astley pompadour nods, "the Charter of Rights is very, very important to me."
Oh, he's voting Liberal because of the Charter of Rights. Only Liberals are in favour of the Charter of Rights, afterall. What's that, lowly anonymous? Its an allusion to same-sex marriage which itself is an allusion to abortion. Yes, yes. I suppose you're correct.
But what if that guy, who we all remember in the Liberal party ads, what if he's in my riding? Lac St-Louis. Picture the scene: he trots to the polling station whistling dixie scoring his ballot for the Liberals. But wait a second! Horrors! This man voted for the Liberals to defend same-sex marriage, but he's sent an anti-SSM MP to parliament. Voting blindly for a party would be a silly thing to do. Citizens have some responsibilities, you know. Learning about the candidates is one of them.
Why do people vote Liberal? Ask some citizens of Emerson's riding, as conveyed by the CBC reporting:
"I'm very, very angry. A lot of us (valley-girl emphasis on a lot of us) voted Liberal to keep the conservatives out."
Ah, strategic voting. Well, you didn't keep the Tories out, so your elan vital is gone. Why again are you angry? Wouldn't apathy be the healthier reaction? The CBC reporter told us (did he point this out to you) that if you had voted with your heart, it would be an NDP MP and we wouldn't be talking. Feel pretty foolish? Yes, I agree.
"Its for personal gain."
No, personal gain would be: five more years in corporate Vancouver making millions and living the hog in one of the world's precious cities. The trappings of political power do not yield much that Mr. Emerson hasn't acquired through his own shrewd, hard work.
At some point - maybe this weekend with the Dingwall lies blaring in the news - maybe hearing Bill Graham become as mentally tristed as his predecessor did - he decided enough. Maybe he remembered that startingly conversation he had when he stumbled into Mr. Harper in the hallway. He walks away deeply impressed and haunted by Mr. Harper's question, "how could someone so talented and reputable as you lend your reputation to this crew?" All speculation.
The Liberal noise makers have a fever for cow bell on this number, God bless them. They will pounce on every mis-step, declaring the camel's back broken each time. It hides the emptyness of their purpose. The only ideology that grips the party is "beer and popcorn" - the modern incantation of the divine right to rule.
They hope this takes reporters off the Dingwall story. It will. But its a minor blessing. As it cozies left, it bleeds right. Emerson is only the first gush of blood.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Iraq: the New Abortion
At the risk of pissing off soon to be leader of the Liberal Party, Joe Volpe, I want to point out one commonality between said Grits and the Sopranos: the audience is transfixed by them. I am in that audience, gawking at the Liberal gong show that refuses to draw the curtain and call it a night. My ankles are swelling and my knees ache - but this endless, graceless fall is apparently bottomless.
Surveying the ever-thinning line of leadership hopefuls, the blogging grits are thinking standards. My personal favorite? Iraq.
No Liberal leader, hence forth, can ever be in favour of the Iraq war. It will be forever denouced with the kind of fanatic fervor that sets jowls wobbling to the rupture point. The Liberal crowd will circle any aspirant and hiss to know whether they were in favour or not. The wrong answer? Ceremonial beheading and burial in an unmarked grave.
Iggy?
Iggy, good night, Iggy. Iggy, good night. Good night, Iggy, good night Iggy, I'll see you in my dreams....
Surveying the ever-thinning line of leadership hopefuls, the blogging grits are thinking standards. My personal favorite? Iraq.
No Liberal leader, hence forth, can ever be in favour of the Iraq war. It will be forever denouced with the kind of fanatic fervor that sets jowls wobbling to the rupture point. The Liberal crowd will circle any aspirant and hiss to know whether they were in favour or not. The wrong answer? Ceremonial beheading and burial in an unmarked grave.
Iggy?
Iggy, good night, Iggy. Iggy, good night. Good night, Iggy, good night Iggy, I'll see you in my dreams....
Thursday, February 02, 2006
First we take the Blogs, Then we take the Movies
A survey of blogolia yields interesting finds. I share them with my anonymi whose lives preclude grazing the green cyber-savannah.
When "progressive" bloggers aren't sounding like Willy Loman at the end of the road, they sound like Willy Loman's wife screaming "attention must be paid!" Then, when they get the attention, they decide its not quite the attention they wanted. Like a million Bernard Landrys, these lefties call for "a season of ideas" but go quiet soon after. Waiting. Waiting. The new Liberal anthem is "Give me something to believe in", please Ms. Stronach, Mr. Iggy, fill my partisanship quiver with arrows of argument. Santayana would warn these folks: if you don't know the Boisclair story, you're doomed to repeat it!
Clearly, neogeotheorcrats have taken over blogolia. It is a crude and brutal rule in these early days as these hyper-rightwing-extremely-extremists still feel a need to squash or hamper their opponents from a waning election-reflex. It will pass.
Meanwhile, it is time to take this movement of nightmarish greedy prudes to the next cultural battlefield: the Canadian film industry.
Do Canadian films suck? Short answer: when was the last time you forked over $13 bucks plus $10 for snacks for CanCon? Exactly, never! Here's the long answer.
(mom, with the mouse, move the pointer to the underlined blue word, "answer", click on it, it will take you to another page. trust me.)
The Canadian film industry - as far as a propaganda tool for Canada's most shockingly off-the-charts right-wing movement ever assembled - is an easy target.
We will make movies about Canada that Canadians want to see. Sexy people in sweaty situations. Alien invasions. Murder mysteries with dark comic accents. Psychological thrillers that are not about a man's relationship with his bedroom. The power comes from the audience, the citizens.
And we'll kick ass abroad as well. Tory-minded people do not think of Canada as a wallflower with an iron lung. We don't need a tangle of laws and swamps of grant money to protect the national culture. The culture exists. The culture is strong. People like us. Make movies about us in fun, compromising, romantic, scary, situations and the world will pay $13 bucks to see it.
To begin, we need one successful movie. With election passed, Chuckercanuck proudly announces the forthcoming, first ever and likely final:
Tory Takeover of the Canadian Film Industry Sweepstakes (or T-totcfis as a cool, snappy shortcut).
You don't even have to be part of this movement of heavy-polluting, gun shooting household dictators to win. You just have to have a sure-fire blockbuster idea that can be done on a low budget.
UPDATE:
Cameron points out the following:
"Umm... is Quebec not in Canada anymore? Because Quebecois films are doing quite nicely. "
He is 100% correct. In my plans to takeover the film industry with Tory minded people, the Quebec model would be the blueprint from which we operate.
When "progressive" bloggers aren't sounding like Willy Loman at the end of the road, they sound like Willy Loman's wife screaming "attention must be paid!" Then, when they get the attention, they decide its not quite the attention they wanted. Like a million Bernard Landrys, these lefties call for "a season of ideas" but go quiet soon after. Waiting. Waiting. The new Liberal anthem is "Give me something to believe in", please Ms. Stronach, Mr. Iggy, fill my partisanship quiver with arrows of argument. Santayana would warn these folks: if you don't know the Boisclair story, you're doomed to repeat it!
Clearly, neogeotheorcrats have taken over blogolia. It is a crude and brutal rule in these early days as these hyper-rightwing-extremely-extremists still feel a need to squash or hamper their opponents from a waning election-reflex. It will pass.
Meanwhile, it is time to take this movement of nightmarish greedy prudes to the next cultural battlefield: the Canadian film industry.
Do Canadian films suck? Short answer: when was the last time you forked over $13 bucks plus $10 for snacks for CanCon? Exactly, never! Here's the long answer.
(mom, with the mouse, move the pointer to the underlined blue word, "answer", click on it, it will take you to another page. trust me.)
The Canadian film industry - as far as a propaganda tool for Canada's most shockingly off-the-charts right-wing movement ever assembled - is an easy target.
We will make movies about Canada that Canadians want to see. Sexy people in sweaty situations. Alien invasions. Murder mysteries with dark comic accents. Psychological thrillers that are not about a man's relationship with his bedroom. The power comes from the audience, the citizens.
And we'll kick ass abroad as well. Tory-minded people do not think of Canada as a wallflower with an iron lung. We don't need a tangle of laws and swamps of grant money to protect the national culture. The culture exists. The culture is strong. People like us. Make movies about us in fun, compromising, romantic, scary, situations and the world will pay $13 bucks to see it.
To begin, we need one successful movie. With election passed, Chuckercanuck proudly announces the forthcoming, first ever and likely final:
Tory Takeover of the Canadian Film Industry Sweepstakes (or T-totcfis as a cool, snappy shortcut).
You don't even have to be part of this movement of heavy-polluting, gun shooting household dictators to win. You just have to have a sure-fire blockbuster idea that can be done on a low budget.
UPDATE:
Cameron points out the following:
"Umm... is Quebec not in Canada anymore? Because Quebecois films are doing quite nicely. "
He is 100% correct. In my plans to takeover the film industry with Tory minded people, the Quebec model would be the blueprint from which we operate.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Drunk with Freedom
My friends in Alberta have probably forgotten the hassle of having booze retailed (and wholesaled) by the government. Here in Quebec, we know all too well what a shit-storm this raises.
In 2005, Quebeckers were treated to an insane strike that shuttered more than 2/3rds of the SAQ outlets. The remaining outlets took on a Soviet-era look to them as people waited impatiently for hours to purchase their liquor.
But the nightmare doesn't end with the occasional strike. No, there are constant aggravations that come with this government "good times" monopoly:
1 - There is little variation between SAQ planograms: category managers stock the shelves with what they deem "good enough for Quebec". The results? 60% of the wine available on our shelves comes from two countries: France and Italy. (Only recently have Canadian wines been elevated to a distinct category in the stores; they used to join Algeria and Bulgaria in the "Other Countries" section). Sorry, but having 5,000 types of Chateau-du-Surrender-Monkey isn't my idea of choice.
2 - They sell only 1 kind of Irish whiskey: Jamieson. Don't get be wrong, Jamieson is honey-water with miraculous powers to cheer up the most downtrodden souls. However, going into New Hampshire and seeing 10 different Irish whiskeys to choose from turns Chuckercanuck Irish green with envy.
3 - They control distribution too. So, the wine stocked in a grocery store is terrible; ensuring that after I bought my steaks for Saturday's dinner, I must re-locate to an SAQ store to find a bottle of wine that can match my fine Alberta beef. Oh yes, we give a shit about global warming, but not enough to reduce the number of car trips I must make on a Saturday morning.
Now the kicker.... let's call it BoozeScam.
Government monopolies like the SAQ and the LCBO regularly trumpet the fact that their purchasing power (which is enormous) allows them the lowest pricing at retail.
This alone as a statement is bullshit. Case in point: Cardinal Zin sells in Quebec for $29. In new Hampshire: $12. Add 20% for the exchange: $14.40. Still half the price. Check more pricing if you don't believe. Check against Vermont, Maine. Check against Alberta - heck, even Ontario.
Where this becomes BoozeScam is that La Presse reports when the Loonie kicked some ass against the Euro, the SAQ did not let retail prices drop accordingly (you know, from the increased purchasing power of our dollar). No. They maintained the prices and collected the profit.
Chuckercanuck dreams of opening the first private booze store in Quebec. Let's hope this is 3 - 5 years away. Not 30 - 50 years away.
In 2005, Quebeckers were treated to an insane strike that shuttered more than 2/3rds of the SAQ outlets. The remaining outlets took on a Soviet-era look to them as people waited impatiently for hours to purchase their liquor.
But the nightmare doesn't end with the occasional strike. No, there are constant aggravations that come with this government "good times" monopoly:
1 - There is little variation between SAQ planograms: category managers stock the shelves with what they deem "good enough for Quebec". The results? 60% of the wine available on our shelves comes from two countries: France and Italy. (Only recently have Canadian wines been elevated to a distinct category in the stores; they used to join Algeria and Bulgaria in the "Other Countries" section). Sorry, but having 5,000 types of Chateau-du-Surrender-Monkey isn't my idea of choice.
2 - They sell only 1 kind of Irish whiskey: Jamieson. Don't get be wrong, Jamieson is honey-water with miraculous powers to cheer up the most downtrodden souls. However, going into New Hampshire and seeing 10 different Irish whiskeys to choose from turns Chuckercanuck Irish green with envy.
3 - They control distribution too. So, the wine stocked in a grocery store is terrible; ensuring that after I bought my steaks for Saturday's dinner, I must re-locate to an SAQ store to find a bottle of wine that can match my fine Alberta beef. Oh yes, we give a shit about global warming, but not enough to reduce the number of car trips I must make on a Saturday morning.
Now the kicker.... let's call it BoozeScam.
Government monopolies like the SAQ and the LCBO regularly trumpet the fact that their purchasing power (which is enormous) allows them the lowest pricing at retail.
This alone as a statement is bullshit. Case in point: Cardinal Zin sells in Quebec for $29. In new Hampshire: $12. Add 20% for the exchange: $14.40. Still half the price. Check more pricing if you don't believe. Check against Vermont, Maine. Check against Alberta - heck, even Ontario.
Where this becomes BoozeScam is that La Presse reports when the Loonie kicked some ass against the Euro, the SAQ did not let retail prices drop accordingly (you know, from the increased purchasing power of our dollar). No. They maintained the prices and collected the profit.
Chuckercanuck dreams of opening the first private booze store in Quebec. Let's hope this is 3 - 5 years away. Not 30 - 50 years away.
