Friday, July 31, 2009
Grits are the Debbie Downers of Canadian Politics
Here's two headlines for head scratching:
"Grits claim Harper scaring Canadians"
Set Against:
"Ignatieff doubts Tory leadership on flu plan"
In other words, Liberals accuse the Tories of scaremongering but it doesn't much matter since Liberals think we're all going to die of swine flu thanks to the Tories anyway. And that, of course, is not scary.
Once again, the Liberal Party of Canada's participation in the great Canadian political debate is to annoy, frustrate and force opponents to wince like they are sucking lemons. The NDP don't do this. Even the Bloc aren't so aggravating. But Liberals have made masterworks of moaning that rival Atom Egoyan's "art".
As to the substance of Tory "scaremongering", once again, we need to educate the economically illiterate Michael Ignatieff:
The economic recovery depends on people spending and businesses investing.
While an election in general and over the long-term has no big impact on the economy (unless Bob Rae squeaks in and names David Miller as his deputy Prime Minister, then its hell-in-hand-basket-time).
But in the fragile moments of nascent recovery, the campaign could be harmful as it can forestall spending and investment.
Especially when the Liberals have hinted, over and over again, that taxes will go up under a Liberal government. But they won't say which taxes and by how much. The only taxes that we know will go up are Employment Insurance premiums as the Liberals would like to reduce EI eligibility requirements to a point that will add a collosal increase to premiums for working Canadians (by the way, that's still about 92%+ of you).
Given the radical changes to the tax code contemplated by the Liberals, the only rational response from companies would be to halt whatever plans they were implementing until the new regulatory framework was in place. Thus knocking the wind out of the economic recovery.
On the other hand, if polls look good for the Liberals during the campaign, that might end up causing a rash of consumer spending: Canadians might hurry out to make significant pruchases before the Liberals hoist the sales tax up to where it was (or beyond). The threat of Liberal tax hikes could temporarily cause a bump up in spending.
Its risky. And the Prime Minister is entirely correct to suggest that it is not a risk worth entertaining right now.
ps. Debbie Downer.
"Grits claim Harper scaring Canadians"
Set Against:
"Ignatieff doubts Tory leadership on flu plan"
In other words, Liberals accuse the Tories of scaremongering but it doesn't much matter since Liberals think we're all going to die of swine flu thanks to the Tories anyway. And that, of course, is not scary.
Once again, the Liberal Party of Canada's participation in the great Canadian political debate is to annoy, frustrate and force opponents to wince like they are sucking lemons. The NDP don't do this. Even the Bloc aren't so aggravating. But Liberals have made masterworks of moaning that rival Atom Egoyan's "art".
As to the substance of Tory "scaremongering", once again, we need to educate the economically illiterate Michael Ignatieff:
The economic recovery depends on people spending and businesses investing.
While an election in general and over the long-term has no big impact on the economy (unless Bob Rae squeaks in and names David Miller as his deputy Prime Minister, then its hell-in-hand-basket-time).
But in the fragile moments of nascent recovery, the campaign could be harmful as it can forestall spending and investment.
Especially when the Liberals have hinted, over and over again, that taxes will go up under a Liberal government. But they won't say which taxes and by how much. The only taxes that we know will go up are Employment Insurance premiums as the Liberals would like to reduce EI eligibility requirements to a point that will add a collosal increase to premiums for working Canadians (by the way, that's still about 92%+ of you).
Given the radical changes to the tax code contemplated by the Liberals, the only rational response from companies would be to halt whatever plans they were implementing until the new regulatory framework was in place. Thus knocking the wind out of the economic recovery.
On the other hand, if polls look good for the Liberals during the campaign, that might end up causing a rash of consumer spending: Canadians might hurry out to make significant pruchases before the Liberals hoist the sales tax up to where it was (or beyond). The threat of Liberal tax hikes could temporarily cause a bump up in spending.
Its risky. And the Prime Minister is entirely correct to suggest that it is not a risk worth entertaining right now.
ps. Debbie Downer.
Labels: If Iggy says green shoots or shovel ready one more time....
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Aurevoir, Pauline
Pauline Marois is the only person to ever deliver Gilles Duceppe a humiliating defeat by scaring him out of a leadership race only 24 hours after declaring his candidacy. And, from what sources tell me, she is a warm and considerate person to deal with; I know this because, for the longest time, when she needed to go to a hospital, she went to my local hospital. I know nurses who have had the pleasure to treat her.
So, its too bad that she is moving from her $8 million chateau on the West Island; it was a pleasant irony too that the separatist leader lived in the anglo ghetto of Quebec. But to make that irony go away, Pauline Marois is moving to Charlevoix.
I don't blame her. If moving to Charlevoix would help my political career, I'd split in a second. (For those of you who don't know, Charlevoix is one of the most compelling patches of Canada.)
On the downside, it makes Montreal feel balmy in the winter. You really have to take, "Mon Pays, C'est L'Hiver" seriously. My recommendations to a fellow West Islander moving down river: sealskin. Boot to Tuque. Don't fool around with the space-age fabrics. Wrap yourself in animal.
So, its too bad that she is moving from her $8 million chateau on the West Island; it was a pleasant irony too that the separatist leader lived in the anglo ghetto of Quebec. But to make that irony go away, Pauline Marois is moving to Charlevoix.
I don't blame her. If moving to Charlevoix would help my political career, I'd split in a second. (For those of you who don't know, Charlevoix is one of the most compelling patches of Canada.)
On the downside, it makes Montreal feel balmy in the winter. You really have to take, "Mon Pays, C'est L'Hiver" seriously. My recommendations to a fellow West Islander moving down river: sealskin. Boot to Tuque. Don't fool around with the space-age fabrics. Wrap yourself in animal.
Labels: I hope they have an open house this sunday
Chuckercanuck was right: the funeral was a political set-up
Robert Fife reports what Chuckercanuck figured when the story broke:
Liberals used the death of a former Liberal and distinguished governor-general to orchestrate a "scandal" which attempted to put a wedge between the Prime Minister and Canada's Roman Catholics.
As you know, Jerry Yanover died a few days ago. He was briefly famous in the Paul Martin days as the parliamentary procedures expert that kept the good ship Martin afloat. To political junkies of all stripes, he is a legend.
Prime Minister Harper would probably like to pay respects, for himself and on behalf of Canada. But he cannot. As we speak, Michael Ignatieff's war room - under Michael's command - is likely plotting how best to scandalize those funeral services. The only way to keep Liberal profanity from disrupting any ceremony is to stay away from it.
Liberals used the death of a former Liberal and distinguished governor-general to orchestrate a "scandal" which attempted to put a wedge between the Prime Minister and Canada's Roman Catholics.
As you know, Jerry Yanover died a few days ago. He was briefly famous in the Paul Martin days as the parliamentary procedures expert that kept the good ship Martin afloat. To political junkies of all stripes, he is a legend.
Prime Minister Harper would probably like to pay respects, for himself and on behalf of Canada. But he cannot. As we speak, Michael Ignatieff's war room - under Michael's command - is likely plotting how best to scandalize those funeral services. The only way to keep Liberal profanity from disrupting any ceremony is to stay away from it.
Labels: Iggy should fire someone for this outrage
Canada the Diplocracy
Dear Foreign Affairs Bureaucrat,
Ottawa has two superstars now. Alex Kovalev and Stephen Harper. The latter doesn't get much wrong, you'll have noticed. This includes a comment he made in the 2006 campaign about Canada having sufficient checks against any elected government - namely the judiciary and bureaucracy - that voters don't really have to panic about radical changes any majority government could implement. At the time, the comment was greeted as a mini-scandal, with pundits either shocked or in tears over the horror of it. But it turns out to be quite accurate.
Afterall, the duly elected government should have a right to define Canada's foreign policy as that government sees fit. In other countries, like the United States or France, a new government gets to set foreign policy. Sarkozy gets kozy with Anglolia, Obama hands out carrots and puts away the sticks. Most Canadians would expect the Canadian government to have similar freedom to chart Canada's foreign affairs.
What isn't clear is whether or not you agree with that. It almost looks like you are telling us that no election will determine how Canadians conduct foreign policy and only an elite and unaccountable cadre of bow-tied polylinguists can define our national interests. Don't get me wrong, we need bureaucrats who push back in order to help a government craft the best policies available. But the picayune fights you're picking with the government don't look like that.
Here's an example of something that has you all flipped out:
The Tory government wants the following sentence:
"Canada urges the government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence."
You folks object to the emphaiss on preventing sexual violence and would prefer that Canada only care about justice for victims of sexual violence. Are you saying we don't want to stop rape? You know, "Canada's okay with rape as long as their is a system of justice to deal with its consequences?" Maybe we shouldn't give a crap about nuclear way so long as the UN stocks up on enough radiation suits for everybody. (Note to UN: please warehouse them in Montreal.)
Maybe there's some good thinking behind DFAIT's demands. Who knows. They don't provide any. And in the absence of any justification for their rebellion against preventing sexual violence, Canadians are going to draw a conclusion: Canada's foreign policy is largely based on the comfortable habits of priveleged, well-pensioned pin-heads.
Ottawa has two superstars now. Alex Kovalev and Stephen Harper. The latter doesn't get much wrong, you'll have noticed. This includes a comment he made in the 2006 campaign about Canada having sufficient checks against any elected government - namely the judiciary and bureaucracy - that voters don't really have to panic about radical changes any majority government could implement. At the time, the comment was greeted as a mini-scandal, with pundits either shocked or in tears over the horror of it. But it turns out to be quite accurate.
Afterall, the duly elected government should have a right to define Canada's foreign policy as that government sees fit. In other countries, like the United States or France, a new government gets to set foreign policy. Sarkozy gets kozy with Anglolia, Obama hands out carrots and puts away the sticks. Most Canadians would expect the Canadian government to have similar freedom to chart Canada's foreign affairs.
What isn't clear is whether or not you agree with that. It almost looks like you are telling us that no election will determine how Canadians conduct foreign policy and only an elite and unaccountable cadre of bow-tied polylinguists can define our national interests. Don't get me wrong, we need bureaucrats who push back in order to help a government craft the best policies available. But the picayune fights you're picking with the government don't look like that.
Here's an example of something that has you all flipped out:
The Tory government wants the following sentence:
"Canada urges the government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence."
You folks object to the emphaiss on preventing sexual violence and would prefer that Canada only care about justice for victims of sexual violence. Are you saying we don't want to stop rape? You know, "Canada's okay with rape as long as their is a system of justice to deal with its consequences?" Maybe we shouldn't give a crap about nuclear way so long as the UN stocks up on enough radiation suits for everybody. (Note to UN: please warehouse them in Montreal.)
Maybe there's some good thinking behind DFAIT's demands. Who knows. They don't provide any. And in the absence of any justification for their rebellion against preventing sexual violence, Canadians are going to draw a conclusion: Canada's foreign policy is largely based on the comfortable habits of priveleged, well-pensioned pin-heads.
Labels: Somehow this will be twisted into a debate over the homosexual menace
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Important Thoughts about the end of the Toronto City Strike
How many Toronto City Workers does it take to change a lightbulb?
Seven. Actually, it only takes one, but you need to call seven to find one that isn't taking a sick day.
Why did the Toronto City worker cross the road?
No reason. But he's on overtime at the moment.
What do you call a Toronto city worker breaking a sweat?
Off duty.
What's the difference between a Toronto City Worker and a Montreal City Worker?
The Montreal city worker is starting a "draft David Miller for mayor" campaign.
Seven. Actually, it only takes one, but you need to call seven to find one that isn't taking a sick day.
Why did the Toronto City worker cross the road?
No reason. But he's on overtime at the moment.
What do you call a Toronto city worker breaking a sweat?
Off duty.
What's the difference between a Toronto City Worker and a Montreal City Worker?
The Montreal city worker is starting a "draft David Miller for mayor" campaign.
Labels: Congratulations CUPE on crushing Toronto
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Great EI Conflagration
It appears that most everybody thinks the blue ribbon panel on EI will fail to come to a reform of EI that satisfies Tory prudence and Liberal spend-lust. Each camp has drawn a line in the sand:
Liberals are demanding that the Liberal-designed economic regions be dismantled in favor of a single, country-wide standard.
So far so good: Tories can get behind that and the move has the support of a number of premiers. Its the second, demented demand that will be triggering an election this fall.
Liberals are insisting that people only work 9 weeks before they are eligible for 52 weeks of benefits. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has offered some flexibility on that "but not much" to quote the celebrity academic.
What is "not much?" It is the kind of answer that engineers like me hate because there is no button on our calculators for "not much". Excel doesn't have a nifty place to insert "not much" into an equation. And sadly, Revenue Canada does not accept "not much" as an answer to how much income did one earn in the fiscal year.
So, we are left to fill in the vacuum and guess what Michael Ignatieff means by "not much." (As I am sure most Liberals have to do whenever Michael says something.) "Not Much" means not more than a 400 hour floor. In other words, Liberals would be willing to raise the minimum from 9 weeks of work to 10 weeks of work. Anything more than that is NOT "not much". Anything above 400 hours would be yet another climb down from a supposedly unshakeable stance.
There it is then. Tories will never except a 400 hour minimum as it is patently ludicrous to offer 52 weeks EI benefits to someone who was contributed 10 weeks of premiums. At minimum, the requirement should be the current minimum of 420 hours: 10.5 weeks of work which applies to regions of Canada were there is a chronic shortage of work opportunities. If anything, the minimum should be higher than the current minimum as it applies to areas where, under normal economic circumstances, work opportunities are nothing like small, rural corners of the country. Calgary is not Bathurst, New Brunswick or Trois-Rivieres, Quebec. If we want a single national standard, it will be that minimums go up in Bathurst and Trois-Rivieres. Not the other way around.
Afterall, the number of potential EI recipients in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver dwarfs the number of recipients in those economic zones where the current minimum is 420 hours. Lowering standards in those three cities alone will crush the EI program and the federal government will be forced to raise premiums to cover the enormous extra outlays.
Tories will never accept this financial lunacy. Liberals will never part from this financial lunacy. There is nothing to do but dissolve parliament and ask voters whether or not they are helped by hampering the Tory government with the silly demands of a silly opposition.
Liberals are demanding that the Liberal-designed economic regions be dismantled in favor of a single, country-wide standard.
So far so good: Tories can get behind that and the move has the support of a number of premiers. Its the second, demented demand that will be triggering an election this fall.
Liberals are insisting that people only work 9 weeks before they are eligible for 52 weeks of benefits. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has offered some flexibility on that "but not much" to quote the celebrity academic.
What is "not much?" It is the kind of answer that engineers like me hate because there is no button on our calculators for "not much". Excel doesn't have a nifty place to insert "not much" into an equation. And sadly, Revenue Canada does not accept "not much" as an answer to how much income did one earn in the fiscal year.
So, we are left to fill in the vacuum and guess what Michael Ignatieff means by "not much." (As I am sure most Liberals have to do whenever Michael says something.) "Not Much" means not more than a 400 hour floor. In other words, Liberals would be willing to raise the minimum from 9 weeks of work to 10 weeks of work. Anything more than that is NOT "not much". Anything above 400 hours would be yet another climb down from a supposedly unshakeable stance.
There it is then. Tories will never except a 400 hour minimum as it is patently ludicrous to offer 52 weeks EI benefits to someone who was contributed 10 weeks of premiums. At minimum, the requirement should be the current minimum of 420 hours: 10.5 weeks of work which applies to regions of Canada were there is a chronic shortage of work opportunities. If anything, the minimum should be higher than the current minimum as it applies to areas where, under normal economic circumstances, work opportunities are nothing like small, rural corners of the country. Calgary is not Bathurst, New Brunswick or Trois-Rivieres, Quebec. If we want a single national standard, it will be that minimums go up in Bathurst and Trois-Rivieres. Not the other way around.
Afterall, the number of potential EI recipients in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver dwarfs the number of recipients in those economic zones where the current minimum is 420 hours. Lowering standards in those three cities alone will crush the EI program and the federal government will be forced to raise premiums to cover the enormous extra outlays.
Tories will never accept this financial lunacy. Liberals will never part from this financial lunacy. There is nothing to do but dissolve parliament and ask voters whether or not they are helped by hampering the Tory government with the silly demands of a silly opposition.
Labels: But the deficit is the Liberal top priority
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Viking Stew and Other Things to do with Danes
Fear us Danes! Do not tread on our territory or you will be turned into so much pastry. Send us your stinking cheese and draw up offensive cartoons about beavers and lonely lumberjacks - but stay off our land.
Only come hither if you want to be clubbed like the baby seals you banned from Europe. We will tan your skin, line it with gortex and make wind-breakers! Defy us and we will pulverize your lego fortresses and stop reading your cryptic, existentialist crime novels! We won't even listen to Abba anymore!
[editor whispers into author's ear]
Actually, we will continue to sing along to Abba but we will burn our Little Mermaid soundtracks! We will send Alfonso Gagliano back to Copenhagen. And when we do, we will say "co-pin-hay-gan" and not "co-pen-haaaaaaa-gin".
You mean nothing to us Danes, except perhaps as a cautionary tale for the Ruskies.
Only come hither if you want to be clubbed like the baby seals you banned from Europe. We will tan your skin, line it with gortex and make wind-breakers! Defy us and we will pulverize your lego fortresses and stop reading your cryptic, existentialist crime novels! We won't even listen to Abba anymore!
[editor whispers into author's ear]
Actually, we will continue to sing along to Abba but we will burn our Little Mermaid soundtracks! We will send Alfonso Gagliano back to Copenhagen. And when we do, we will say "co-pin-hay-gan" and not "co-pen-haaaaaaa-gin".
You mean nothing to us Danes, except perhaps as a cautionary tale for the Ruskies.
Labels: A hawk does what a hawk has to do
Saturday, July 25, 2009
We Go Together
Taylor hicks won American Idol in 2006. Stephen Harper became Prime Minister in 2006. I backed both of them from the very start of their respective races. That's my attempt at finding a reason to link everybody to a terrific picture of the two of them, the PM's adorable daughter and her equally adorable friend.
And since the subject of the day is Prime Minister Harper, I have decided that in 30 years, we will see the greatest legacy item of his leadership (to date) is the tax free savings account. The tax free savings accounts will be as fundamental to the financial lives of all Canadians as the RRSP. And, I'd speculate, will end being a major source of entrepreneurial financing.
And since the subject of the day is Prime Minister Harper, I have decided that in 30 years, we will see the greatest legacy item of his leadership (to date) is the tax free savings account. The tax free savings accounts will be as fundamental to the financial lives of all Canadians as the RRSP. And, I'd speculate, will end being a major source of entrepreneurial financing.
Labels: The weekend is a perfect time to contemplate the awesomeness of Stephen Harper
Friday, July 24, 2009
Iggy urged us to assasinate people, not the language
I forget to check out Warren Kinsella's site yesterday so I missed this.
This puts a smile on my face because it shows how easy it is to rattle Team Ignatieff. A couple of bloggers ask where he's disappeared and suddenly he is rushing across the Canadian media landscape. The great Liberal strategy unfolds!
Meanwhile, Joanne has linked to a new ToryBoy ad about Iggy calling Canadians "disgusting". Obviously, that's taken out of context - when you put it back into context you realize Michael Ignatieff used the word "disgusting" according to Webster's forth meaning for the word:
"4. noble, fantastic. A rare and inspiring quality that delights all who observe it."
Its not Michael's fault that people choose to ignore that obscure but still valid use of the word "disgusting". "Ignore" is not the right word, since probably we Canuckian cossacks probably had no idea that "disgusting" could also mean "splendidly awesome". Let me re-phrase: its not Michael's fault that he must not peddle his deep thoughts to rubes who can't tell pathos from bathos.
This puts a smile on my face because it shows how easy it is to rattle Team Ignatieff. A couple of bloggers ask where he's disappeared and suddenly he is rushing across the Canadian media landscape. The great Liberal strategy unfolds!
Meanwhile, Joanne has linked to a new ToryBoy ad about Iggy calling Canadians "disgusting". Obviously, that's taken out of context - when you put it back into context you realize Michael Ignatieff used the word "disgusting" according to Webster's forth meaning for the word:
"4. noble, fantastic. A rare and inspiring quality that delights all who observe it."
Its not Michael's fault that people choose to ignore that obscure but still valid use of the word "disgusting". "Ignore" is not the right word, since probably we Canuckian cossacks probably had no idea that "disgusting" could also mean "splendidly awesome". Let me re-phrase: its not Michael's fault that he must not peddle his deep thoughts to rubes who can't tell pathos from bathos.
Labels: The warm comfy fur of Iggy bashing
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Chuckercanuck's 1500th Post Needs Only 2 Words
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Putting the 2.0 into Chuckercanuck with Shocking "On Second Thought" Update
Chuckercanuck 2.0 promised to be a critic of the Tory government when necessary. I have been true to this promise so far; fortunately, I've had nothing to criticize the Tory government over. Until today. And even then, its not so much finger-wagging as head-shaking.
Why would the Tories cancel funding to a gay festival in Montreal?
Now all the usual suspects get to hurl their invective at us because we are wet noodles when faced with the prospect of exposed noodles. And what did we gain? Sure, there'll be a couple of queer-haters slapping themselves silly like they've staved off Gomorrah for another day. That doesn't smell like a grand slam to me - and besides, Liberal homophobes, regardless of this decision, will remain Liberal homophobes. Ditto dippers and separatists.
The upside to the funding appears to vastly outweigh the downside. Had we funded the Divers/Cite event (for a measly $155,000), we would win a few points with the deep urban crowd (yes, I know, that wouldn't win us votes but it would sure take a little steam out of their demonization campaigns). And, if funding any tourist festival yields economic spin-off, Divers/Cite does it.
Divers/Cite does not assemble huge masses of locals, the way a free Stevie Wonder concert does. Divers/Cite does much better: it draws in folks from outside the Canadian economy and gets them spending inside the Canadian economy; namely, gay tourists from Boston, New York, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc.,etc.. In terms of cash, if you'll pardon the pun, they drop wads all over Montreal - a city that has been, from the Great Gatsby to Bonfire of the Vanities, held to be a tolerant, hard-partying city in the American mind.
To my mind, if stimulus is the mantra, the highest priority for tourist funding should be on those events/festivals which draw the largest NON-local and, preferably, NON-Canadian participants. Otherwise, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul just because we don't like the fact that Paul and Peter share a flat by the Jacques Cartier bridge.
On Second Thought
Wilson makes an important clarification, the funding wasn't cancelled, the application for funding was denied. Throw that up against Paul Well's post on this very issue: the culture and tourism money that the stimulus plan included.
I am personally biased towards a string quartet festival but the reason I bring this up is the quote from a Conservative MP from the Ottawa area:
The money was awarded to “make it possible to increase marketing and promotional efforts aimed at attracting audiences from out-of-province and out-of-country, specifically targeting major cities in the U.S., England and other European centres.”
This flips my thinking entirely. Why fund Divers/Cite when it will robustly attract out-of-country tourist money on its own. Instead, fund efforts by other festivals and events to attract international tourists themselves. A string quartet festival in itself may not get you on a plance from Boston. The best string quartet festival in the world certainly will.
Why would the Tories cancel funding to a gay festival in Montreal?
Now all the usual suspects get to hurl their invective at us because we are wet noodles when faced with the prospect of exposed noodles. And what did we gain? Sure, there'll be a couple of queer-haters slapping themselves silly like they've staved off Gomorrah for another day. That doesn't smell like a grand slam to me - and besides, Liberal homophobes, regardless of this decision, will remain Liberal homophobes. Ditto dippers and separatists.
The upside to the funding appears to vastly outweigh the downside. Had we funded the Divers/Cite event (for a measly $155,000), we would win a few points with the deep urban crowd (yes, I know, that wouldn't win us votes but it would sure take a little steam out of their demonization campaigns). And, if funding any tourist festival yields economic spin-off, Divers/Cite does it.
Divers/Cite does not assemble huge masses of locals, the way a free Stevie Wonder concert does. Divers/Cite does much better: it draws in folks from outside the Canadian economy and gets them spending inside the Canadian economy; namely, gay tourists from Boston, New York, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc.,etc.. In terms of cash, if you'll pardon the pun, they drop wads all over Montreal - a city that has been, from the Great Gatsby to Bonfire of the Vanities, held to be a tolerant, hard-partying city in the American mind.
To my mind, if stimulus is the mantra, the highest priority for tourist funding should be on those events/festivals which draw the largest NON-local and, preferably, NON-Canadian participants. Otherwise, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul just because we don't like the fact that Paul and Peter share a flat by the Jacques Cartier bridge.
On Second Thought
Wilson makes an important clarification, the funding wasn't cancelled, the application for funding was denied. Throw that up against Paul Well's post on this very issue: the culture and tourism money that the stimulus plan included.
I am personally biased towards a string quartet festival but the reason I bring this up is the quote from a Conservative MP from the Ottawa area:
The money was awarded to “make it possible to increase marketing and promotional efforts aimed at attracting audiences from out-of-province and out-of-country, specifically targeting major cities in the U.S., England and other European centres.”
This flips my thinking entirely. Why fund Divers/Cite when it will robustly attract out-of-country tourist money on its own. Instead, fund efforts by other festivals and events to attract international tourists themselves. A string quartet festival in itself may not get you on a plance from Boston. The best string quartet festival in the world certainly will.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Her Majesty's Loyal Tweeter
Everyone can breath easy, Iggy is back from where he never went. I found out because Iggy has a tweet account where he drops lots of great insights about himself and his life. Like here's the latest:
"Enjoying a rare day at home reading Canadian Adam Gopnik's Angels & Ages. Great book beautifully written. 7:54 AM Jul 18th from web"
Like all things Michael, there is something creepy about this offering. Afterall, he tweets at 7:54 am that he is enjoying a rare day at home reading. Its 7:54 am! Maybe you're going to enjoy a rare day reading at home but at 7:54 am, you cannnot credibly tell us that you are in the midst of enjoying a rare day at home. Have you been up since 3 am and reading the book for the last four hours? Maybe so, but it sure looks a little freakish. Perhaps next time, wait until somewhere around noon to tweet about how your day is going. Any earlier and it has a manufactured smell to it.
The day before his rare day home, Iggy was all business as he shares in this tweet:
"In Ottawa where it's finally starting to feel like summer. Meeting with environmental leaders this afternoon to discuss climate change.
9:15 AM Jul 17th from mobile web"
To be fair, more than anyone, a Liberal leader must go to the climate change temples to talk to the climate change priests. But it sure is fun to here about a guy on his way to a global warming catastrophe love-in talk about how its finally getting hot this summer!
Needless to say, I am now a Twitter convert. That Michael Ignatieff will deliver these gems on a daily basis (oh, except for that huge gap of days in which HE WAS NOT out of the country) is a wonderful blessing for us all.
"Enjoying a rare day at home reading Canadian Adam Gopnik's Angels & Ages. Great book beautifully written. 7:54 AM Jul 18th from web"
Like all things Michael, there is something creepy about this offering. Afterall, he tweets at 7:54 am that he is enjoying a rare day at home reading. Its 7:54 am! Maybe you're going to enjoy a rare day reading at home but at 7:54 am, you cannnot credibly tell us that you are in the midst of enjoying a rare day at home. Have you been up since 3 am and reading the book for the last four hours? Maybe so, but it sure looks a little freakish. Perhaps next time, wait until somewhere around noon to tweet about how your day is going. Any earlier and it has a manufactured smell to it.
The day before his rare day home, Iggy was all business as he shares in this tweet:
"In Ottawa where it's finally starting to feel like summer. Meeting with environmental leaders this afternoon to discuss climate change.
9:15 AM Jul 17th from mobile web"
To be fair, more than anyone, a Liberal leader must go to the climate change temples to talk to the climate change priests. But it sure is fun to here about a guy on his way to a global warming catastrophe love-in talk about how its finally getting hot this summer!
Needless to say, I am now a Twitter convert. That Michael Ignatieff will deliver these gems on a daily basis (oh, except for that huge gap of days in which HE WAS NOT out of the country) is a wonderful blessing for us all.
Labels: Chuckercanuck is wondering why we make politicians be such big losers
Oppal/Ignatieff
(They meet at Starbucks. Next in line, Michael Ignatieff pulls a bone china tea cup from his man-purse and hands it to the barrista.)
Iggy: Chamomile please, in this cup.
Oppal: Very green of you.
Iggy: Green? I can't abide drinking from cardboard. That's for cossack peasants, not me.
(they get their drinks and settle down to a quiet corner.)
Oppal: So why are we meeting?
Iggy: You don't know?
Oppal: I suppose I do.
Iggy: I want you. I need you in my caucus.
Oppal: What, as some nobody on the backbench?
Iggy: No siree, I want you in justice.
Oppal: Seriously? But you have able justice critics now.
Iggy: Who? Dosanjh? Pu-lease. That guy is a clown without the make-up.
Oppal: Jennings?
Iggy: Good in a knife fight, but a baffoon otherwise.
Oppal: Leblanc?
Iggy: Look. I'm surrounded by ankle-biters and clingers-on. I need to dilute the loser quotient of my caucus fast.
(There's a pause as the two men think through proposition.)
Oppal: So what are my priorities?
Iggy: What do you mean?
Oppal: What are we trying to accomplish?
Iggy: I'm not following....
Oppal: Well, what's our game plan for Canada?
Iggy: We're working on it.
Oppal: No firm ideas yet?
Iggy: Sure, lots. Ideas by the truckload. I'll have my people send you a memo.
Oppal: Can you name one?
Iggy: Let's not bog this down with tedium. Are you in?
(A second thoughtful pause.)
Oppal: Will I have to write torture memos?
Iggy: No!
Oppal: Will I have to sanction assasinations?
Iggy: Where's this coming from?
Oppal: Your policies.
Iggy: This is Canada. We don't assasinate people!
Oppal: So that was American Iggy talking.
Iggy: Exactly, not Canadian Iggy.
Oppal: I guess that's some comfort.
(Iggy wipes clean his tea cup and returns it to his man purse.)
Iggy: I've got to go. Szuzzannah finds Vancouver pretty - and pretty dreary at the same time. We're off for a weekend down in Sonomo county trying out some shirazes that my friend, the Marquis de Pontiac says are mind-blowing.
Oppal: You want an answer soon, I suppose?
Iggy: Take a few months. I'll send that memo with our ideas for you to look over. I know I'm saying there's going to be a fall election but frankly, so long as I'm saddled with the caucus I have right now, I'm not pulling any triggers.
Iggy: Chamomile please, in this cup.
Oppal: Very green of you.
Iggy: Green? I can't abide drinking from cardboard. That's for cossack peasants, not me.
(they get their drinks and settle down to a quiet corner.)
Oppal: So why are we meeting?
Iggy: You don't know?
Oppal: I suppose I do.
Iggy: I want you. I need you in my caucus.
Oppal: What, as some nobody on the backbench?
Iggy: No siree, I want you in justice.
Oppal: Seriously? But you have able justice critics now.
Iggy: Who? Dosanjh? Pu-lease. That guy is a clown without the make-up.
Oppal: Jennings?
Iggy: Good in a knife fight, but a baffoon otherwise.
Oppal: Leblanc?
Iggy: Look. I'm surrounded by ankle-biters and clingers-on. I need to dilute the loser quotient of my caucus fast.
(There's a pause as the two men think through proposition.)
Oppal: So what are my priorities?
Iggy: What do you mean?
Oppal: What are we trying to accomplish?
Iggy: I'm not following....
Oppal: Well, what's our game plan for Canada?
Iggy: We're working on it.
Oppal: No firm ideas yet?
Iggy: Sure, lots. Ideas by the truckload. I'll have my people send you a memo.
Oppal: Can you name one?
Iggy: Let's not bog this down with tedium. Are you in?
(A second thoughtful pause.)
Oppal: Will I have to write torture memos?
Iggy: No!
Oppal: Will I have to sanction assasinations?
Iggy: Where's this coming from?
Oppal: Your policies.
Iggy: This is Canada. We don't assasinate people!
Oppal: So that was American Iggy talking.
Iggy: Exactly, not Canadian Iggy.
Oppal: I guess that's some comfort.
(Iggy wipes clean his tea cup and returns it to his man purse.)
Iggy: I've got to go. Szuzzannah finds Vancouver pretty - and pretty dreary at the same time. We're off for a weekend down in Sonomo county trying out some shirazes that my friend, the Marquis de Pontiac says are mind-blowing.
Oppal: You want an answer soon, I suppose?
Iggy: Take a few months. I'll send that memo with our ideas for you to look over. I know I'm saying there's going to be a fall election but frankly, so long as I'm saddled with the caucus I have right now, I'm not pulling any triggers.
Labels: Yes and the Titanic is offering free harbor cruises
Monday, July 20, 2009
I'm a moderate, I only fund the KKK
Turns out, Warren Kinsella has a fascinating post up that people should read. He scanned up there a defamation lawsuit judgement that is real edumacational because its so clearly written and easy to follow. However engrossed I was while reading it, I can't shake my takeaway.
The whole lawsuit boils down to a CBC broadcast about extreme right-wing loony tunes like the kind who blew up so many good people in Oklahoma City. It was sometime in 1996. Warren Kinsella was in a townhall segment as an expert on extreme right wingers and their hateful fanaticism. An audience member asks, "do moderate right people materially support these extreme right wing fanatics?" Warren Kinsella, without missing a beat, answers, "yes......" (the "....." being the lawsuit).
W would have said "no." W would have said, "people who finance violence and terrorism are not moderate. They are extremists like those who perform the violence and terrorism."
Kinsella said, "sure." And everyone accepted that wholesale because we all know that the difference between "moderate right" people and "extreme right" people is that "moderate right" people are to pussy to commit slaughter and oppression on other people. If they'd get some backbone, they'd be toughing it out at an off-grid camp north of Chetwyn, B.C.
But then, W is evil distilled to a most seductive and devastating liqueur. He makes black and white distinctions that don't exist - especially when right-thinking people are involved, then its just shades of blood-splatter red.
Too bad time ran out on us, if anyone had a defamation case against Warren Kinsella and the CBC, it was "moderate right" people, who would object to being tribalized with a klu klux klan supporter.
The whole lawsuit boils down to a CBC broadcast about extreme right-wing loony tunes like the kind who blew up so many good people in Oklahoma City. It was sometime in 1996. Warren Kinsella was in a townhall segment as an expert on extreme right wingers and their hateful fanaticism. An audience member asks, "do moderate right people materially support these extreme right wing fanatics?" Warren Kinsella, without missing a beat, answers, "yes......" (the "....." being the lawsuit).
W would have said "no." W would have said, "people who finance violence and terrorism are not moderate. They are extremists like those who perform the violence and terrorism."
Kinsella said, "sure." And everyone accepted that wholesale because we all know that the difference between "moderate right" people and "extreme right" people is that "moderate right" people are to pussy to commit slaughter and oppression on other people. If they'd get some backbone, they'd be toughing it out at an off-grid camp north of Chetwyn, B.C.
But then, W is evil distilled to a most seductive and devastating liqueur. He makes black and white distinctions that don't exist - especially when right-thinking people are involved, then its just shades of blood-splatter red.
Too bad time ran out on us, if anyone had a defamation case against Warren Kinsella and the CBC, it was "moderate right" people, who would object to being tribalized with a klu klux klan supporter.
Labels: Even in 1996 Liberals had a cartoon perspective on the world
Universal Child Care Benefit Turns Three: Party at My House
Like Minister Fletcher out in Winnipeg, Chuckercanuck plans to have a real six-gun hoe-down at the ranch tonight. I'll be cooking up ribs, broiled stuffed tomatoes and bbq corn, all washed down with rye whiskey. Rainbow and SkyPiper have been soaking watermelon pieces in vodka which they will distribute to party-goers while Mermaidia demonstrates her zombie wobble across the backyard. Come on down!
The Universal Child Care Benefit is maybe the biggest accomplishment in the Harper cannon (alongside tax-free savings accounts and income splitting for seniors). Why? Well, let's put on our memory glasses and look back at those bitter days...
Paul Martin and his Liberals were trying to force government-run daycare down our throats. They told us that parents could not be trusted to raise children on their own and those children should be sent to government-run facilities to be raised by government-trained experts. Graciously, they were not going to make government-run daycare necessary (yet). We didn't have to send our kids to a daycare.
In comes Stephen Harper and the Tories. They offered to spend the same amount of money but instead of selecting a specific client group for the cash, they decided to give that cash out to all children equally. This way, the government could provide child-care support and parents could spend it as needed.
Unsurprisingly, Liberals flipped out at the idea of giving money away equally to all children. They only wanted Liberal children to get the cash. So, they launched frontal assaults on Canadian parents, famously encapsulated by Scott Reid's prediction that Canadian parents would waste the money on beer and popcorn.
We know how the story ends. Liberals lost. Canadians won. Parents retain their freedom and, so far, the Liberals have stopped demonizing families where children are reared at home. (Not that they aren't quietly seething).
Oh yeah, also this: we don't have a daycare workers union thretening to close down the country - like in Toronto!
The Universal Child Care Benefit is maybe the biggest accomplishment in the Harper cannon (alongside tax-free savings accounts and income splitting for seniors). Why? Well, let's put on our memory glasses and look back at those bitter days...
Paul Martin and his Liberals were trying to force government-run daycare down our throats. They told us that parents could not be trusted to raise children on their own and those children should be sent to government-run facilities to be raised by government-trained experts. Graciously, they were not going to make government-run daycare necessary (yet). We didn't have to send our kids to a daycare.
In comes Stephen Harper and the Tories. They offered to spend the same amount of money but instead of selecting a specific client group for the cash, they decided to give that cash out to all children equally. This way, the government could provide child-care support and parents could spend it as needed.
Unsurprisingly, Liberals flipped out at the idea of giving money away equally to all children. They only wanted Liberal children to get the cash. So, they launched frontal assaults on Canadian parents, famously encapsulated by Scott Reid's prediction that Canadian parents would waste the money on beer and popcorn.
We know how the story ends. Liberals lost. Canadians won. Parents retain their freedom and, so far, the Liberals have stopped demonizing families where children are reared at home. (Not that they aren't quietly seething).
Oh yeah, also this: we don't have a daycare workers union thretening to close down the country - like in Toronto!
Labels: I make babies for profit
Retail in the Digital Age: Be Afraid,. Be Very Afraid
Imagine a future with no books, no magazines, no photographs: no physical proof of content. Everything we write or draw or snap is stored digitally. Many beautiful things result. We would reduce waste, save trees and store our family histories on something smaller than our thumbs. It would be wicked cool.
Until the day comes when you purchase something from a digital store, like say Amazon. And, once purchased, the store decides it doesn't want you to own what you own, for whatever reason, so it accesses your digital device and deletes the material. In the case linked above, the books in question were copywright-infringing e-books, "1984" and "Animal Farm".
Yes, to rectify selling an illegal copy of "1984", Amazon invaded a person's property and wiped the content out. If its your kindle in question, your copy of Orwell's 1984 is gone; the authorities have decided you cannot read it.
The road to tyranny is paved with half-assed, ad-hockery it seems. And the end of books - paper books - should never come.
Until the day comes when you purchase something from a digital store, like say Amazon. And, once purchased, the store decides it doesn't want you to own what you own, for whatever reason, so it accesses your digital device and deletes the material. In the case linked above, the books in question were copywright-infringing e-books, "1984" and "Animal Farm".
Yes, to rectify selling an illegal copy of "1984", Amazon invaded a person's property and wiped the content out. If its your kindle in question, your copy of Orwell's 1984 is gone; the authorities have decided you cannot read it.
The road to tyranny is paved with half-assed, ad-hockery it seems. And the end of books - paper books - should never come.
Labels: Monday morning anecdotes
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Canada's Hottest Game: Possible Iggisms
Another weekend spent talking over not what Iggy is saying these days (nothing) but lots about what he has said in the past, like gently trashing our military. The endless series of Iggy quotables - about Ukrainians, targeted assasination and now, bogus peacekeeping - has inspired a new game that you can play with the whole family.
Its really simple. All you have to do is think up something Iggy probably has said. The person who comes up with the most probably Iggy quotables wins. Here's a typical round:
Player 1: "Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of Canada's health care system and its egalitarian principles, but I'd rather get sick near a rural Albanian hospital than require the services of Toronto's health system."
Player 2: "Not all thoughts are happy thoughts. Reality is seldom the pleasant picnic one dreamt of in childhood. If a nation, twisted under tyranny, cannot find its sanity, then we have no choice but to drop nuclear bombs on it. And rebuild, almighty, rebuild."
Player 3: "There are many greeks in Canada and thinking of them conjures up false belly laughing, pink fish spread and thick-cut french fries whose provenance was not, contrary to Costa's claims, Krynos but rather Cavendish Farms in Prince Edward Island. I spent a month in the Aegean. I am as greek as they are."
This particular example is a very strong round. All players delivered classic "quite possibly" Iggy quotes. Player One chose to play a "attack the sacred cow" strategy which Player 2 counters smartly with a "demonstrate almost psychopathic brutality" return. Player 3 stays alive with the "insult an ethnic group" move - perhaps a little early in the game to go there, but each player has her or his own preferred strategy.
Its really simple. All you have to do is think up something Iggy probably has said. The person who comes up with the most probably Iggy quotables wins. Here's a typical round:
Player 1: "Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of Canada's health care system and its egalitarian principles, but I'd rather get sick near a rural Albanian hospital than require the services of Toronto's health system."
Player 2: "Not all thoughts are happy thoughts. Reality is seldom the pleasant picnic one dreamt of in childhood. If a nation, twisted under tyranny, cannot find its sanity, then we have no choice but to drop nuclear bombs on it. And rebuild, almighty, rebuild."
Player 3: "There are many greeks in Canada and thinking of them conjures up false belly laughing, pink fish spread and thick-cut french fries whose provenance was not, contrary to Costa's claims, Krynos but rather Cavendish Farms in Prince Edward Island. I spent a month in the Aegean. I am as greek as they are."
This particular example is a very strong round. All players delivered classic "quite possibly" Iggy quotes. Player One chose to play a "attack the sacred cow" strategy which Player 2 counters smartly with a "demonstrate almost psychopathic brutality" return. Player 3 stays alive with the "insult an ethnic group" move - perhaps a little early in the game to go there, but each player has her or his own preferred strategy.
Labels: Mess with me until your done
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Accentuate the Positive: Confidence
At this point in summer, Liberals gone to sleep or France (or maybe a line-up at a temporary dump in Toronto), we find ourselves alone in conversation.
It is a mind-boggling mistake of the Liberals to have allowed Michael Ignatieff his
2nd departure from Canada within a single economic quarter. Not so much that; rather that the last portrait of Michael Ignatieff is his stumbling across a line in the sand of his own drawing. Not the sort of thing that marries well to "mess with me and I'll mess with you until I'm done." It kind of makes charges that Iggy's a diletantte juuuuuuuusssssttttttt flyyyyyyyyyy. (Yes, I did collapse onto my chesterfield after typing that.)
The result, this summer can be very helpful in cementing the contrast in confidence that the Conservative party presents with the Liberals. The last year has been one in which Liberals, under Dion and Ignatieff, panic-mongered the year long to the detriment of Canada's economic confidence. Dion claimed a hearing impairment prevented him from telling us what he'd have done differently. Ignatieff offered an alternative - actually insisted to the point of an election - and then threw his idea out like plastic-wrap when asked to substantiate the threat. Conservatives own the confidence of Canadians like no other party in the supposed fall election to come.
And we own the confidence issue long term too. Conservatives are the only federal party to have utter confidence in Canada. Each other party thinks some or all of Canada is weak and vulnerable to assimilation by the United States or balkanization. They have to "pull off" confidence, we don't have to fake anything.
Let me steal from the Great Satan of Satans himself:
Only Stephen Harper can say, "Its morning in Canada."
It is a mind-boggling mistake of the Liberals to have allowed Michael Ignatieff his
2nd departure from Canada within a single economic quarter. Not so much that; rather that the last portrait of Michael Ignatieff is his stumbling across a line in the sand of his own drawing. Not the sort of thing that marries well to "mess with me and I'll mess with you until I'm done." It kind of makes charges that Iggy's a diletantte juuuuuuuusssssttttttt flyyyyyyyyyy. (Yes, I did collapse onto my chesterfield after typing that.)
The result, this summer can be very helpful in cementing the contrast in confidence that the Conservative party presents with the Liberals. The last year has been one in which Liberals, under Dion and Ignatieff, panic-mongered the year long to the detriment of Canada's economic confidence. Dion claimed a hearing impairment prevented him from telling us what he'd have done differently. Ignatieff offered an alternative - actually insisted to the point of an election - and then threw his idea out like plastic-wrap when asked to substantiate the threat. Conservatives own the confidence of Canadians like no other party in the supposed fall election to come.
And we own the confidence issue long term too. Conservatives are the only federal party to have utter confidence in Canada. Each other party thinks some or all of Canada is weak and vulnerable to assimilation by the United States or balkanization. They have to "pull off" confidence, we don't have to fake anything.
Let me steal from the Great Satan of Satans himself:
Only Stephen Harper can say, "Its morning in Canada."
Labels: Fall 2009 campaign
Friday, July 17, 2009
How big is the Joe Clark Fan Club?
Professor Arthur Haberman has a piece today on the homeless problem of Red Tories (or, as he calls them "progressive conservatives"). Its a topic near to my heart as my thesis is pretty simple: there ain't no such thing as a Red Tory; or, at least, the only people who call themselves Red Tories are members of the Joe Clark fan club. So when Professor Emeritus Haberman decides to weigh in on the issue, I gets all a'ssited, thunkin': "I's gonna do some lurnin from this here book nerd."
Alas, it wasn't so. In short, Professor Haberman confirms that the only people who call themselves Progressive Conservatives and disdain the CPC are Joe Clark loyalists. Let's inspect the pablum proferred by the good professor:
Progressive Conservatism "supports a social safety net and believes in helping people better themselves." Well, so does everyone. If a core belief of a particular ideology is a core belief of every ideology, then it is not a core belief of that ideology. The difference across the Canadian political spectrum boils down to: what ultimately helps people to better themselves?
Progressive Conservatism believes "in acknowledging the importance of tradition in organizing politics and society". So while all conservatives believe in the importance of tradition, only progressive conservatives believe in acknowledging the importance of tradition? All men know a babe when they see her, but only progressive conservatives believe in acknowledging the babeness when they see her. Compelling stuff.
Progressive Conservatism "recognize the complexity of society" and "...like to make a series of small adjustments that over time turn out to be large but do not create chaos." The latter bit sounds so identifcal to Tom Flanagan's articulation of "incrementalism" that Professor Haberman fails here too.
So, having been about as clear and precise as Michael Ignatieff, Professor Haberman fails to identify anything particularly unique about progressive conservatism. Not a single positive quality can be attributed to that strain of political thought. Sensing the shoddiness of his work, Professor Haberman moves on to some negatives. That is, what makes the CPC so repugnant:
Conservatives are "driven hard by ideology." Yes, this is what Stephen Harper's government has looked like to me. Ideological, non-pragmatic, well, let's just call a spade a spade: Calgarian.
Conservatives like Canada to "fight wars instead of keeping the peace." Again, spot on. It was a Conservative government that sent us into a war in Afghanistan. It was Conservatives, only those war-mongering Conservatives, who extended the mission to 2011. And, its damned true: we are against peace and peace keeping.
Oh wait, Professor Haberman has a catch: Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper supported the Iraq invasion. So did David Pratt. A Liberal. A Liberal helping Iraq mature as a democracy. Other Liberals supported the Iraq invasion too. And guess what: in 20 years, you'll be hardpressed to find a politician who won't claim they were for the Iraq invasion either.
Point is, supporting the Iraq invasion wasn't particularly Conservative. Not supporting the Iraq invasion wasn't particularly non-Conservative either.
So we're left with one thing: progressive conservatism is a strain of political thought that rests on two pillars. One, a sick obsession with Joe Clark. Two, a manic hatred of the United States. (In the column, the Professor makes 2 derogatory remarks about the United States). To say you are homeless is a fistful of poppycock: follow David Orchard's lead and join the comfy fur of the Liberal party.
Alas, it wasn't so. In short, Professor Haberman confirms that the only people who call themselves Progressive Conservatives and disdain the CPC are Joe Clark loyalists. Let's inspect the pablum proferred by the good professor:
Progressive Conservatism "supports a social safety net and believes in helping people better themselves." Well, so does everyone. If a core belief of a particular ideology is a core belief of every ideology, then it is not a core belief of that ideology. The difference across the Canadian political spectrum boils down to: what ultimately helps people to better themselves?
Progressive Conservatism believes "in acknowledging the importance of tradition in organizing politics and society". So while all conservatives believe in the importance of tradition, only progressive conservatives believe in acknowledging the importance of tradition? All men know a babe when they see her, but only progressive conservatives believe in acknowledging the babeness when they see her. Compelling stuff.
Progressive Conservatism "recognize the complexity of society" and "...like to make a series of small adjustments that over time turn out to be large but do not create chaos." The latter bit sounds so identifcal to Tom Flanagan's articulation of "incrementalism" that Professor Haberman fails here too.
So, having been about as clear and precise as Michael Ignatieff, Professor Haberman fails to identify anything particularly unique about progressive conservatism. Not a single positive quality can be attributed to that strain of political thought. Sensing the shoddiness of his work, Professor Haberman moves on to some negatives. That is, what makes the CPC so repugnant:
Conservatives are "driven hard by ideology." Yes, this is what Stephen Harper's government has looked like to me. Ideological, non-pragmatic, well, let's just call a spade a spade: Calgarian.
Conservatives like Canada to "fight wars instead of keeping the peace." Again, spot on. It was a Conservative government that sent us into a war in Afghanistan. It was Conservatives, only those war-mongering Conservatives, who extended the mission to 2011. And, its damned true: we are against peace and peace keeping.
Oh wait, Professor Haberman has a catch: Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper supported the Iraq invasion. So did David Pratt. A Liberal. A Liberal helping Iraq mature as a democracy. Other Liberals supported the Iraq invasion too. And guess what: in 20 years, you'll be hardpressed to find a politician who won't claim they were for the Iraq invasion either.
Point is, supporting the Iraq invasion wasn't particularly Conservative. Not supporting the Iraq invasion wasn't particularly non-Conservative either.
So we're left with one thing: progressive conservatism is a strain of political thought that rests on two pillars. One, a sick obsession with Joe Clark. Two, a manic hatred of the United States. (In the column, the Professor makes 2 derogatory remarks about the United States). To say you are homeless is a fistful of poppycock: follow David Orchard's lead and join the comfy fur of the Liberal party.
Labels: The myth of the Red Tory
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Difference Between Sarah Palin and Michael Ignatieff? Lipstick.
In many ways, Sarah Palin is an outsider from Alaska storming the American mainland.
In many ways, Michael Ignatieff is an outsider from outside storming the Canadian mainland.
Sarah Palin can't survive a basic interview on the issues of the day, like say with Katie Couric.
Michael Ignatieff can't survive a basic interview on the issues of the day, like say with Peter Mansbridge.
Sarah Palin can sound almost ridiculous when she works too many numbers into her argument.
Michael Ignatieff can sound almost ridiculous when he works too many numbers into his argument.
Sarah Palin doesn't go big on policies or details preferring blunt emotional appeals.
Michael Ignatieff doesn't go big on policies or details preferring blunt emotional appeals.
Sarah Palin appeals only to core Republican voters who are so fanatically devoted to her they are blind to her significant weak points.
Michael Ignatieff appeals only to core Liberal voters who are so fanatically devoted to him and the Liberal cause, they are blind to his significant weak points.
Sarah Palin quit being Alaska's governor.
Michael Ignatieff is just MIA. (Oops, sorry, I mean build his campaign machine for his coming fall election from rural France.) And like Sarah Palin, we hope he comes back soon.
In many ways, Michael Ignatieff is an outsider from outside storming the Canadian mainland.
Sarah Palin can't survive a basic interview on the issues of the day, like say with Katie Couric.
Michael Ignatieff can't survive a basic interview on the issues of the day, like say with Peter Mansbridge.
Sarah Palin can sound almost ridiculous when she works too many numbers into her argument.
Michael Ignatieff can sound almost ridiculous when he works too many numbers into his argument.
Sarah Palin doesn't go big on policies or details preferring blunt emotional appeals.
Michael Ignatieff doesn't go big on policies or details preferring blunt emotional appeals.
Sarah Palin appeals only to core Republican voters who are so fanatically devoted to her they are blind to her significant weak points.
Michael Ignatieff appeals only to core Liberal voters who are so fanatically devoted to him and the Liberal cause, they are blind to his significant weak points.
Sarah Palin quit being Alaska's governor.
Michael Ignatieff is just MIA. (Oops, sorry, I mean build his campaign machine for his coming fall election from rural France.) And like Sarah Palin, we hope he comes back soon.
Labels: And people say both are babes
An Ignatieff Primer: Canada's 10 Evil Cities (plus Calgary)
Following up on Michael Ignatieff's prescient comment about the city of Calgary being a den of rabid right-wing dogmatists, I thought he might be interested to know that evil lurks in quite a few cities across our fair country.
1. Halifax. Don't be fooled, Iggy, by the delicious seafood and beautiful harbor. In Halifax, they banned smells. That's right, if a human being is caught smelling like something in Halifax, they throw that person into jail until you unsmell. And, for your troubles, they slap a $5,000 fine on you.
2. Montreal. Sure, sure, my home town, so I'm supposed to say good things about it. Bullshit! Montreal makes Satan look nice. The city is run not by a mayor but by squeegee kids. You cannot drive through an intersection without first being harassed by a kid with all sorts of flesh falling out of the rips and tears in his and/or her clothing. Even if you throw a loonie at them from a distance, they will still force you to glimpse some larval white crack of skin that we long ago decided, as a civilization, to cover up.
3. Victoria. Do you even know what they put in that Empress tea? The water has valium pumped into it to keep everyone in a state of activity one notch above comatose. Even though the speed limit is a normal 50 klicks through the city, try finding a car doing more than 15! Try getting a meal served in less than sixty minutes at any Victoria restaurant. The official animal of Victoria is the sloth and there ain't an actual, un-zooed sloth within a 1000 miles of the place.
4. Prince George. Hedy Fry can fill you in on that hotbed of hate; as I type this, crosses are burning across the front lawns of Prince George.
5. Drummondville. Sure, this tiny town between Montreal and Quebec looks normal and Fromage Lemaire off highway 20 serves the nation's second best poutine (yes, Chez Morasse in Noranda, I am still loyal to you). But the Raelians have basically taken over the city. That means there's only two things that ever happen in Drummondville at night: alien worship and group sex. Okay, a Liberal might not understand why that's evil, but surely the rest of us do!
6. Kitchener. Sure, some might argue, like me, that Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge-Guelph is a future collosus of Canada. But Kitchener has an Oktoberfest. Oktoberfest is a German thing. Germans started two world wars. Nuff said.
7. Asbestos, Quebec. Need I explain its evil, Iggy?
8. Sarnia. Iggy, these rubes couldn't tell ballet from contemporary dance. And if you look at Dante's Inferno, his 7th ring rings awfully true to that city.
9. Gimli, Manitoba. Actually, this city is not evil but I had to squeeze in something from Manitoba and have 10 cities on my list.
10. Your hometown, Iggy, Toronto. In Toronto, city workers would see people die in order to fight for their privelege of 117 sick days per year. Maybe Toronto is in the grips of an ideology far more virulent than one finds over in Cow-town.
That's my list Iggy. But I guess it don't matter much since you're spending the summer drumming up support for the Liberal party. In France.
1. Halifax. Don't be fooled, Iggy, by the delicious seafood and beautiful harbor. In Halifax, they banned smells. That's right, if a human being is caught smelling like something in Halifax, they throw that person into jail until you unsmell. And, for your troubles, they slap a $5,000 fine on you.
2. Montreal. Sure, sure, my home town, so I'm supposed to say good things about it. Bullshit! Montreal makes Satan look nice. The city is run not by a mayor but by squeegee kids. You cannot drive through an intersection without first being harassed by a kid with all sorts of flesh falling out of the rips and tears in his and/or her clothing. Even if you throw a loonie at them from a distance, they will still force you to glimpse some larval white crack of skin that we long ago decided, as a civilization, to cover up.
3. Victoria. Do you even know what they put in that Empress tea? The water has valium pumped into it to keep everyone in a state of activity one notch above comatose. Even though the speed limit is a normal 50 klicks through the city, try finding a car doing more than 15! Try getting a meal served in less than sixty minutes at any Victoria restaurant. The official animal of Victoria is the sloth and there ain't an actual, un-zooed sloth within a 1000 miles of the place.
4. Prince George. Hedy Fry can fill you in on that hotbed of hate; as I type this, crosses are burning across the front lawns of Prince George.
5. Drummondville. Sure, this tiny town between Montreal and Quebec looks normal and Fromage Lemaire off highway 20 serves the nation's second best poutine (yes, Chez Morasse in Noranda, I am still loyal to you). But the Raelians have basically taken over the city. That means there's only two things that ever happen in Drummondville at night: alien worship and group sex. Okay, a Liberal might not understand why that's evil, but surely the rest of us do!
6. Kitchener. Sure, some might argue, like me, that Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge-Guelph is a future collosus of Canada. But Kitchener has an Oktoberfest. Oktoberfest is a German thing. Germans started two world wars. Nuff said.
7. Asbestos, Quebec. Need I explain its evil, Iggy?
8. Sarnia. Iggy, these rubes couldn't tell ballet from contemporary dance. And if you look at Dante's Inferno, his 7th ring rings awfully true to that city.
9. Gimli, Manitoba. Actually, this city is not evil but I had to squeeze in something from Manitoba and have 10 cities on my list.
10. Your hometown, Iggy, Toronto. In Toronto, city workers would see people die in order to fight for their privelege of 117 sick days per year. Maybe Toronto is in the grips of an ideology far more virulent than one finds over in Cow-town.
That's my list Iggy. But I guess it don't matter much since you're spending the summer drumming up support for the Liberal party. In France.
Labels: Next: Canada's 10 most evil tourist destinations
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Calgary, the Evil Menace
Thirty-four years absent from the country, but Michael Ignatieff has us all nailed! He knows us better than we know ourselves, except perhaps why we haven't rushed to his arms wailing, "you had us at 'hello'". A good example of his masterpiece etch-o-sketch of Canada comes with his recent description of Stephen Harper as:
"a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks."
Yes, Calgary, you are a seething cauldron of radical conservative ideologues. Trust Iggy, he knows.
I married a Calgarian. She is a nutball. The other day, I caught her tossing an aluminum can into the garbage bin. "Fuck the planet," she sneered at me and then scurried under a couch where I could not reach her. She, like all Calgarians, hates queers and science. She loves the military and frequently prays that the military will take over the country to put a real leader in charge.
My in-laws, Calgarians all, make her look like a Quebec communist by comparison. They don't pay taxes and shoot at any tax collector who comes knocking. They started up a Museum of Intelligent Design in their garage and carbon-dated a dinosaur fossil that turned out to be - so they claim - only 5,000 years old. When they couldn't afford to support my wife's grandma, they put her in a crate and shipped her to "socialist Toronto where they give a crap about the old and infirm."
Things you take for granted in the rest of Canada simply don't exist in Calgary. Like traffic lights. Who the hell is a light to tell you whether to stop or proceed. Organic products are banned from city stores: you cannot purchase food unless that food has been genetically modified. Also, children are forced to take steroids in hopes of creating a master race that will one day take over the world.
Lastly:
Calgarians, as we all know, are the biggest proponents of targeted assasinations in Canada. Oh wait, targeted assasinations is a Michael Ignatieff policy, not a radically conservative idea! Scrub that.
"a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks."
Yes, Calgary, you are a seething cauldron of radical conservative ideologues. Trust Iggy, he knows.
I married a Calgarian. She is a nutball. The other day, I caught her tossing an aluminum can into the garbage bin. "Fuck the planet," she sneered at me and then scurried under a couch where I could not reach her. She, like all Calgarians, hates queers and science. She loves the military and frequently prays that the military will take over the country to put a real leader in charge.
My in-laws, Calgarians all, make her look like a Quebec communist by comparison. They don't pay taxes and shoot at any tax collector who comes knocking. They started up a Museum of Intelligent Design in their garage and carbon-dated a dinosaur fossil that turned out to be - so they claim - only 5,000 years old. When they couldn't afford to support my wife's grandma, they put her in a crate and shipped her to "socialist Toronto where they give a crap about the old and infirm."
Things you take for granted in the rest of Canada simply don't exist in Calgary. Like traffic lights. Who the hell is a light to tell you whether to stop or proceed. Organic products are banned from city stores: you cannot purchase food unless that food has been genetically modified. Also, children are forced to take steroids in hopes of creating a master race that will one day take over the world.
Lastly:
Calgarians, as we all know, are the biggest proponents of targeted assasinations in Canada. Oh wait, targeted assasinations is a Michael Ignatieff policy, not a radically conservative idea! Scrub that.
Labels: Iggy would be a fine PM, Oh yes
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Pitting Catholic versus Protestant
The Prime Minister makes a fairly strong charge. I mean, if you take levelling those charges seriously. Like Michael Ignatieff. Michael Ignatieff says Tories want to drive wedges between Canadians in every speech he gives. Even at the international opposition leaders pow-wow he went to in London.
So let's pretend Michael Ignatieff is serious about wedge-politics as a scourge. Not "worthy of certain targeted assasinations" scourge, but really, really bad. Then its strange that his war room would have been so active in scandalizing Romeo Leblanc's funeral.
Not strange that his war room would do it. If you recall, the same war room won Dalton McGinty a re-election largely on the idea of Roman Catholic exceptionalism in Ontario's education system. Apparently, drivng a wedge between Catholics and everyone else is good politics there.
This actually makes a lot of sense since traditionally, Catholics vote as a block for the Liberal party. The portion of Catholic Tories has grown over time and one way to shore up Ontario Liberal numbers would be to scare (wedge) Catholics back into Liberal arms.
So, provincially, that means protecting the unique Catholic school system. Federally, it looks like, you alienate Catholics from the Prime Minister.
I understand why Iggy's war room would be working hard to drive wedges (as it also did recently when the war room asked how a gay person could sleep at night voting Conservative). I can't understand why Iggy would accept wedge-driving when he is so emphatically against it.
So let's pretend Michael Ignatieff is serious about wedge-politics as a scourge. Not "worthy of certain targeted assasinations" scourge, but really, really bad. Then its strange that his war room would have been so active in scandalizing Romeo Leblanc's funeral.
Not strange that his war room would do it. If you recall, the same war room won Dalton McGinty a re-election largely on the idea of Roman Catholic exceptionalism in Ontario's education system. Apparently, drivng a wedge between Catholics and everyone else is good politics there.
This actually makes a lot of sense since traditionally, Catholics vote as a block for the Liberal party. The portion of Catholic Tories has grown over time and one way to shore up Ontario Liberal numbers would be to scare (wedge) Catholics back into Liberal arms.
So, provincially, that means protecting the unique Catholic school system. Federally, it looks like, you alienate Catholics from the Prime Minister.
I understand why Iggy's war room would be working hard to drive wedges (as it also did recently when the war room asked how a gay person could sleep at night voting Conservative). I can't understand why Iggy would accept wedge-driving when he is so emphatically against it.
Labels: Go back to the last Ontario election
Assasination to be the main plank of the upcoming Liberal platform
Joanne is asking today about what shape the Liberal platform will take under Michael Ignatieff, given his incredible reluctance to utter a single, solid position on a single issue facing Canada today.
I was thinking of doing something about that issue and the general disappearance of Iggy from the Canadian landscape. It was going to be a press conference with one of Michael Ignatieff's suits. The suit would provide more substance to Liberal policy in the single press conference than Iggy has in the half-year he usurped the helm of the Grit machine.
But sometimes, actually, almost always in Iggy's case, the truth is so much funnier than fiction. Thanks to the grassroots coalition of Republicans for Ignatieff, here's a terrific idea that is sure to squeeze its way into the Liberal platform:
"We might even have to engage in certain forms of targeted assassination."
Its terrific policy that Liberals will sell like umbrellas on a rainy day and satisfies the two key conditions required for an idea to make it to the Liberal platform:
1) They might assasinate people. Like all good Liberal ideas, the promise is only that something "might" get implemented. They might scrap the GST. They might scrap free trade. They might provide universal daycare and outlaw housewives. They might engage in assasinations.
2) Its has bucketfuls of nuance. Liberals wouldn't be condoning all forms of targeted assasination. Only certain forms of assasination. That puts the debate on Liberal preferred battleground: it won't be about assasination as good public policy, but which types of targeted assasinations are acceptable and which aren't. Dippers will be against everything. Tories will be demonized as wanting to assasinate everyone. Liberals are the only ones who can find that right balance.
I can't wait for the campaign to begin! Have a troop of Joe Volpe supporters follow Iggy around asking, "who do you want to assasinate, Iggy?"
I was thinking of doing something about that issue and the general disappearance of Iggy from the Canadian landscape. It was going to be a press conference with one of Michael Ignatieff's suits. The suit would provide more substance to Liberal policy in the single press conference than Iggy has in the half-year he usurped the helm of the Grit machine.
But sometimes, actually, almost always in Iggy's case, the truth is so much funnier than fiction. Thanks to the grassroots coalition of Republicans for Ignatieff, here's a terrific idea that is sure to squeeze its way into the Liberal platform:
"We might even have to engage in certain forms of targeted assassination."
Its terrific policy that Liberals will sell like umbrellas on a rainy day and satisfies the two key conditions required for an idea to make it to the Liberal platform:
1) They might assasinate people. Like all good Liberal ideas, the promise is only that something "might" get implemented. They might scrap the GST. They might scrap free trade. They might provide universal daycare and outlaw housewives. They might engage in assasinations.
2) Its has bucketfuls of nuance. Liberals wouldn't be condoning all forms of targeted assasination. Only certain forms of assasination. That puts the debate on Liberal preferred battleground: it won't be about assasination as good public policy, but which types of targeted assasinations are acceptable and which aren't. Dippers will be against everything. Tories will be demonized as wanting to assasinate everyone. Liberals are the only ones who can find that right balance.
I can't wait for the campaign to begin! Have a troop of Joe Volpe supporters follow Iggy around asking, "who do you want to assasinate, Iggy?"
Labels: Iggy Pagliacci
No, Jeffrey, All Taxes Are Bad
I realise that Jeffrey Simpson is more prune than plum; few of us ever take note of whatever blather be shoves in our face. But he does occupy prime real estate in pundit-land and so, from time to time, cannot be ignored. Like today.
Here's the recap. The Prime Minister says, "I don't believe any taxes are good taxes." And from that, Jeffrey Simpson conjures a Hobbesian world of crazed cannibals scouring the country to feed off an ever-shrinking pool of weaklings.
Me, I read the Prime Minister's statement quite simply: taxes are a necessary evil. Like all necessary evil, you want to draw what's necessary and not a drop more. Jeffrey Simpson, for some reason I'll end off with, decides that the Prime Minister couldn't possibly mean they are a "necessary evil" because the word "bad", for some reason, precludes "necessary" in a way that the word "evil" does not. Simply put, that is either absurdly stupid or insincere.
All taxes are bad. You take money away from people who earned that money to spend on priorities that they have no direct input on. Governments are necessary for a happy, efficient civilization. Some services can only be provided by a government in a constitutional democracy, like defense and law&order. Every other service, arguably, could be done by some other group within your civilization. Or, if you decide to have a government provide such a service, other means of generating revenues aside from taxation, like user-fees.
User fees are not taxes. User fees charge the users for the service, not everybody. People can opt not to use the service and therefore avoid the fee. Furthermore, user fees give citizens a chance to understand the cost of the service. Compare that to a system where taxes are collected by some measure of capacity to pay and then tax revenues are spent at the government's discretion. To quote Iggy, you need a phd in economics to figure out where all the money goes! Case in point: when was the last time that a newspaper (or magazine, MacLeans!) gave us anything more than a pie chart of spending by five or six major categories and then some bullet points highlighting new programs put in the budget? I have yet to see budget coverage that could give a citizen the information needed to decide: here's what I like and here's what I don't like about the spending.
So what's up with Jeffrey Simpson. If he really believes that Stephen Harper is "very, very scary" as he states, then he is absurdly stupid. I don't think he is absurdly stupid. Absurd, yes. Stupid? No. So, he's a flaky fake. Desperate to put a few hundred words together, he builds a straw man and burns it down, dancing to the rain gods concurrently. It is the kind of shoddy thinking sinking the SS Canadian Media. Canada is crying out for better... not from politicians.... but from journalists!
Here's the recap. The Prime Minister says, "I don't believe any taxes are good taxes." And from that, Jeffrey Simpson conjures a Hobbesian world of crazed cannibals scouring the country to feed off an ever-shrinking pool of weaklings.
Me, I read the Prime Minister's statement quite simply: taxes are a necessary evil. Like all necessary evil, you want to draw what's necessary and not a drop more. Jeffrey Simpson, for some reason I'll end off with, decides that the Prime Minister couldn't possibly mean they are a "necessary evil" because the word "bad", for some reason, precludes "necessary" in a way that the word "evil" does not. Simply put, that is either absurdly stupid or insincere.
All taxes are bad. You take money away from people who earned that money to spend on priorities that they have no direct input on. Governments are necessary for a happy, efficient civilization. Some services can only be provided by a government in a constitutional democracy, like defense and law&order. Every other service, arguably, could be done by some other group within your civilization. Or, if you decide to have a government provide such a service, other means of generating revenues aside from taxation, like user-fees.
User fees are not taxes. User fees charge the users for the service, not everybody. People can opt not to use the service and therefore avoid the fee. Furthermore, user fees give citizens a chance to understand the cost of the service. Compare that to a system where taxes are collected by some measure of capacity to pay and then tax revenues are spent at the government's discretion. To quote Iggy, you need a phd in economics to figure out where all the money goes! Case in point: when was the last time that a newspaper (or magazine, MacLeans!) gave us anything more than a pie chart of spending by five or six major categories and then some bullet points highlighting new programs put in the budget? I have yet to see budget coverage that could give a citizen the information needed to decide: here's what I like and here's what I don't like about the spending.
So what's up with Jeffrey Simpson. If he really believes that Stephen Harper is "very, very scary" as he states, then he is absurdly stupid. I don't think he is absurdly stupid. Absurd, yes. Stupid? No. So, he's a flaky fake. Desperate to put a few hundred words together, he builds a straw man and burns it down, dancing to the rain gods concurrently. It is the kind of shoddy thinking sinking the SS Canadian Media. Canada is crying out for better... not from politicians.... but from journalists!
Labels: Joanne we should put together our own online newspaper
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Curious Case of the Chretien-Liberal
Often, the standard analysis of the Canadian political scene says that Red Tories were so horrified by the neo-geo-theo-brio con monster that Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay put together, they all scrambled into the comfy fur of a Liberal bear hug. And that Conservative monster never gobbled up any Liberals. So, in light of the honor Jean Chretien is set to receive from the Queen, I thought I would point to a small but significant demographic in Canada: the Chretien-Liberal.
The Chretien-Liberal is not a Liberal. Or maybe they used to be but when they look at the Liberal legacy of the last two decades, it is Chretien and only Chretien that sticks out as someone with whom they can identify. A brief sketch:
A. A Chretien-Liberal is foremost a fiscal conservative who wanted the deficit crushed at any price.
B. A Chretien-Liberal prefers tax cuts to new social programs.
C. A Chretien-Liberal is socially conservative. They differ from other social conservatives in that they do not feel their personal moral choices or judgements should become regulated or enacted. Left to themselves, they prefer the traditional family structure with a parent raising children directly and full-time.
D. A Chretien-Liberal defends, at all costs, Quebeckers who choose Canada from Quebeckers who choose the Chavezification of Quebec.
E. A Chretien-Liberal sees Canada's place in the world defined foremost by our proximity and friendship with the United States and then by its position in the commonwealth and francophonie. Chretien-Liberals would prefer NO BORDER between the United States and Canada.
F. A Chretien-Liberal never goes to sleep at night worrying about Canada's culture.
I was once a Chretien-Liberal (first Chretien election). My family remained Chretien-Liberals until 2006. We all made the switch to what is today the natural home for Chretien-Liberals: the Conservative Party of Canada.
The Chretien-Liberal is not a Liberal. Or maybe they used to be but when they look at the Liberal legacy of the last two decades, it is Chretien and only Chretien that sticks out as someone with whom they can identify. A brief sketch:
A. A Chretien-Liberal is foremost a fiscal conservative who wanted the deficit crushed at any price.
B. A Chretien-Liberal prefers tax cuts to new social programs.
C. A Chretien-Liberal is socially conservative. They differ from other social conservatives in that they do not feel their personal moral choices or judgements should become regulated or enacted. Left to themselves, they prefer the traditional family structure with a parent raising children directly and full-time.
D. A Chretien-Liberal defends, at all costs, Quebeckers who choose Canada from Quebeckers who choose the Chavezification of Quebec.
E. A Chretien-Liberal sees Canada's place in the world defined foremost by our proximity and friendship with the United States and then by its position in the commonwealth and francophonie. Chretien-Liberals would prefer NO BORDER between the United States and Canada.
F. A Chretien-Liberal never goes to sleep at night worrying about Canada's culture.
I was once a Chretien-Liberal (first Chretien election). My family remained Chretien-Liberals until 2006. We all made the switch to what is today the natural home for Chretien-Liberals: the Conservative Party of Canada.
Labels: Go out a invite a Chretien Liberal to join the Tories today
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Is the UK an intellectual backwater?
Many of you might think that's a potshot at Michael Ignatieff. Afterall, in the United Kingdom, he was feted as a collosal intellect whereas in Canada, he's a pedestrian politician completely devoid of insight. While I do find Britain's standards for what gets called an "intellectual" interesting, the reason I am asking about their status as an intellectual backwater is for this.
Every three months of so, we get the usual boilerplate about civilizational collapse as a result of climate change. Almost always, that report is produced by a British think-thank, research group or univerisity. Almost always, the report says nothing about the science of climate change but lunges into super-sexy conclusions about pandemics and nuclear wars. (Although this report distinguishes itself with a wacky implication that global warming and organized crime are linked!)
Another aspect of these reports is they make rather bold moral claims, such as:
"Too many greedy and deceitful decisions led to a world recession and demonstrated the international interdependence of economics and ethics."
While I know the 9/11 Truth movement would swallow a sentence like that wholesale and it would be nice if we could say the last recession was merely the work of a cabala of Bernie Madoffs --- but t'ain't so, as we say in Texas. However, over in England, they make statements like that all the time. Every climate change report includes moral condemnation of human freedoms and a prescription for centralized and regulated living.
All this to say, it would be refreshing to see, some day, a report coming out of the UK that didn't draw a direct link between a shorter ski season in the Swiss Alps to cannabalism in Mexico; that didn't leap from an emissions problem to a call for 10 year economic plans and global "cooperation"; that didn't look crammed with hysteria to obscure the absence of real content.
Every three months of so, we get the usual boilerplate about civilizational collapse as a result of climate change. Almost always, that report is produced by a British think-thank, research group or univerisity. Almost always, the report says nothing about the science of climate change but lunges into super-sexy conclusions about pandemics and nuclear wars. (Although this report distinguishes itself with a wacky implication that global warming and organized crime are linked!)
Another aspect of these reports is they make rather bold moral claims, such as:
"Too many greedy and deceitful decisions led to a world recession and demonstrated the international interdependence of economics and ethics."
While I know the 9/11 Truth movement would swallow a sentence like that wholesale and it would be nice if we could say the last recession was merely the work of a cabala of Bernie Madoffs --- but t'ain't so, as we say in Texas. However, over in England, they make statements like that all the time. Every climate change report includes moral condemnation of human freedoms and a prescription for centralized and regulated living.
All this to say, it would be refreshing to see, some day, a report coming out of the UK that didn't draw a direct link between a shorter ski season in the Swiss Alps to cannabalism in Mexico; that didn't leap from an emissions problem to a call for 10 year economic plans and global "cooperation"; that didn't look crammed with hysteria to obscure the absence of real content.
Labels: No I do not read The Guardian
Friday, July 10, 2009
Guest Blogger: Osama Bin Laden
Ey-yo,
Me here shouting out to all my peeps at Chuckercanuck... death to you all, you pig-loving satanists! Okay, enough with the formalities, it seems a controversy is raging across the internet because my boy wrote a nasty book about me... death to my infidel loving son! Anyway, the controversy is that I supposedly killed his puppies (as I recall, they had accidentally fetched an IED a summer terrorist training camp. My only bad was letting them off the leash. Death to all dogs who can't distinguish believer from kaffir anyway!)
So here's the controversy: are dogs the filthy animals Mohammed said they are? AFterall, your pig-dog scientists have always brainwashed you into thinking that a dog's mouth was cleaner than a human mouth. Guess what: the Prophet was right. 100% right.
And he never required the tools of western oppresion to deduce such an obvious observation. Death to western scientists and their arrogant test tubes! (Except Alfred Nobel, I owe him alot. Oh, and the guy who invented structural steel. Couldn't finance a terrorist network if it wasn't for western construction techniques and materials.)
Oops, gotta go. I hear a drone coming. Just wanted to set the record straight. Death to the internet! Death to America! Death and a fun weekend to you!
Me here shouting out to all my peeps at Chuckercanuck... death to you all, you pig-loving satanists! Okay, enough with the formalities, it seems a controversy is raging across the internet because my boy wrote a nasty book about me... death to my infidel loving son! Anyway, the controversy is that I supposedly killed his puppies (as I recall, they had accidentally fetched an IED a summer terrorist training camp. My only bad was letting them off the leash. Death to all dogs who can't distinguish believer from kaffir anyway!)
So here's the controversy: are dogs the filthy animals Mohammed said they are? AFterall, your pig-dog scientists have always brainwashed you into thinking that a dog's mouth was cleaner than a human mouth. Guess what: the Prophet was right. 100% right.
And he never required the tools of western oppresion to deduce such an obvious observation. Death to western scientists and their arrogant test tubes! (Except Alfred Nobel, I owe him alot. Oh, and the guy who invented structural steel. Couldn't finance a terrorist network if it wasn't for western construction techniques and materials.)
Oops, gotta go. I hear a drone coming. Just wanted to set the record straight. Death to the internet! Death to America! Death and a fun weekend to you!
Labels: I will never french kiss a poodle again
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Errr... what was that, President Obama?
"Recession slows climate change progress: Obama"
That's the headline and it comes from the CBC so you know its meant in the bestest of ways possible.
But wait a second, Mr. Obama, how can you say that! The US economy is shrinking by what, 1.5% - 2.0%? That's straight off our carbon emissions, my friend. Why, if you did that every year, you'd get yourself an 80% emissions reduction by 2050 with many years to spare. You'd be ahead of the curb.
But wait! It gets better. Here in export land, our forecasters tell us a 2.1% retreat in exports. That's a faster rate of contraction than the economy as a whole. Why is that important? Because exports are the most carbon-hungry part of our transportation emissions and therefore amplify the carbon contraction from a general economic downturn.
In other words, on climate change, this recession has made more progress than has ever been achieved in decades.
Oops, my mistake. Reading the article, President Obama wasn't talking about climate change - he's indifferent to that. He's talking about progress towards a climate change deal. Its the deal that counts, not the planet.
(The cynic in me can't help but smile admiringly at the President's craftiness. It almost makes be hopey-changey.)
That's the headline and it comes from the CBC so you know its meant in the bestest of ways possible.
But wait a second, Mr. Obama, how can you say that! The US economy is shrinking by what, 1.5% - 2.0%? That's straight off our carbon emissions, my friend. Why, if you did that every year, you'd get yourself an 80% emissions reduction by 2050 with many years to spare. You'd be ahead of the curb.
But wait! It gets better. Here in export land, our forecasters tell us a 2.1% retreat in exports. That's a faster rate of contraction than the economy as a whole. Why is that important? Because exports are the most carbon-hungry part of our transportation emissions and therefore amplify the carbon contraction from a general economic downturn.
In other words, on climate change, this recession has made more progress than has ever been achieved in decades.
Oops, my mistake. Reading the article, President Obama wasn't talking about climate change - he's indifferent to that. He's talking about progress towards a climate change deal. Its the deal that counts, not the planet.
(The cynic in me can't help but smile admiringly at the President's craftiness. It almost makes be hopey-changey.)
Labels: Introducing the Jeffrey Simspon column where he fawns over President Obama's climate change boldness
I'm pumped. I'm primed. I'm all fired up.
Dear Fellow Rabid Harpermaniacs:
If you are like me, you haven't been so fired up in ages. Funny thing, we are always taught that the Harper government throws us scraps to keep us happy while it betrays our larger principles. No one ever asks a Harpermaniac, like me, whether this is true or not. Nor do they ever wonder (aloud) how Liberal vulgarity plays into the mix (hint: its like rocket fuel).
I remain a Harpermaniac, fully convinced that it is in our time that we have the Canada's greatest Prime Minister. I accept, wholesale, the fundaments of Harper ideology: human beings are, as individuals, the singular source of hope and accomplishment for the human race. Human beings are not victims. Our species is not an evolutionary botch that requires a collectivist crutch to carry us from a dismal birth to a blessed death. Passion, intellect and hard work will deliver us to better times. And better times are the inevitable consequence of human beings pursuing unfettered opportunities as they see them. Canada is the place of peace, order and good government. It is a guarantor of human freedom.
But Canada, and Harpermania, have enemies. Like everyone else, I wish (sometimes) that I could drop my posture and make friends with everyone. I wish I could call them friends I disagree with (like, say, Calgary Grit who I would describe that way). But they are not my friends. And they are not good for Canada. I can't pretend otherwise; that's how I feel. So let's name them:
The Bloc Quebecois
Obviously, they are separatists. They want to dismantle Canada as we know it. They see themselves as being born into an ugly and torturous circumstance, making them seething and hateful. They wear victimhood like Hannibal Lecter wears civility: it is a mask to put their prey off guard. They are also awful for Quebeckers. Ultimately, separatists want to liberate Quebec and subjugate Quebeckers. They are counter-revolutionaries wanting to re-impose conditions pre-Quiet Revolution only they would be our priests and the local union shop would be our place of worship.
The Liberals
The new and improved anonymous asked, "how can Iggy and Dryden be in the same party?" The answer is simple: neither of them believe a word they say. It is power. It is only power. And they will wade through an everglades of filth and slime if it brings them a little closer to the limo and culture ministers confab on Sardinia. Ask yourself this: what would Liberals do if they were in government right now? The correct answer: no clue. There is no Liberal approach to government. There is no Liberal vision for Canada. There is no Liberal "state of nature". You could not cobble together a precis of Liberal ideology because one does not exist. And this means that Liberals always put Liberals ahead of any other interest when it comes to politics. Canadians will always come a distant second.
The Media
Is there anyone working in Canadian media today that hasn't intellectually retired about two dozen years ago? When they aren't redacting the private conversations of public figures, they are wondering about the Prime Minister's bathroom habits. Don't get me wrong, I am not launching a "vast left-wing conspiracy" schpiel here. I am saying that our media has moved to the Big Rock Candy Mountain where newstories grow on trees and no one ever works for nothin'. Where have you gone, Conrad Black? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you....
If you are like me, you haven't been so fired up in ages. Funny thing, we are always taught that the Harper government throws us scraps to keep us happy while it betrays our larger principles. No one ever asks a Harpermaniac, like me, whether this is true or not. Nor do they ever wonder (aloud) how Liberal vulgarity plays into the mix (hint: its like rocket fuel).
I remain a Harpermaniac, fully convinced that it is in our time that we have the Canada's greatest Prime Minister. I accept, wholesale, the fundaments of Harper ideology: human beings are, as individuals, the singular source of hope and accomplishment for the human race. Human beings are not victims. Our species is not an evolutionary botch that requires a collectivist crutch to carry us from a dismal birth to a blessed death. Passion, intellect and hard work will deliver us to better times. And better times are the inevitable consequence of human beings pursuing unfettered opportunities as they see them. Canada is the place of peace, order and good government. It is a guarantor of human freedom.
But Canada, and Harpermania, have enemies. Like everyone else, I wish (sometimes) that I could drop my posture and make friends with everyone. I wish I could call them friends I disagree with (like, say, Calgary Grit who I would describe that way). But they are not my friends. And they are not good for Canada. I can't pretend otherwise; that's how I feel. So let's name them:
The Bloc Quebecois
Obviously, they are separatists. They want to dismantle Canada as we know it. They see themselves as being born into an ugly and torturous circumstance, making them seething and hateful. They wear victimhood like Hannibal Lecter wears civility: it is a mask to put their prey off guard. They are also awful for Quebeckers. Ultimately, separatists want to liberate Quebec and subjugate Quebeckers. They are counter-revolutionaries wanting to re-impose conditions pre-Quiet Revolution only they would be our priests and the local union shop would be our place of worship.
The Liberals
The new and improved anonymous asked, "how can Iggy and Dryden be in the same party?" The answer is simple: neither of them believe a word they say. It is power. It is only power. And they will wade through an everglades of filth and slime if it brings them a little closer to the limo and culture ministers confab on Sardinia. Ask yourself this: what would Liberals do if they were in government right now? The correct answer: no clue. There is no Liberal approach to government. There is no Liberal vision for Canada. There is no Liberal "state of nature". You could not cobble together a precis of Liberal ideology because one does not exist. And this means that Liberals always put Liberals ahead of any other interest when it comes to politics. Canadians will always come a distant second.
The Media
Is there anyone working in Canadian media today that hasn't intellectually retired about two dozen years ago? When they aren't redacting the private conversations of public figures, they are wondering about the Prime Minister's bathroom habits. Don't get me wrong, I am not launching a "vast left-wing conspiracy" schpiel here. I am saying that our media has moved to the Big Rock Candy Mountain where newstories grow on trees and no one ever works for nothin'. Where have you gone, Conrad Black? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you....
Labels: That's right I don't think the NDP is our enemy even though we are complete opposites
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Two Stories, The Sacred and The Profane
The Michael Ignatieff Story
Iggy stops off in London to give a speech to an international convention of opposition leaders on his way to a vacation in Provence. In his speech, he didn't say anything positive or substantive about his politics, rather he spent his time bashing Canada's Prime Minister for being divisive.
At the same time, Iggy's war room is pumping out trash designed to stoke enmity between Roman Catholics and the Conservative party. And in so doing, profanely abused a Roman Catholic funeral mass.
The Stephen Harper Story
Here's a fun fantasy, Paul Martin, defeated, shuffles off to a job at the IMF where he's forced to issue glowing reports about Stephen Harper's economic stewardship. Hand that story to Puccini and you'd have a three-and-a-half hour opera and a couple of classic arias.
Now, yesterday, the Prime Minister flew to Italy for a G8 summit to advance Canada's business. Reports like this are good for Canada's business and we have exactly the right Prime Minister to put that case to the world while at least part of the world is watching. Afterwards, the Prime Minister has an audience with the Pope.
Like Warren Kinsella suggests, you wonder what the Pope would have to say to the Prime Minister when he learns (which he will) that a Roman Catholic funeral mass was profaned in order to smear Canada's head of government. My guess is the conversation won't go Monsignor Brian Henneberry's way.
Iggy stops off in London to give a speech to an international convention of opposition leaders on his way to a vacation in Provence. In his speech, he didn't say anything positive or substantive about his politics, rather he spent his time bashing Canada's Prime Minister for being divisive.
At the same time, Iggy's war room is pumping out trash designed to stoke enmity between Roman Catholics and the Conservative party. And in so doing, profanely abused a Roman Catholic funeral mass.
The Stephen Harper Story
Here's a fun fantasy, Paul Martin, defeated, shuffles off to a job at the IMF where he's forced to issue glowing reports about Stephen Harper's economic stewardship. Hand that story to Puccini and you'd have a three-and-a-half hour opera and a couple of classic arias.
Now, yesterday, the Prime Minister flew to Italy for a G8 summit to advance Canada's business. Reports like this are good for Canada's business and we have exactly the right Prime Minister to put that case to the world while at least part of the world is watching. Afterwards, the Prime Minister has an audience with the Pope.
Like Warren Kinsella suggests, you wonder what the Pope would have to say to the Prime Minister when he learns (which he will) that a Roman Catholic funeral mass was profaned in order to smear Canada's head of government. My guess is the conversation won't go Monsignor Brian Henneberry's way.
Labels: Guess Which is Which
How to score at a funeral
You know that funeral for Romeo Leblanc? Turns out, it wasn't so much a funeral as a sting operation run by the Liberal war room. Now that's class.
Here's a game we can play:
Who reviewed the footage, not for the solemn memory, but for the political points Liberals could score?
My guess: Stephen Maher.
Somewhere in Liberal headquarters, people are hoping Jean Chretien will eat salmonella-laced pistachios just for the opportunity of slamming the Prime Minister. Its probably on the whiteboard in their strategy conference room, right next to, "keep Michael Ignatieff quiet for the next 6 months" and "go tell off gay people for not towing the party line".
Here's a game we can play:
Who reviewed the footage, not for the solemn memory, but for the political points Liberals could score?
My guess: Stephen Maher.
Somewhere in Liberal headquarters, people are hoping Jean Chretien will eat salmonella-laced pistachios just for the opportunity of slamming the Prime Minister. Its probably on the whiteboard in their strategy conference room, right next to, "keep Michael Ignatieff quiet for the next 6 months" and "go tell off gay people for not towing the party line".
Labels: And now a tidal wave of suddenly pious Liberals
My Favorite Ignatieff Quote Ever
Poor dippers, even when the Liberals install the most right-wing, militaristic leader they have ever had in their storied history, he can sap away Dipper support. Its drives some batty but some to bat: the gooseberry tea drinking pagans of the NDP are up to some fun with Michael Ignatieff quotes. You know, all those deep thoughts that can never be understood in isolation rather require a PhD in Sophonomics to appreciate fully.
From their list of gems, comes the third funniest Ignatieff line ever.
(Author's Note: the second funniest line is: "mess with me and I'll mess with you until I am done" and "charges that I'm a dilettante juuuuuuusssttt woooonnnn't fly" wins first place.)
Its February, 1991 and Michael Ignatieff says with a humility reserved for Greek Gods (and not just lesser Gods, but one of the Big Three - Zeus, Poseidon, Hades):
"Someone like me does not exist in America and that seems to me to be terrible."
Terrible for who? America? Yes, Michael! Yes! I often feel the same way. When I watch Cold Play do a mindless anthem at the grammy's I think, "someone like me does not exist at the grammy's and that seems to me to be terrible!" When I watch SNL reach for a tired, overdone skit, I think, "someone like me does not exist at SNL and that seems - again, to me - terrible!" When I see Selma Hayek's yacht moored at Newburyport, MA as I did last week, I think, "someone like me does not exist in Selma Hayek's personal life and that seems to me to be terrible!"
But he's right, in that 300 million strong nation to our south, there is no one like Michael Ignatieff. He is a unique proposition. In fact, I believe Michael Ignatieff's charming modesty led him to understate his uniqueness considerably. The more correct statement should be:
"Since the resurrection of our lord, Jesus Christ, someone like Michael Ignatieff has not existed in America or anywhere else for millenia and that seems, to the world, to be terrible."
From their list of gems, comes the third funniest Ignatieff line ever.
(Author's Note: the second funniest line is: "mess with me and I'll mess with you until I am done" and "charges that I'm a dilettante juuuuuuusssttt woooonnnn't fly" wins first place.)
Its February, 1991 and Michael Ignatieff says with a humility reserved for Greek Gods (and not just lesser Gods, but one of the Big Three - Zeus, Poseidon, Hades):
"Someone like me does not exist in America and that seems to me to be terrible."
Terrible for who? America? Yes, Michael! Yes! I often feel the same way. When I watch Cold Play do a mindless anthem at the grammy's I think, "someone like me does not exist at the grammy's and that seems to me to be terrible!" When I watch SNL reach for a tired, overdone skit, I think, "someone like me does not exist at SNL and that seems - again, to me - terrible!" When I see Selma Hayek's yacht moored at Newburyport, MA as I did last week, I think, "someone like me does not exist in Selma Hayek's personal life and that seems to me to be terrible!"
But he's right, in that 300 million strong nation to our south, there is no one like Michael Ignatieff. He is a unique proposition. In fact, I believe Michael Ignatieff's charming modesty led him to understate his uniqueness considerably. The more correct statement should be:
"Since the resurrection of our lord, Jesus Christ, someone like Michael Ignatieff has not existed in America or anywhere else for millenia and that seems, to the world, to be terrible."
Labels: At that time Bob Rae was premier of Ontario by way of fun historical cross reference
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Liberal Homophobia
Warren Kinsella says some startling things today. Here's his post.
He starts off within the bounds:
"I was sort of wondering how you can be gay and a Conservative supporter at the same time." Afterall, he's allowed to wonder. If the Conservative party in any way denied gay people their human and Canadian rights, it would seems fair to wonder about being both.
Then he says:
"It's your life and all that, but I was just wondering how you sleep at night."
Yes, yes. I believe Mr. Kinsella has good intentions about Canada. He's a Canadian, among Canadians, of which to be proud. But how can he suggest there is a moral dimension, negative at that, to being a Conservative and gay Canadian? Underlying the moral judgement Mr. Kinsella makes is a picture of how a gay person ought to think.
Even in the age of diversity, Mr. Kinsella's gays are not capable of more than a single reaction to a given news story. The only permissible deviation (diversity) from Mr. Kinsella's reaction to a given news story is a moral sin. So, in some ways, deviancy is immoral when it comes to sexual orientation! At least to a Liberal it is.
If you are gay and Liberal, I have to wonder how you can support this Liberal party. A party that expects - nay, allows - you to show up to party policy conventions espousing a single, gay opinion. A party that would condemn you as morally deficient for espousing anything but what they accept as that single gay opinion.
I mean, okay, its your life and all. But if you are gay and Liberal, how can you sleep at night? Oops!! That's just too easy....
He starts off within the bounds:
"I was sort of wondering how you can be gay and a Conservative supporter at the same time." Afterall, he's allowed to wonder. If the Conservative party in any way denied gay people their human and Canadian rights, it would seems fair to wonder about being both.
Then he says:
"It's your life and all that, but I was just wondering how you sleep at night."
Yes, yes. I believe Mr. Kinsella has good intentions about Canada. He's a Canadian, among Canadians, of which to be proud. But how can he suggest there is a moral dimension, negative at that, to being a Conservative and gay Canadian? Underlying the moral judgement Mr. Kinsella makes is a picture of how a gay person ought to think.
Even in the age of diversity, Mr. Kinsella's gays are not capable of more than a single reaction to a given news story. The only permissible deviation (diversity) from Mr. Kinsella's reaction to a given news story is a moral sin. So, in some ways, deviancy is immoral when it comes to sexual orientation! At least to a Liberal it is.
If you are gay and Liberal, I have to wonder how you can support this Liberal party. A party that expects - nay, allows - you to show up to party policy conventions espousing a single, gay opinion. A party that would condemn you as morally deficient for espousing anything but what they accept as that single gay opinion.
I mean, okay, its your life and all. But if you are gay and Liberal, how can you sleep at night? Oops!! That's just too easy....
Labels: ...maybe that's why some grits go for that kind of thinking
Floor Meet Ceiling, Ceiling Meet Floor
Last night, a speed-dating event was organized at the local Starbucks. The most interesting round came when the Liberal ceiling met up with the Tory floor. I provide the transcript of the conversation for your edification.
Liberal Ceiling: Hi, call me Ceilia.
Tory Floor: My father loved that Johnny Cash song, so he named me Florence. But trust me, I'm all man.
Ceilia: I was reading your bio before you came.
Florence: I did the same.
Ceilia: We have so much -
Florence: In common.
Ceilia: On paper, we're pretty much identical. Your like what, 32%?
Florence: Yeah. So are you, right?
Ceilia: Uh-huh.
Florence: But that's not a steady thing, I have to admit.
Ceilia: Same here. Most of the time, I sink below 30%.
Florence: And I've been as high as 48% but normally sit somewhere between 36 - 40%.
Ceilia: Its been a terrific honeymoon for me lately. Without my bio, people think I'm a lot sexier than I am.
Florence: I can be rough around the edges, which hurts me more than anyone else. But I'm pretty solid, shrewd and reliable. Even people who don't like me, like me. You know what I mean?
Ceilia: That's funny! I'm the opposite! Even people who like me don't really like me. They only hope they'll like me. But in the end -
Florence: You always disappoint them.
Ceilia: Uh-huh and I drop back to the high 20s.
Florence: I don't think this'll work out between us.
Ceilia: I don't either. Tell you the truth, I'm waiting for two guys, Jack and Gilles. I know this will sound a little liberal to a stand up guy like you, but I heard they want - how do you pronounce it - a menage a trois.
Florence: You're right, that's disgusting. Good night.
Ceilia: Two ships passing in the night. Adieu.
Liberal Ceiling: Hi, call me Ceilia.
Tory Floor: My father loved that Johnny Cash song, so he named me Florence. But trust me, I'm all man.
Ceilia: I was reading your bio before you came.
Florence: I did the same.
Ceilia: We have so much -
Florence: In common.
Ceilia: On paper, we're pretty much identical. Your like what, 32%?
Florence: Yeah. So are you, right?
Ceilia: Uh-huh.
Florence: But that's not a steady thing, I have to admit.
Ceilia: Same here. Most of the time, I sink below 30%.
Florence: And I've been as high as 48% but normally sit somewhere between 36 - 40%.
Ceilia: Its been a terrific honeymoon for me lately. Without my bio, people think I'm a lot sexier than I am.
Florence: I can be rough around the edges, which hurts me more than anyone else. But I'm pretty solid, shrewd and reliable. Even people who don't like me, like me. You know what I mean?
Ceilia: That's funny! I'm the opposite! Even people who like me don't really like me. They only hope they'll like me. But in the end -
Florence: You always disappoint them.
Ceilia: Uh-huh and I drop back to the high 20s.
Florence: I don't think this'll work out between us.
Ceilia: I don't either. Tell you the truth, I'm waiting for two guys, Jack and Gilles. I know this will sound a little liberal to a stand up guy like you, but I heard they want - how do you pronounce it - a menage a trois.
Florence: You're right, that's disgusting. Good night.
Ceilia: Two ships passing in the night. Adieu.
Labels: Good luck drumming up support in Europe Iggy
Monday, July 06, 2009
For climate change modelling purposes, we assumed the sun's output to be constant
Springer and Joanne have done terrific work on the climate change file.
It is a funny thing to hear a lefty openly deride creationists and question their fitness for higher office while they idolotrize climate change models. It is digital voodoo attempting to turn us into carbon footprint zombies enjoying our tiny houses and 12-volt cars so that Al Gore can jet across the planet telling us how good we're doing.
My own position, if you'll recall, was laid out in the cautionary tale, A Canadian Christmas Carol. Here are chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I think it does the job for me quite well.
It is a funny thing to hear a lefty openly deride creationists and question their fitness for higher office while they idolotrize climate change models. It is digital voodoo attempting to turn us into carbon footprint zombies enjoying our tiny houses and 12-volt cars so that Al Gore can jet across the planet telling us how good we're doing.
My own position, if you'll recall, was laid out in the cautionary tale, A Canadian Christmas Carol. Here are chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I think it does the job for me quite well.
Labels: Actually we removed the sun altogether
Message to Sheila: Sarah Palin is a woman too
Here's the headline to Sheila Copps blustery column on women in politics:
"Female politicians, journalists still risk being marginalized in a man's world"
The former deputy prime minister name-drops a ton of women from both Canada and the United States in making her passionate case for more women in politics. Curiously, one woman wasn't mentioned. Even more curiously, during the week that she is, by grand canyons, the top story about a female politician in the United States.
Sheila Copps wrote a column this week about women in politics and forgot about Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Its the kind of omission that poisons her plea at its root. Like a good lefty, the cause is female empowerment but the ends are certain female empowerment. If you are a woman but don't stand in lock-step with Sheila Copps and her army of feel-gooders than you are worse than a hairy-backed kncukle-dragger. You are Bernedette Arnold.
Just weeks ago, David Lettermen clarified that while he told a joke about a 14 year old girl having sex with an older man, he really meant to be joking about an 18 year old having sex with an older man. What made the jokes so hilarious and acceptable was that these girls mom was Sarah Palin.
But Sheila Copps missed that as she typed up her heartfelt wishes for female politicians. If you don't want more right-wing women then you don't want more women in politics. Sarah Palin's omission says everything about Sheila Copps and her phony liberal bleeting.
"Female politicians, journalists still risk being marginalized in a man's world"
The former deputy prime minister name-drops a ton of women from both Canada and the United States in making her passionate case for more women in politics. Curiously, one woman wasn't mentioned. Even more curiously, during the week that she is, by grand canyons, the top story about a female politician in the United States.
Sheila Copps wrote a column this week about women in politics and forgot about Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Its the kind of omission that poisons her plea at its root. Like a good lefty, the cause is female empowerment but the ends are certain female empowerment. If you are a woman but don't stand in lock-step with Sheila Copps and her army of feel-gooders than you are worse than a hairy-backed kncukle-dragger. You are Bernedette Arnold.
Just weeks ago, David Lettermen clarified that while he told a joke about a 14 year old girl having sex with an older man, he really meant to be joking about an 18 year old having sex with an older man. What made the jokes so hilarious and acceptable was that these girls mom was Sarah Palin.
But Sheila Copps missed that as she typed up her heartfelt wishes for female politicians. If you don't want more right-wing women then you don't want more women in politics. Sarah Palin's omission says everything about Sheila Copps and her phony liberal bleeting.
Labels: Phony baloneys are going to call me sexist for this
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Final Words on the terrific Tory Ad about Bloc MPs
Bloc MPs voted against a bill to impose minimum sentences on pedopheliacs. The consequences - however unintentional (read: indifferent) - of the thinking that leads to a vote like that are ugly. And shameful. They deserve to be called out for it.
They throw up two reasons for voting down the bill.
1. It is an ineffective bill because it won't "deter" the crime.
This is a foolish line of reasoning, perhaps offered like snake-oil to fool us rubes. When they say "deter" you think "people deterred from commiting a crime because they are afraid of the penalties". Then you think, "well, of course that won't work."
The practical consequences of minimum sentences are simple and clear to understand. 80% of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are people who commit crimes regularly over an active criminal life. The more of that active criminal life the criminal spends in prison, the fewer crimes that criminal will commit. End of story.
So why throw up the fake argument of "deterrence"?
2. Judges are experts and we shouldn't meddle with their business.
If the Bloc Quebecois believed this, they would do - at least - two things:
A - They would argue away maximum sentences because we shouldn't circumscribe their sentencing authority in any direction.
B - They would push for a 1 member supreme (Canada) / superior (Quebec) court. The idea of multi-panel courts is an assault and insult to the "technical expertise" of judges and needlessly costs us bags of money. If judges are not susceptible to stark differences in judgements, owing to their uniform technical training and legal deduction, having multiple judges adjudicate any given case is wasteful and sends the opposite message.
They do neither. Why? Who knows! The complicated answer is a mouthful of nuances and qualifications that render the Bloc's entire legal thinking into a rococo ramshackle. The simple answer is they don't actually believe that principle.
When you see Bloc sympathizers flipping out, you know you've struck a nerve. Truth hurts, mes amis.
They throw up two reasons for voting down the bill.
1. It is an ineffective bill because it won't "deter" the crime.
This is a foolish line of reasoning, perhaps offered like snake-oil to fool us rubes. When they say "deter" you think "people deterred from commiting a crime because they are afraid of the penalties". Then you think, "well, of course that won't work."
The practical consequences of minimum sentences are simple and clear to understand. 80% of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are people who commit crimes regularly over an active criminal life. The more of that active criminal life the criminal spends in prison, the fewer crimes that criminal will commit. End of story.
So why throw up the fake argument of "deterrence"?
2. Judges are experts and we shouldn't meddle with their business.
If the Bloc Quebecois believed this, they would do - at least - two things:
A - They would argue away maximum sentences because we shouldn't circumscribe their sentencing authority in any direction.
B - They would push for a 1 member supreme (Canada) / superior (Quebec) court. The idea of multi-panel courts is an assault and insult to the "technical expertise" of judges and needlessly costs us bags of money. If judges are not susceptible to stark differences in judgements, owing to their uniform technical training and legal deduction, having multiple judges adjudicate any given case is wasteful and sends the opposite message.
They do neither. Why? Who knows! The complicated answer is a mouthful of nuances and qualifications that render the Bloc's entire legal thinking into a rococo ramshackle. The simple answer is they don't actually believe that principle.
When you see Bloc sympathizers flipping out, you know you've struck a nerve. Truth hurts, mes amis.
Labels: Back in the saddle after a soggy vacation
Friday, July 03, 2009
I interrupt this vacation to cheer on the Tories
Wicked awesome is what I would call this ad.
On balance, the Bloc Quebecois are indifferent to child rape unless that rape happens in adult prisons. Remember: they vote against any attempt to strengthen the punishments for pedophiles because they believe a judge should have absolute discretion over sentencing. So by clinging to a bizarre lust for technocracy, the Bloc ends up backing morally perverse positions.
The ad echoes my post a few months back: "Child Rape in an Independent Quebec" (look it up yourself, I'm on vacation!). Basically, the only place where separatists and the Bloc Quebecois want to protect children from child rape is prison. Otherwise, have at her creepos! Just have your list of mitigating circumstances ready to explain away your crime to the judge. (I don't care that your dad made your rehearse your dance routine at age 10, but land the right judge and he might.)
Post ScriptIn the Raitt tapes, the Minister commented that MP Joy Smith was brave to table the private members bill that ultimately revealed the Bloc's "laissez-faire" attitude towards child sex crimes. Raitt worried that the PM would be upset with anyone who put non-economic issues on the table. I would say Joy Smith deserves Canada and Quebec's thanks for exposing the rotten core of the Bloc's moral philosophy.
On balance, the Bloc Quebecois are indifferent to child rape unless that rape happens in adult prisons. Remember: they vote against any attempt to strengthen the punishments for pedophiles because they believe a judge should have absolute discretion over sentencing. So by clinging to a bizarre lust for technocracy, the Bloc ends up backing morally perverse positions.
The ad echoes my post a few months back: "Child Rape in an Independent Quebec" (look it up yourself, I'm on vacation!). Basically, the only place where separatists and the Bloc Quebecois want to protect children from child rape is prison. Otherwise, have at her creepos! Just have your list of mitigating circumstances ready to explain away your crime to the judge. (I don't care that your dad made your rehearse your dance routine at age 10, but land the right judge and he might.)
Post ScriptIn the Raitt tapes, the Minister commented that MP Joy Smith was brave to table the private members bill that ultimately revealed the Bloc's "laissez-faire" attitude towards child sex crimes. Raitt worried that the PM would be upset with anyone who put non-economic issues on the table. I would say Joy Smith deserves Canada and Quebec's thanks for exposing the rotten core of the Bloc's moral philosophy.
Labels: How hard does the Man-Boy Love Association Lobby the Bloc Quebecois
