Random Noise

'The Want of Power Corrupts' OR 'Just Making a Random Appearance to Say I Told You So'

2011-11-28T09:35:00.006-05:00

I'm not going to stay very long. Nor am I going to at all dwell on the fact I haven't blogged in years or explain why. Not that anyone is asking. Or cares. I know I don't.

However, I read this from Mr. Kinsella today and realized that the point he's making is something I predicted a long time ago.

The wanting power for an extended period of time seems to corrupt those that finally do achieve it. Instead of remembering why they wanted to be on top in the first place, all they now know is that they wanted power. And this want seems to cloud and guide their every decision.

Thank you. And. I told you so... I wonder what I'll say in another two years?

Is This What 'Good Government' Looks Like to Conservative Supporters?

2009-12-30T12:10:00.001-05:00

The talk of the day seems to be the renewed rumours about Harper and Co. proroguing parliament until March 3rd. Proroguing is something the Cons dismissed earlier this month after rumours arose once before. If anything, the Cons probably only delayed taking this action because the public were still somewhat paying attention and there was some considerable negative reaction. Doing it now, if true, is to take advantage of the holiday time and the fact opposition MPs aren't in Ottawa to swiftly react.

It'll be interesting to see what the excuse is this time. My guess is they will use the Olympics as their shield to deflect criticism. Something about presence at the games and patriotism will likely be spewed out of their mouths. But considering their dishonourable and disgusting use of our troops as a deflection of criticisms, I have little doubt their excuses are hollow. If the Cons were a government that cared one iota about this country and the people they would continue to do what they were elected to and be in parliament, along with the opposition parties, doing their jobs.

Last year when Harper asked for parliament to be prorogued, there was the slightest space for justification. We just had an election and the opposition parties were threatening a coalition, which they hadn't at all campaigned on. While I didn't think it was reason enough to prorogue considering there is nothing unconstitutional about the action, I understand the issue. This time however, there's no threat of a coalition or the country falling apart or some other constitutional crisis arising. The only crises are ones the Conservatives have created for themselves.

The Cons have treated parliament with utter contempt. They act as though being kept in check by the opposition and other parliamentary measures, that are there for a reason, are a nuisance and something to ignore or attempt to alter to suit their agenda. Whether it's the Cons obfuscating, interfering with or personally attacking people such as PBO Kevin Page and Richard Colvin, disrupting or refusing to take part in special House committees, this is a government that doesn't feel as though they should be accountable or responsible or democratic. Their actions and words clearly speak to that.

And so, here we are. For the second time in a year Harper is apparently going to ask to prorogue parliament. All bills will be lost, all committees will be shutdown and the work of the government will be halted because they all supposedly want to watch the Olympic games. Without giving some pure garbage response such as the Olympics or political witch hunt crap, I'd like to know what the supporters of the Conservatives think of this? Really, what real reason is there for Harper to shutdown parliament? How do you feel about your party, the Conservatives, shirking their responsibilities and all the previous work done in parliament without justification?

h/t: BigCityLib, Scott, and Impolitical.

In Search of Harmony (the HST-Simply Put Edition)

2009-11-18T22:59:00.000-05:00

So Ontario has set course towards adopting the HST. While the HST itself seems to be this ominous change in the province's tax system that will screw over everyone by increasing prices across the board and force Ontarians into the poor house. At least, that is the portrayal that a couple media places would have you believe, such as Global. The truth is that we don't know what's going to happen. The theory behind this plan says the opposite but then again, theory doesn't always work out the way we expect.

The problem with their reporting on the issue is that the HST is one part, albeit a large part, of a bigger plan. However, talking about the entire plan and explaining the details doesn't make for nicely packaged sound bites. And apparently neither does explaining that this whole thing is a partnership with our federal government.

I had the opportunity to hear an MPP explain other parts of the plan as plain as possible. I will attempt to do the same here. First, let me say that I'm still taking a wait-and-see approach towards this entire plan (not that I have a choice since it's going ahead whether I agree with it or not). It can be explained simply without big numbers and jargon only a chartered accountant would understand but even then it's still long-winded.

One of the most common arguments being thrown out in favour of the HST plan is that corporations will save time and money by only having to do one set of taxes. That is true, but the real value doesn't exist there. The real savings for businesses is that much of the taxes that are paid through the supply chain will be neutralized.

What do I mean by 'neutralized'?

Let's consider a simple supply chain:

raw materials --> manufacturer --> wholesaler --> retailer

Currently, there is a tax paid between each sale. So when the manufacturer purchases the raw materials they pay tax on that purchase. When the wholesaler purchases the goods from the manufacturer they pay tax on that transaction. And so on. This tax often ranges somewhere 2% and 5%. And since each player wants to recoup the tax they pass this cost along to the next person by embedding it into the cost of the item. Using the above chain and 2% tax at each step, by the time the item gets into the hands of the consumer, 6% of the item's price is embedded tax passed upward along the chain by each player.

Given that the above supply chain is over-simplified the reality is by the time the consumer purchases an item and pays GST and PST, generally anywhere between 21% and 38% of the final cost is made up tax. Whether this is sales tax or tax already paid and being recouped by those in the chain, any given commodity is much higher than its true retail value.

In part, by moving to the HST, along with other changes, these embedded taxes should disappear. This is due to the HST being considered a value-added tax and therefore businesses along the supply chain not being subject to it or them being able to claim those costs back in taxes. So where we currently see about 21% to 38% of an item being tax, this will be scaled back to just %13 - the HST being paid by consumers. The theory behind this is that since businesses will no longer be paying those taxes, they will pass the savings along with their products effectively lowering the price of consumer goods.

This is where skepticism prevails as many just don't believe the savings will reach consumers. While it may take some time for those savings to be seen, there is much optimism within the Ontario Liberals that it will come. This optimism comes from that fact that there is serious competition for consumers' money in Ontario. Companies such as Wal-Mart, Zellers, Loblaws, and Canadian Tire are currently in a huge fight to bring costs and prices as low as possible to attract more customers. Once one of these companies take advantage of being able to advertise even lower prices, they will all follow suit. And once the discount retailers go, eventually the mid-level retailers will too. And so on. That's the theory, anyway. Considering the fight between Wal-Mart, Zellers and Loblaws especially, it's highly plausible it will work out.

Now services are another thing. And as far as I can tell, there is some nervousness amongst the Ontario Liberals over whether or not savings will be passed here. Since most service providers are less obvious about how they are affected by the supply chain, any savings they experience can be much easier pocketed. Even though their businesses taxes will be lower, the items they purchase will be cheaper, they don't have to do anything. Even though the theory is that any savings they experience will be passed along to customers to offset the newly applied 8% HST increase, they likely won't because there is much less pressure to do so. Instead customers just pay the extra 8% and claim they're paying more for the service due to taxes.

However, that is what the tax rebate and credits are for. Each of us will be getting $620 tax credit on our income and those that make under $80000/year will get a rebate for up to $1000. Between these two measures, any cost increase we see when paying for a service should be more than offset. In fact, unless we're spending more $12500 on services in a given year, we'll actually come out ahead. Or so goes the thinking on the part of the Liberals.

The biggest justification for the HST plan is that it brings our tax system in line with most European nations that are looking to Canada for trade and growth. Apparently our current tax structure is seen as a deterrent, either due to its complexity or the costs that are placed on businesses, goods and therefore consumers. By going to the simplified HST program along with the elimination of embedded taxes it makes Ontario a much more attractive place to invest which will in turn create jobs, competition, etc.

Long explanation but simply put. Even in simple terms - an explanation without big numbers, accountant-speak, etc. - it takes some time to talk about. The talk I heard took an easy 45 minutes and there was still more to discuss. Even here, I haven't touched upon everything. That makes it hard for the media to discuss as well. And even though I'm taking a cautious approach to judgment on this, I still find media like Global frustrating when they premise every HST news clip with 'the price on everything is going to increase' or 'prepare to pay more tax' when the reality has yet to play out.

Isn't it Enough that the Registry is Useful to Police, Crowns?

2009-11-05T09:05:00.000-05:00

Recalling how police use the gun registry, and how very, very often - John Geddes

Over at Macleans, John Geddes has put some perspective on the gun registry or CFRO. He points out that police used the CFRO over 9400 times per day last year, that police forces do find it useful and that it costs roughly $3 million per year to maintain. While it may not be the number one crime fighting tool to use, it is still another tool for police to take advantage of. He then asks, is that not enough for maintaining it?

When I showed Geddes' write up to a close acquaintance, who is an assistant crown attorney, they confirmed that the CFRO is used within the courts regularly as well. They said that before considering to grant bail to someone, such as an accused in a domestic assault, the CFRO is checked by the police. If the accused happens to have a registered gun in the house, then part of their bail conditions could require them to turn it in to the authorities. The crown may also ask to have an accused's surety checked through the CFRO to make sure the crown isn't turning a domestic assault accused over to someone else with a readily available weapon.

Why is this relevant? Because not all (many in fact) accused in domestic assault cases don't have prior records. Their actions are based on some sudden change in their situation or relationship. The argument that 'criminals don't register their guns' doesn't necessarily apply. Many law-abiding citizens, and possibly gun owners, who presumably would register, may have a sudden breakdown. Knowing if they have weapons readily available would be useful information for both the police and the crown when making decisions regarding such a person.

Depending on the scenario, the police do not necessarily have to enter into every scenario or deal with every accused with the full might of the police force. That's impractical, wasteful and unrealistic. But to have the knowledge that a gun is present can change the outlook and the planning of the police involved.

Do I think the gun registry is useful? Well if Canada's largest police forces, such as Toronto, Montreal and the RCMP are saying it's useful, then who am I to argue with them. And then throw in others from within the justice system such as crown attorneys, who also can find the information useful, then I'm left without any doubt.

That doesn't mean the system is perfect and that there isn't room for improvement or change. There surely must be a compromise that would make 'hunters and farmers' feel less like criminals - though I've always wondered how registering their guns did that - and still allow those who use such information for safety and preparedness to do so effectively and fully. Scrapping the system seems to be counterproductive and someone needs to step up and use their intelligence going forward in finding a solution.

What others are saying:
Soft on Crime - View From the Left
The Long Gun Registry & Violence Against Women - Devin Johnston
Gun Registry Gone: Good Lesson in Lack of political Imagination - Relentlessly Progressive Political Economy
About Representing Those Constituents - Peterborough Politics
Conservative "law and order" bizarro world - Impolitical
Gun Registry or Coffee Maker Registry? - Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy
Adult conversation on the gun registry? - BCer in TO
A note on the gun registry - Dawg's Blawg

You Can't Control Every Aspect; Plan Accordingly

2009-11-02T19:38:00.005-05:00

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq has blamed GlaxoSmithKline, the provinces and the public for the current issues surrounding the H1N1 roll out. Reality is, she doesn't have anyone to blame but herself and those involved in developing the plan.

We know that this plan has been in the works for months. Even as early as April Aglukkaq has been claiming the plan will be comprehensive and be as effective as possible in protecting Canadians. In August she restated this by claiming everything was ready and they were fully prepared for the virus. Presently, we know this not to be the case.

So what's wrong with the plan? It was based on assumptions, some based in reality though. But it didn't seem to consider common sense.

With traditional high risk groups, very young and elderly with underlying conditions, no one in the larger perspective bats an eye when a death occurs. However, it's well known that H1N1 targets groups that are not traditionally associated with the high risk and the flu. Groups such as healthy youth, young adults and pregnant women are vulnerable this time. Common sense would then tell us that if someone in one these groups were to die from the virus people are going to notice.

Common sense also would have told them that it was likely someone in the non-traditional groups would die. As it happens, several have died. And people noticed.

This is where we are at. While planning seemed to be based around polling, expected number of illnesses, production capacities etc., it didn't seem to plan for specific scenarios. This includes one that common sense should have alerted them to.

It doesn't matter how much (or in this case how little) you attempt to inform the public about giving certain groups will receive the first vaccine shots. And it especially doesn't matter that some polls said that as few as 30% of Canadians were even considering getting the vaccine. When someone like a 13-year old boy passes away even prior to the big roll out, people are going to panic and ignore whatever you told them. These people are going to flood clinics, worried that their child or themselves may be the next victim.

This whole issue also brings into question the judgment of Aglukkaq and et al to go with a single provider of the vaccine. It also brings into question their judgment to allow GSK to stop producing the adjuvanted vaccine for the non-adjuvanted version or to not have the non-adjuvanted version be produced elsewhere. Common sense would have would have should have told them otherwise, on all accounts.

If this government had only used their heads rather than seemingly relying solely on technocratic processes. Technocrats tend to live in a bubble, common sense exists and is grounded in reality. The H1N1 virus also operates in the real world and therefore the response needed to as well.

Liberals and NDP Tag Team - A Reboot of Canadian Politics and Government

2009-11-02T09:33:00.002-05:00

Liberals and New Democrats together could unseat Harper - thestar.com

Not everyone is going to like this idea. There will be some in both the Liberals and NDP camps that will balk almost instantly at the notion. Conservatives most of all will sneer at it, mock it and say some outlandish things about it. Deep down inside, they'll likely fear it.

Political scientist, Michael Byers, isn't calling for a coalition but calls it a 'ceasefire'. This would mean the two parties will continue to be opponents during the election, offering their own platforms and they'll have no post-election power-sharing agreement. However, the parties, only once, will not run candidates against each other. The party that showed the most weakness in each riding will drop that candidate in favour of the other.

The rest of Byers' piece in the Toronto Star looks at the election reform issue, using this ceasefire as a way to draw attention to the issue.

I actually like the idea. I don't necessarily like it because it could potentially return the Liberals to power and defeat the Conservatives but that it may reboot Canadian politics in general.

Politics in Canada is riding a downward spiral into disrespect and disrepair. It's less about ideas then it is character assassination. It's less about governing for the people then it is about preservation of power. And due to its current condition the public is tuning out in droves.

I'm not going to lay the blame solely on the Conservatives for this situation. While I'm fond of Chretien's Liberal government they weren't saints by any mean as they didn't necessarily follow through on every promise or they promised too much. And Martin went the road of personality over substance. Both of these examples have been used and taken to the extreme by Harper who has also gone on to include much more brinkmanship, partisanship and cronyism. The proof of where all of this has led us is in the dwindling turnout of voters.

To reboot the system, beginning with an apparent gentleman's agreement, might reignite the interest and faith of the public in their government. It could be the return of optimism that your vote does matter and therefore honesty getting rewarded. This ceasefire would also likely put ideas, real ideas and policies, back in the spotlight rather than having debates about personalities or watching massive negative campaigns forced upon us.

All three major parties would have to focus on these aspects because the dynamics would change significantly. Mainly, they would need to truly earn a vote from the people. Many supporters will be skeptical (especially Grit and Dipper supporters) about voting for one another. Both of those parties will have to give people a reason to support them rather then jumping to the Greens, Conservatives or just staying home. The Conservatives in turn will need to give skeptical Liberals a reason to support them as well, as there will be an opportunity for right-of-centre Grits to seriously feel wary about this arrangement. Ideas, integrity, true leadership (not the drivel espoused by the likes of Martin and Harper) and honesty will be have to be at the forefront, both during and after the election.

The dynamics also change in the sense that, in theory, this could expose how real democracy should be played out in this country. What I mean is that voters actually choose winners and the ending seat allocation on the Hill reflects the will of the people and could raise the question of election reform in a serious way. This is something that Byers seems to imply and is seemingly part of his m.o. for writing this piece. Democratic reform puts a lot at stake for all parties in Canada. Liberals, Bloc, and Conservatives, traditionally, have wanted to avoid it, while NDP and Greens would ultimately benefit. Again, whatever the outcome someone would have to prove it's unnecessary or they will show that it's required.

Too long have Canadians dealt with rhetoric, deception, shell games, brinkmanship and never-ending election periods. It's time to refocus on governing, ideas and making this country as strong as possible for all Canadians. A reboot of politics and government is exactly what Canada needs.

When the Ship is Sinking is it Best to Put Hope in Dead Weight?

2009-10-30T12:09:00.002-04:00

The National Post is this close to closing up shop. I'm amazed it's made it this far. As a business, the National Post is a failure. It has yet to turn a profit and losses are in the tens of millions each year on average. With some years way beyond that number.

The current owner, Canwest, is itself losing cash while being smothered by $4 billion of debt. Recently Canwest has sought bankruptcy protection as it tries to reorganize the company and attempt to crawl out from underneath the thumbs of its creditors.

So why does a bankrupt company try so desperately to hang on to a fledgling money-losing newspaper? I can only assume, it's a strategy for promotion and information control. Much like companies such as Rogers, which uses assets such as the Toronto Blue Jays, radio and TV stations, mobile phone and internet service to assist in promoting each other and control content.

This raises a huge question though? If you're ship is sinking and you have a load of dead weight aboard, do you hold hope that the load will suddenly become buoyant or do you relieve the pressure by dumping it over board?

I'm not an economist or business grad but I'm guessing the capitalist's response wouldn't have involved putting faith in a stack of un-sold newspaper. And if I'm wrong, then I'm of the mind basic reason is a thing of the past.

I've written before why I think the National Post is a lost cause. Whether it's due to it trying to occupy space that is already claimed by the Globe and Mail on one side and papers such as the Toronto Sun on the other. It portrays itself as this sophisticated, well-informed right-wing rag but in reality it is written like it's amateur, agenda-driven, tabloid-ish, blog-like rambling.

'Sophistication' is an area already claimed by the G&M and tabloid-ish, agenda-driven are areas claimed by the Sun group of papers. Additionally, these papers also have other benefits. The G&M is well established, fairly balanced if not slightly right-of-centre. The Sun group offers a very in-depth sports section, each paper is local and offers some TnA to boot.

Against these the National Post is lost in territory that is already claimed and has nothing unique or original to offer to make its mark. That isn't to say there aren't redeeming qualities or skilled writers. Unfortunately, they are too few to make a difference, they themselves being weighed down by the rest.

It seems to me that the best thing someone could do is just pull the plug after selling off any IP rights. While I don't like the idea of so many losing work. Many may and will likely find work elsewhere, especially those that have proven to be apart of the minority at the NP. They will join other media groups that currently exist, new ones that will pop up or go with those that survive the fall.

As for the right losing a voice and democracy retracting: It will all be okay. With the Sun-media chain and groups such as Metroland and the NP's sibling papers, the right will still have a voice. And I'm sure eventually someone will study the mistakes of the NP and properly insert themselves into the right-of-centre national information/news market and be a real contender rather than a never-was.

Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry

It's Time for Conservatives to Show Respect and Honour

2009-09-30T19:24:00.000-04:00

Accountability and transparency are probably two of the most important facets of democracy. Without either of these democracy really isn't a system that is 'for the people, by the people'. Voting for and selecting our representatives that sit in parliament is only one part of the equation. It has to be a reciprocal relationship.

The people give its representatives power to make decisions on our behalf and in return the representative needs to this job honestly and openly so that the people know they are doing the job they were put in power to do. To not respect what this role means, to not be honourable enough to allow for accountability and transparency in your decision is to not respect democracy nor the people. And if that's the case then the elected official should lose any claim or ability to be in power.

To continue on, without being fully open and without respect for those you govern over, is to do so with out ethics. In such an event, the only option is to return to the people and seek re-election but not before giving full disclosure of what has transpired within the government during your tenure.

Personally, I have little issue with going into an election. My only concern is that full disclosure has not been and will not be given prior to that call. There are many questions beginning to arise from the opposition Liberals, from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, from independent economists, the banks, their own members, etc. dealing with both the running of and the numbers within the infrastructure/stimulus program and with how advertising is being run and tendered for government programs. With so many black holes being exposed, accountability and transparency has become more necessary than ever with the current government. And yet, all those questions refuse to be addressed by the Conservatives.

Is this a surprise? Not likely. Many members of the CPC were also members of the past Ontario PC government that also did not respect our democracy and were exposed as having applied 'creative' accounting to the provincial finances. Not only that but the current government has obfuscated and interfered with PBO Page when he has attempted to shed light in the darkened areas, which only goes to raising suspicions further.

What else is concerning is that in spite of the Conservatives' claims that an election is unnecessary, there does seem to be some effort on their part to force one anyway. Why the need to go into an election now? The simple answer is likely that the Conservatives feel they can achieve a majority. But if your dead set against it, as you claim, why would you want one? To achieve a majority so that accountability and transparency can be further restricted.

Like with all serious problems and possible scandals, the truth eventually gets out. If you're in a minority it almost definitely spells doom for your party. However, if you're in a majority you can continue to tighten your grip around information and almost impede any exposure with impunity. Chretien was guilty of this when it came to Adscam when he shut down parliament right before the report was to be released, delaying it. Calling an election may have the same effect but having a majority government will allow the Conservatives to continue governing even in the event all the concerns about 'Shovelgate' or the advertising programs turn out to be true.

It's a cowardly action to take. It also flies in the face of democracy and would expose this government as having little respect for the people or the institutions it governs for. If there are no problems with the Infrastructure program or the way advertising is being run, etc. then there should be no problems with responding, honestly, to the concerns of so many and allow full disclosure. To avoid being accountable gives credence to the criticisms and gives further warrant to the call for review.

The only option at this point is to allow, without interference, PBO Page and our Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, to conduct full inquiries prior to any election. Let Canadians go into an election armed with facts and make a decision based on those facts. Otherwise, to deny Canadians this is to show little respect for democracy and the Canadian public.

Stephen Harper; A Colonial Mind

2009-09-23T18:20:00.002-04:00

"At the core of the colonial mindset is its self-destructive logic. It is unconscious nihilism. Insecurity often drives an elite to believe itself incapable of taking the lead in its country's own affairs. For reassurance it seeks out and clings to some outside force, thus hoping for special consideration. Consideration for what purpose? To provide a direction and, as if by association, a certain importance. Typically this is called a 'special relationship' by the insecure party. As for the outside force, it rarely bothers to call such a relationship anything at all, except when poked by the weaker party seeking more reassurance.
And when the much-hoped-for special consideration does not materialize, the insecure party is confirmed in its fears. The false hope for security becomes the mechanism for turning these fears into a reality."
~ John Ralston Saul, A Fair Country (pg.250)

Stephen Harper's entire tenure has been about appeasing someone or something else. Whether it has been the U.S., the West, his past professors and mentors, etc. Harper has done little for the good of Canada and even less to make Canada a leader in any area. Rather, it could be argued he has negotiated away and intentionally withdrawn Canada's capacity to be a player on a world stage.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Much of his work prior to being a legit politician was about how Canada shouldn't do certain things or that Canada was doing to much and as such he viewed Canada as weak, a "welfare state" and "second-tier socialist country". Never was his work about how strong Canada had become in any area or recognizing that Canada was succeeding in many areas, both social and fiscal. That the very programs and ideals that he viewed negatively were actually contributing to the strength of Canada, both within and outside of the borders.

Even after joining the House of Commons, Harper has continued to look down on Canada. When the government of the day refused to enter the Iraq war, Harper ran to the US media to proclaim his support. And during his tenure as Prime Minister he sold-out our industries to foreign interests, whether it was softwood or high-tech, etc. and undermined many contemporary policies that deal with the environment, women, minorities and so forth. At any point if there was leadership to be found or had for Canada, Harper has allowed it to simply slip away and let others take over.

What is it that has Harper so fearful of being a leader within Canada and allowing Canada to be a leader within the world? What is so wrong with Canada standing up for its citizens and values that both have gotten Canada where it is and made it significant and unique in the world?

It seems Harper is stuck in a colonial mindset. He seems to beleive Canada can't be a leader. That it can't stand up for itself. To him it's just Canada, a provincial country that is meek in comparison to the great powers. And as such it should behave accordingly.

As a conservative Prime Minister he has also shown these tendencies when it comes to running the government. He's constantly playing politics rather than governing. Willing to cater directly to his core supporters, saying one thing in public only to contradict himself in private. He'll even as going as far as fashioning policies to favour his base (environment, employment insurance).

It's easy to say that he's just power hungry, which there seems to be little doubt anyway, but it has to be more than just power. With power comes real responsibility and certain privileges. Both of these Harper has shied from. Really, he's afraid; Afraid of having to put himself or Canada in the spotlight. He's afraid of taking risks both personally and as a country. He's afraid of possibly having to truly lead.

If he wasn't afraid then the Harper in private would also be the Harper in public. He would show confidence in his ideas, the policies he believes in and in the strength of this nation. He would stand up for Canada and therefore have Canada stand up for itself. But being afraid at home means Canada has become afraid outside. So instead he plays politics, rather than govern, because he fears what might be and what is. He would rather sell himself and Canada out to others in hopes that they will do something for him and us.

US not following the rules when it comes to softwood lumber? Sell out the industry. Maybe they'll return the favour later and make him look good... Oops, that didn't work.

Climate change a global issue? Well, release several plans that take more effort to print and publicize than it does to understand how little they do. But don't forget to make sure the tar sands get more favourable terms. And internationally, let's disrupt any possible progress and shake hands with other hold outs. They'll thank us later...Well, that didn't work out for us either, since all the other deniers are now from power.

How much longer can this 'please notice me' attitude continue? As long as Harper and the Conservatives are in power is the simplest answer. Canada has lost face internationally in almost every area since Harper has become Prime Minister. Our global economic prowess has decreased significantly, it is now common policy to abandon our citizens in times of need, and so on. All just so Harper can tread lightly and buddy up to those with ideas and with the courage to lead and hope that they take us along with them.

Canada wasn't built on the attitude of being subservient or new but shy student in the class. Canada has a long history of stepping out of the box, building consensus, taking risks. Generally speaking, that is how we got to where are today. Those leaders in the past that also played into a colonial frame of mind, didn't last very long and are even easily forgotten by students of Canadian history. Our founding fathers were all strong, proud Canadians who had a very clear idea of what they wanted and believed Canada could be. It didn't involve hiding in the corner, afraid of others. It meant standing up for your convictions and what's right. That's what Canada needs from its leaders and the effects are obvious when it's absent.

An Open Letter to All Residents of Nunavut: Regarding the Illegal Nomination of Dennis Patterson as Senator for Nunavut

2009-09-02T14:13:00.000-04:00

The following is an open letter from a family member of mine who resides in Nunavut. At issue is the concern that Dennis Patterson, who Harper recently nominated to the Senate, isn't in full compliance with the conditions of being a senator. While Patterson may allegedly own property in Nunavut, he himself considers himself a resident of Vancouver, which we all know is quite a distance from any town or city in Nunavut.

If Ontario were only represented by two people within the government - one Member of Parliament and one Senator - I'd definitely want to make sure they were there to represent my interests. Unfortunately, this is another case where one man's personal politics have interfered with sound judgement and the operational purpose of the government and with that in mind has nominated what seems to amount to another 'yes' man, much like the majority of his Senate and public service appointments.

Read the letter below and leave some comments or pass it along to those that need to read this.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

With the retirement of the Hon. Willy Adams, Senator for Nunavut, the Prime Minister had an option to nominate a new individual to represent Nunavut in the Senate. According to the Government's own website, http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/Senate/Senatetoday/sens-e.html, there are a few requirements to be eligible for this nomination. The most important of these requirements is that the nominee must reside in the province or territory that they are nominated to represent. How, then, is it possible that Dennis Patterson, a self described resident of Vancouver, British Columbia, has been nominated to represent Nunavummiut, and receive the $130,000/year salary and all associated benefits that go along with this appointment?

Mr. Patterson has had a long and storied history of political service in the north, but this is not the issue here, nor is his race, which has been brought up on many news website's comment boards. Quite simply, he is not a resident of Nunavut, and therefor is not eligible to be nominated for this position.

The facts at the heart of this problem are simple. Nunavut is a vast territory, with many challenges and issues. Our entire territory has only 2 representatives at the Federal level, one MP, and one Senator. We have the right to elect our MP, and the right to be represented by a resident of Nunavut in the Senate, which is guaranteed by the rules governing Senate appointments. Who better to represent us, than someone who lives here? Prime Minister Harper seems to have completely ignored his legal obligation to nominate a Nunavummiut for this Senate appointment, and feels that no one in Nunavut is capable of representing us. How would the residents of Ontario feel if 50% of their representatives in the Federal Government were from Vancouver? Imagine the uproar in Vancouver if half of B.C.'s representatives were from Toronto? This would be front page news around the world.

During the last Territorial election, several candidates were disqualified as they could not prove their residency in the territory. The most widely publicized case was that of Jack Anawak, who fought the decision in court, only to have his name withheld from the ballot. If someone such as Mr. Anawak is unable to run for a seat in the Territorial Legislature, why are we forced to accept an outsider as our Senator?

Unfortunately, many people don't follow these issues that can so drastically affect them, allowing this Prime Minister to effectively sneak a fast one by us. This cannot be allowed to happen. The Nunavut Government has expressed no opinion whatsoever, and there is no way NTI will speak out against this appointment, as Mr. Patterson is currently one of their chief negotiators working with the Federal Government to implement the Land Claim Agreement. There was a short, cursory response from NTI's James Eetoolook a few days ago, but nothing coming close to the position that should be taken up by all residents of Nunavut. Seeing as how Mr. Patterson had such a large role in the election of the Hon. Leona Aglukkaq, and the fact that her boss is the one who made this appointment, I believe that any complaints to her will effectively fall on deaf ears.

We need to speak out, and have our voices heard on this issue. I implore you, Mr. Prime Minister, rethink your nomination, and appoint a resident of Nunavut to represent us in the Upper House.

For further info: The Canadian Constitution Act states the following:

Part V 42: (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1): (a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; (b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; (c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators; (d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada; (e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and (f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.

38.1 states:(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

The current criteria stipulate that Senators must reside in the province or territory that they represent, therefor, for the Prime Minister's nomination to stand, there must be a resolution passed by the Senate and the House of Commons, PLUS, resolutions from two thirds of the provinces or territories of Canada, and their total populations must represent at least half the population of the country.

Nortel Situation is a Symptom of a Much Larger Problem

2009-07-30T15:33:00.005-04:00

While the Nortel situation continues, I have just finished reading a section from John Ralston Saul's latest 'A Fair Country' that touches upon the problems that are being discussed and the (so-far) inaction of our federal government.

Saul argues that Canada is plagued by inept managers and economists who are afraid to be real owners and leaders in business. At the same time he also points out there is a lack of vision and strategy coming from our government that fights for strategic and important research and technologies within the country. Together these two major problems allow for the dismantling of important businesses by foreign owners.

In his book, Saul uses the example of Robert Milton being proud of being able to circumvent Canadian ownership rules by structuring Air Canada so that it could be sold off in pieces to American airline owners. Rather than team up with someone like Bombardier and become a regional airline leader and giant, such as Air France and Airbus has. And while Air France isn't the most successful company, the partnership has resulted in France holding a significant role in the European Union and the Air France/Airbus partnership plays a large role in France's foreign policy and economic strategy.

Because there is a lack of direction in contemporary Canada's foreign policy and economic strategy we've already seen the loss of or the diminishing of several strategic companies and sectors including Alcan, Molson, Stelco, softwood and mining and the close losses of Air Canada and Bell Canada. These have lasting effects as Canada and provinces lose control, jobs, investments, etc. All of these are important for long term sustainability, employment, growth and economic strategy. Most of all we lose research and development investments that in turns means we lose creativity, knowledge and technology as those in position to make those gains go elsewhere but more importantly, they leave for foreign lands. These problems have manifested themselves already as US Steel, the new owners of Stelco, and our federal government is fighting over employment commitments. And earlier this year Canada lost one of the world's leading AID researchers to an American university.

Now Canada is poised to lose another major company along with its advanced wireless technology, despite RIM, a Canadian and global-leading company, looking to keep this strategic technology within the country. RIM seems to be one of the few Canadian companies that enjoys being a leader and being an employer rather than being an employee and playing a subservient role in the world.

If our federal government doesn't step in and recognize that losing Nortel and its technology would be a net-detriment to Canada, then it essentially would be admitting to its own lack of leadership within and vision for the country. They would be continuing to show that they are playing the role of the powerless and too afraid to stand up for Canada and our national interest against all comers. And too, the loss of Nortel without ever giving serious consideration to RIM's or other national companies' interest shows that there are too many managers within Canada that thrive in mediocrity and lack any real skill set to make smart and strong decisions.

There is an obvious need for change when it comes how we see ourselves and our nation. It begins with a change in - or establishing - foreign policy and economic strategy. This must also include changing the culture that our corporations exist in and providing support and leadership for Canadian companies to thrive and provide a net-benefit for Canadians.

Latest Harper Gaffe Wreaks of Desperation

2009-07-10T13:48:00.005-04:00

You can smell the stench all the way across the Atlantic.

In an attempt to once again smear Ignatieff and legitimize their attack-ad campaign, Harper came charging out, during an international address, and wrongfully attributed a quote to Ignatieff. Apparently in a late night email received by Harper's Press Secretary, Dimitri Soudas, a quote appeared that may or may not have been from Ignatieff, that minimized Canada's importance in the global economy. ~~Soudas immediately wet himself and with his brain about to explode and forgetting he was only in his underwear, went running to Harper with the news.~~ Soudas briefed the PM the next morning without verifying the source of the quote, and Harper couldn't resist the opportunity of making the attack. And then being forced to apologize shortly thereafter.

Two parts of this expose how desperate Harper and the Cons are to attack Ignatieff. The first is that they got this random quote in a late-night email and without doing a simple check they instantly attribute it to Ignatieff. One small, simple step from Soudas to verify the source would have saved them a world of embarrassment. One small question from Harper about if it had been sourced properly or double-checked would have saved them a world of embarrassment. But given that the Harper and the Cons are more interested in politics then governing and will jump at any opportunity to attack their opponents, especially Ignatieff, they thought they had a gem of a quote and couldn't resist 'running to the press'. Which is essentially what they did and is the second part that exposes their desperation.

Harper is at a G8 conference, in front of international consortium, global media, various world leaders. He's there to address issues such as the global economy, world trade, climate change, financial aid to impoverished nations. And when all the other leaders are talking ideas, programs and commitments with a sense of optimism, Harper (once again) takes the low-road and attacks the Leader of the Opposition back home. It wasn't relevant to what was going on and it was an inappropriate venue to make such statements. Who does that type of thing? A person with only one focus and who is desperate, that's who. Harper essentially went running to the press. And it's obvious he had to change what he originally intended to say at this engagement to include his shots at Ignatieff.

What this tells me is that really, Harper has nothing on Ignatieff to use against him. I laughed at the ad campaign when it emerged because the quotes being used were dated and/or way out of context. And ever since, Harper hasn't had anything to hold over Ignatieff and this episode, in the continuing drama of Harper/Con missteps, shows that they are looking for absolutely anything at anytime to go after the Liberal leader. Harper is desperate and not at all focused on what's really important. I wonder who is going to take the fall this time and become the next scapegoat? Likely person is Soudas but I'm sure they'll find another low-level staffer they can fire.

The best quote Harper gave was,

"I think it's an irresponsible suggestion. … I would suggest he look carefully at this comments and withdraw those. Frankly, they'd be irresponsible coming from anybody, but they're particularly irresponsible coming from a senior Canadian parliamentarian."

I wonder if the comments are as irresponsible as Harper and his staff failing to do their jobs both within and outside of the PMO bubble? When is Canada going to get a real Prime Minister and leader?

Further reading (to further state the point):

Because the Conservatives Have Nothing Better to do During this Recession?

2009-05-14T18:28:00.002-04:00

I'm stoked that the federal Conservatives have found both the time and money to spend on attack ads rather than aid our economy or assist those that are losing jobs and so forth. I get that the money spent doesn't come from the government and taxpayers - directly - but it's good to see that the website domain fees are going out of country (Montenegro or US).

I can't imagine that going on the offensive against your opponent, using extremely aged and out-of-context quotes during a time of low public opinion and an ailing economy is going to fix your public image. You know what might help your public image? Doing the job you were mandated to do and accepting the will of the majority (oh, and stopping with the little political gamesmanship crap in the House and with each Bill might help too).

There's a point when you'd think common sense might kick in. You're losing public support by being inactive, conniving, overly partisan and ideological and so forth. The obvious answer to correcting this problem isn't to do more of it, it is likely to do less and to act like a government that actually cares and is just as concerned as the average Joe or Joanne.

But then again common sense seems to be out of reach for the Conservatives. Hell, a contingent of them are leftovers from the Harris Common Sense Revolution days. A program that had very little to do with common sense and more to do with reason and ideology, which are often signs of a specific agenda rather than something generally useful or concerning for the public at large.

Do I think the attack ads will work? Not really. Like Kinsella has pointed out there is an entire army of Canadians who have made their careers outside of their country. Canadians generally show respect and admiration for them.

Furthermore, the whole 'Ignatieff arrogance' angle has already played out. It made its appearance during his return home phase, his running for a seat, his running for Liberal leader part 1, his running for Liberal leader part 2 and so on. The time to push that would have been a couple years ago, not now. Ignatieff is now too established in the conscience of Canadians as something else - a viable alternative to Harper.

And isn't there a hint of some type of reverse arrogance or elitism in chiding Ignatieff for working overseas? Just because you didn't get a worldly education, or international experience, or decided to live under a rock your entire life doesn't make you more Canadian or better fit for public office.

This whole episode is just a follow up attempt to the Dion breakdown. And as such you're facing an opponent that has likely learned from the past and a public that won't buy the same crap twice. Skepticism towards the ads will be higher and Ignatieff won't likely make the same missteps as Dion. Therefore, what Canadians will likely remember in the end, is that while the Conservatives put out inane attack ads, the economy burned.

Holy Hyberbole, Batman!

2009-05-14T17:35:00.002-04:00

Is it just me or is the testimony from both sides of Nannygate just way over the top. I'm making no judgments here as to who is telling the truth. I am judging the actual statements. If either side is being honest than either Dhalla is a reincarnation of a 18th century southern plantation owner or I'm quitting my career and taking a job as caretaker at Dhalla's family home.

Seriously, the testimony in this case is just over the top. These nannies have essentially placed Dhalla at the centre of every decision and order. Miss Ruby made them shine shoes, hand over passports, made them pick spinach out of her teeth, deprived them of sleep and made them sleep on rocks when they were finally finished with their 10000 brush strokes through Ruby's mom's hair and plucking of her nose hair and removing corns with their teeth.

Then there's Ruby's claims of providing a millionaire's life inside the Dhalla house. This apparently included big screen televisions, champagne bubble baths, free run of the private family jet, massages from Ruby herself and having the Dhallas as their personal assistants.

Hyperbole, anyone? Both sides have put effort in painting the best or worst scenario possible and the truth is somewhere buried deep in the middle. And I do mean deep because both sides are so far out in their claims the middle is far, far away. But like I said, if either side is telling the truth then we either have someone getting slapped with some sort of anti-slavery charge or these nannies need to get their heads checked for leaving that type of luxury.

Beyond the testimony there does seem to be some funny things at play. The timing of these complaints coincides with what was expected to be the worst of the Mulroney investigation and growing awareness on the Conservatives' recession inaction. Couple these with the loose ties between the complainants and Kenney's acquaintances, something does seem quite odd here. I'm not trying to imply the claims are false but rather the timing seems a little 'funny'.

This case has all the makings of a made-for-tv movie. Something that would satisfy the soap opera crowd with its wild accusations and hints of bigger yet shady undertones. My gut feeling is that this whole 'show' shouldn't be getting played out in the format it is or in these particular arenas. At this rate, reputations and lives are going to be affected, no matter the outcome.

Random Noise Presents: Random Noise (GO Train Edition)

2009-05-13T23:19:00.002-04:00

Ugh.

Not sure how else to explain how I feel sitting here on the GO Train, going home, after having to deal with my second delayed GO Train trip back to Oshawa. Last night I took the 23:13 train (that's 11:13pm for you lame people) and it was delayed about 20 minutes after there was a door problem around Guildwood and then a switch issue shortly after.

Tonight it was late arriving to Union from Exhibition by about 25 minutes. My guess it had something to do with the Toronto FC fans. They're everywhere in the train. Damn soccer hooligans!

I hear about GO Train delays all the time but have rarely experienced them. It's not for a lack of trying. I commuted on the GO for almost a year while I attended teachers college. I can only recall two delays in that entire period. But here I am, two nights in a row experiencing delays both nights. How's that for luck?

I wonder if any of these TFC or Blue Jay fans will run to their car when they depart. I still find the after-work sprinters humourous. I found them funny in Mississauga and I find them funny in Oshawa. They depart from the train and bolt for their cars. Because life is so hectic that waiting an extra 10 minutes is going to kill them.

Even funnier is that you just know that for some of those people, that's the most exercise they get in a day. The only reason they own running shoes is to make the 150 metre sprint to their car from the train. Few things are funnier than someone in an expensive suit or fancy dress, sprinting for their car, in their hardly-worn-but-several-years-old-running-shoes.

I didn't ever sprint from the train when I used to do the daily trip. Screw that! After a long day of school and/or work and the commute while squashed between hundreds of people the last thing I want to do is to be sprinting and scrambling in the parking lot.

I was all about taking my time, slowing myself down and relaxing before I got home. I'm sure there were other things to be concerned with when I got there so why rush?

Besides, it's not as though I didn't do a daily sprint. Mine just usually came in the morning to catch the train...

How do we Slow the Spread of Swine Flu? Twitter.

2009-04-29T23:42:00.002-04:00

I can't help but feel skeptical about the swine flu (almost) pandemic. I have heard or read so many different expert opinions that I can't decide if I should take advantage of the cheap flight rates and immediately fly to Mexico or purchase a hyperbolic bubble and move to an uninhabited island in Nunavut.

This morning I listened to a medical expert on CBC talk about how the current strain of swine flu is 'mild' and there is little to fear. He gave a comparison to SARS. With SARS, according to this guy, there was 1 in 10 chance of death but that the swine flu had, at worst, a 1 in 500 chance. Considering that outside of Mexico there may not even be 500 infected people, that's not a bad number. And in a given year, according to the all-knowing and infallible wikipedia, the usual epidemic has a worldwide death rate of 1 in 100.

But then on the other hand there are the experts who are advising countries to load up on Tamiflu and the like. And big-pharmas are standing on the sidelines wringing their hands hoping that's exactly what countries do. Some of the biggest boom times for them was when the Avian flu was going to supposedly ravage the world population. We watched while people like Donald Rumsfeld pushed the concerns of the pending Avian flu pandemic and profited from owning shares connected the anti-viral. Is that what we're facing again? Another false alarm that will only cause some big company to make more money?

Well, not so according to an expert from Mount Sinai in Toronto. This woman was all about us being vigilant and taking all precautions to prevent the spread of swine flu. And maybe she has a point, especially where I am concerned. After all, of the four reported cases in Ontario three are in the Durham region and the nature of my job puts me in close contact with hundreds of people each day. And given the environment of my job, it wouldn't take long for my 'office' to resemble one of the hard hit Mexican villages. Also, seeing that Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag have isolated themselves in Mexico to avoid infection then we should definitely all be concerned. Anyway, the doc from Mount Sinai said the best response to the pending pandemic is social distancing. Avoiding social gatherings and recreational outings will slow the spread and limit the number of infections.

Between Avian flu, West Nile virus, Swine flu, seasonal influenza, common colds, random bacteria, mad cow, psycho squirrel and the like, if we were to significantly react to every warning our society wouldn't function, we wouldn't live our lives, we wouldn't breed and we would all starve to death.

My point is that panicking should be saved for times of panic. Unless you're in a small Mexican village or the crowded downtown of Mexico City where the quality of medical service isn't of the highest degree and the general level of environmental cleanliness isn't exactly excellent, then sure, I get being quite worried. But when the mortality rate is five times better than the yearly, general epidemics, are thousands of kilometres away from ground zero, little correlation to Mexico or people visiting there and have access to world-class medical services, panicking at this point seems somewhat far-fetched.

I'm not attempting to minimize how this outbreak has affected those who have lost loved ones or are suffering from this. And this is not to say that this virus won't be the next real pandemic. What I am saying is that at this point in time we should probably go on with our lives and not add to our stresses and focus on the things we can control and we enjoy. Let's react when it's absolutely necessary and not make big-pharmas anymore wealthy for no reason. If we over react to this episode, like with Avian flu, and it turns out to be nothing, like Avian flu, well... Well, we all know the fable of 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'.

Or we can begin our social distancing now. In other words, we all should find our inner tween and take to Twitter immediately.

Harper Cheats and Encourages Others to do the Same OR We in Durham Aren't Suprised

2009-04-15T08:23:00.000-04:00

When I read that Elizabeth May accused Harper of 'cheating' during the leader debates, all I could do was chuckle to myself. It came as little surprise to hear that Harper couldn't actually debate without some sort of assistance. The same is true of many Conservative candidates in the last election.

Out here in little old Durham (the region, not the riding), just east of Toronto, there were lots of stories floating around of Conservative candidates repeating, verbatim, things that the big-wigs were already saying in public and having talking points, speeches and local media pieces drafted by the central campaign workers. This is likely the same all over the nation as the Conservative party was very careful about controlling their message at all costs.

However, cheating in or breaking of rules - or at least the ethics - is another thing all together. And it comes as little surprise to some of us here in Durham (the riding, not the region). Leading up to the Rogers televised debate there were whispers that Bev Oda and her campaign were making demands that Rogers had to meet if they wanted her to appear on the program. The specifics of her demands were unclear to us leading up to the debate. Following the debate it became apparent what her demands likely were - she had wanted the questions to review beforehand.

From a couple firsthand accounts and some other people several members of our campaign talked to afterward, the binder she was using during the debate contained ordered responses for all the questions, including those from the guest panelists. Now I'm sure someone, somewhere will say she may have just had well-prepared notes and had the topics nicely ordered. But in perfect order of the questions asked, including the guest panelist questions? Seems a little funky from where I'm sitting. And like May questioned 'tattling' on Harper, some of us felt it to be somewhat useless to go on a tirade about the incident because it would likely just come across as 'childish', it wouldn't necessarily aid our cause and it would take our focus off of our task at hand - attempting to defeat the incumbent.

I truly question if May or our campaign had ran to the hills with this type of information if the outcomes would have changed. I don't think it would have made any difference. For us in Durham riding we always knew we had a steep climb to the top. We were against an incumbent cabinet minister, with greater resources, within a considerably conservative riding, running a generally unknown candidate, backstopped by a poor national campaign. We had hope and conviction but sometimes those just aren't enough. Crying foul over a cheat-book would have seem desperate at best and petty at worst considering the tasks that laid ahead.

What effect May's disclosure might have is to further compound the feeling that Harper can't be trusted and has little leadership quality by those that already lean that way and nudge those who are undecided in that direction as well. This isn't a positive thing for a man that has been and continues to suffer from a poor public opinion. He didn't win the last election because he's well-liked or because he was seen as some magnificent leader. He won because he was essentially considered the lesser evil. Canwest/Global ran several polls that consistently showed that Harper polled better when directly compared to the other leaders but when addressed individually he polled unfavourably just like the others. As well, hopefully this means that come the next election, Harper and his cronies won't try to pull the same fast-one and will be forced to actually know their platform (if they actually have one next time) and think of responses on their feet. Something that will likely play very well for Ignatieff and Layton.

In Search of Harmony (2009 edition): Quick Glance at Ontario's Budget

2009-03-26T21:42:00.004-04:00

The Ontario budget gets dropped today, and without any type of fanfare or surprise McGuinty does the proverbial 'good policy, bad politics' thing, for the second time.

We can say whatever we want about the provincial budget. It couldn't have been any worse than what the federal government put out - lot's of money for a whole lot of nothing, so far. With the Ontario budget there seems to be some serious targeted spending in the areas of social housing, hospitals and schools. These are all good things. Cutting taxes for 93% of all Ontarians is also a good thing. As is the acceleration of the Ontario Child Benefit.

Once again, I'm extremely disappointed in the lack of true forward thinking, as I was with the federal budget. The Ontario budget doesn't seem to do anything for the environment, greening of public or private infrastructure, or research and development. Where is the direct assistance targeted at companies such as ZENN? That's where the future truly lies and that's where the money should be aimed at; companies that are thinking ahead.

The big ticket item was the harmonization of the Ontario sales tax and the federal GST. To be honest, I'm still not sold on this being necessary. Sure it will save the private sector some paperwork and some money. But at what cost?

About 18 months ago, I wrote about this very issue when Derek DeCloet wrote in favour of the idea. At the time I expressed skepticism based on how it would affect consumers. Granted, McGuinty and Duncan were able to swing a deal to get many items exempted still such as children's clothing, books, etc. Though as far as I can tell many things are still going to receive a tax increase including some medical and educational services such as chiropractic services and tutoring (which for many struggling students is necessary).

Harmonizing the taxes will also eliminate the exemption of food purchases under $4. It may not seem like much but many food service businesses (from the ma-and-pa shops to the McDonald's and Tim Hortons) take advantage of that to feed the masses in fast and affordable ways. It will have an impact, especially on the ma-and-pa shops, as they are all looking for ways to cover their growing staffing costs due to the incremental increases in the minimum wage at a time when sales and profits are down.

In 2007 I questioned if the overall benefit to businesses outweighed the costs to the public. I'm still questioning whether or not the benefits are enough.

I'll give credit where it's due and that's to Ontario and the feds for compromising on some exemptions. That was one of my biggest criticism back then and it has been partially dealt with here. I don't like the lack of overall control the province has given up considering Ottawa, under the federal Conservatives, has been less than fair or kind to Ontario when it comes to economic issues. But given McGuinty and crew knows those battles the best, if they are willing to do this, some understanding must have been reached.

The deficits that Ontario predicts to incur are forgivable as they pale in comparison to what the federal government is going to rack up by the end of it. And with giant companies drastically cutting workforces and with others closing outright government revenues are obviously going to be much less. As long as the deficit spending is done with accountability and effectively, without the gimmicks or partisanship (see the federal Conservatives), the Ontario Liberals may survive another episode of 'good but bad'.

Canwest/National Post Conveniently Changing Tune?

2009-03-19T13:08:00.004-04:00

Warren's raised a very interesting point over at his blog about Canwest and the National Post.

Warren: "The National Post, that is, which has railed against government "interference" in the marketplace for a decade, now about to get bailed out by the taxpayer."

Warren also refers to this as a 'game'. I think that accurately describes the situation. Isn't it convenient that they are suddenly okay with taking taxpayer money? Though I'm sure they'll never say as much.

What I find even more disturbing is that approximately two weeks ago I received a call from the National Post offering a 60 day subscription for free. They explained that there were no obligations on my part and that after 60 days the subscription would just end without notice or any required action. Furthermore, this was a wide-scale promotion.

I was beside myself, knowing just how much money the NP costs Canwest and how tight things were over at Canwest in general. To be offering free daily subscriptions on a wide-scale seems counter-productive given the circumstances.

While there are several theories that could be considered here, I'm leaning in one particular direction. My feeling is that the NP is trying to artificially build up their subscription numbers and expanse across demographics. If they can (temporarily and falsely) display they have a wide appeal, and a decent and growing subscription rate but are still bleeding money. And if they can successfully put the blame on the downturned economy, they can build a case that they are recoverable and relevant and ultimately, (in the long-run) profitable. All reasons why they deserve a taxpayer funded-government bailout (aside of the wink-nudge, Conservative pandering they'll continue).

Which of these doesn't belong?

2009-02-20T17:26:00.001-05:00

After watching all the footage of Obama's visit yesterday, it's hard not to think that:

1) There are a lot of expectations on him and in turn he must be feeling a lot of pressure; and

2) He comes across as someone able to handle all that pressure with ease and a dash of coolness.

However for me, every time I saw Obama standing next to Harper, the two of them waving at the crowds, something or more specifically, someone, looked out of place. And it definitely wasn't Obama. Unfortunately, Harper looked like just some dork that was hanging out with the new president.

It's like one of those moments where a sports team has just won a championship, on the last play, made by the star of the team. The crowd is cheering the heroics and everyone wants a piece of the hero. Then, the just-arrived from the minors, who can't be named by a single fan, who didn't once see any action, jumps off the bench and waves and cries at the crowd like he made the big play to win it all or is the closest friend of the star.

Standing next to Obama, that was Harper yesterday. He was the 'nobody' trying to bask in some of the glory and steal a moment of spotlight without ever contributing to the moment. The reality is at best he was just 'that Canadian Prime Minister guy' and at worst, which is likely closer to the truth, he was just another guy waving back at a crowd that didn't even notice him there and were waving at the star next to him.

________

Fate at Her Best

2009-02-16T15:17:00.000-05:00

In today's Toronto Star there's a great opinion piece on Naomi Klein. The main premise is about how she's withholding judgment on Obama. Klein may be optimistic about the new president but a couple early decisions have concerned her; the appointments of former Clinton crewmen that are at the heart of Clinton's less-than-finer moments.

The piece is definitely an interesting read.

The part that got me grinning though was the comment on Milton Friedman. It shouldn't be a surprise from many of my writings here that I have little love for Friedman. Between my undergrad and more recent research and current reading of books such as Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' and John Ralston Saul's 'The End of Globalization', I see little use for the simplistic, self-serving, hole-wridden garbage that Friedman championed.

Anyway, what got me smiling is that the $200-million Milton Friedman Institute being built by the University of Chicago has been put on hold because funding has disappeared due to the current economic crisis. The very same crisis that has been caused by the type of policies that Friedman influenced and encouraged, caused millions of lost jobs and has as many families into precarious positions and has now put a stop on a tribute in his honour. Though I'm not sure what they're trying to honour here.

I don't think making the poor poorer, or devastating the stability and prosperity of Latin American nations, or allowing corporations to bankrupt families and nation is something that deserves tribute.

Friedman, at best, had some interesting ideas that differed from the mainstream. Ideas worth some inflection and curiousity. However, there are holes in his theories. Some of those are massive and doesn't take a learned scholar to point most of them out.

Unfortunately Friedman was a man that refused to admit his ideas were flawed and were unworkable in reality even while they were obviously causing more harm than good for those that adopted them or worse, were forced to use them. Worst of all he preached these ideas to generations of impressionable students and to the ears of the political leaders he conferenced with. Friedman deserves a tribute as much as Osama Bin Laden deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

There's nothing better than the cruel humour of fate. She's got a warped mind at the best of times and saves her best for those most deserving. And in this turn of events, she's showing-off just a little. Hopefully, with the time off we can all reflect on her latest offering and realize that Friedman only deserves our abhoration.

Just Another Take on the Budget

2009-01-31T13:31:00.001-05:00

First off, in terms of numbers and allocations the Conservative budget isn't too bad but it isn't terribly good, either. The tax cuts should have been focused more on the lower- and middle- classes. If the goal is to increase disposable income and/ or encourage spending then the two largest groups of Canadians, who have also been the hardest hit by the downturn, should have been the focus. The bulk of the need lies with them and any extra spending will come from these groups and therefore providing them with more would go further to achieving those goals. However, an across-the-board tax cut could be considered the most fair for all Canadians. After all, we're all in this together as no one has been left untouched by the economic downturn. It's just that the broad tax cut, ultimately, isn't as effective.

There is also the issue of some of the policy matters that are contained within the budget. While it's nice that EI has been expanded by five weeks there are still lingering issues that weren't addressed. Something such as timely and easier access to people's own money should have been included. As well a balancing of the EI payments should have been included. Ontarians should have gotten a slight increase in the payments to match the other provinces. Since Ontario has taken the brunt of the downturn and cost of living is slightly higher than most provinces, these changes should have been a no-brainer. And let's not forget, contrary to what Harper or Finlay might say, the money in the EI program belongs to Canadians.

The EI program is essentially a government mandated 'savings' program for those rainy days, like when you lose your job and need money to get you by until you find other employment. To refuse easier access on the basis that the Conservatives don't want to make it "lucrative" to be unemployed or that they don't want people relying on the government is to distort and betray the purpose of EI and denying people access to their own money could be seen as theft since Canadians do not have a choice about paying into EI.

There is also the concern over women losing the ability to take pay equity issues to court. I'm not sure what the Conservative's problem is with women's equality but it has reached a sickening level over the course of their tenure. However, this being left over from the Fall Update shouldn't have been a surprise because of the Conservative's track record. What is a surprise is the Liberals' poor response to this issue.

The Liberals' amendment, while necessary (if you're attempting to make parliament work), isn't as strong as it could have been. Sure they're putting this Conservative government on 'probation' but the how is ill defined. It's great to have the Cons check-in every few months with updates but there is confusion over what this really means. Are they just giving government numbers, are the books being opened to the opposition or is an independent auditor doing a review? The amendment should have laid out all of this in greater detail. It should have also been much more demanding of accountability given the past record of budget deception and lack of transparency, especially on the part of Flaherty.

Furthermore, at the very least the Ignatieff and the Liberals should have demanded that the women's pay equity issue be dropped from the budget. I actually think that the Conservatives included it with the expectation it would be amended out. If an amendment were to ask for its removal and subsequently passed, the Cons could have saved face with their SoCon supporters because they proposed the idea but also saved face with critics and opposition because they would have been viewed as conciliatory.

The Liberals could have also explored changes to the proposals regarding EI, tax cuts, and areas that could have had an infusion of 'green' and next-generation technology and manufacturing. However, I believe the Conservatives would have fought to the end to not have these pass. We would then likely be heading into an election rather than a coalition government.

I don't have enough faith in our GG, Ms. Jean, to make the right decision between a coalition and election. She showed last Fall that she neither had the leadership or the fortitude to do what she should have. She made her last decision in secrecy and without full consultation. The same would have likely occurred here. And this budget is centrist or 'Liberal'-ish enough, at least on the surface, that inciting an unwanted and costly election over it would have put the Liberals in a tough position to defend their actions. Putting out a strong amendment, stronger than what was proposed, would have been the best maneuver.

The biggest loser out of all of this - besides women, the most vulnerable and the environment - is the Conservatives. With this budget they showed that they are more interested in power than conviction. However, even in the off chance they are being honest about their feelings on the necessity of this budget they still come out on the losing end. On one hand they would be admitting that Canadians don't believe in or won't accept conservatism (which I have been arguing for quite some time) or they are admitting that conservatism doesn't work. Either way, conservative Canadians aren't happy with Harper and his crew and the Conservatives are showing their cracks in large part because of this budget. Either side of this is a positive in my books.

Ultimately, Canada didn't even have to be in this position. If it weren't for the lack of judgement, common sense and leadership of the Conservatives, Canada's financial situation could have been much stronger prior to being hit by the economic downturn. If income taxes were cut rather than consumer taxes, if the surplus hadn't been completely wiped out, if social programs were strengthened rather than weakened, and if there had been greater attention paid to environmental technologies and next generation manufacturing, Canada would have dealt with this crisis much better. The stimulus package would have still been necessary but maybe there would have been fewer lost, more resilience on the part of our industries and a smaller deficit would be incurred. However, we've been governed by conservative ideologues who are more interested in their personal situations and beliefs, and trying to destroy the opposition. So much for leadership...

______

What Wasn't Announced?

2009-01-26T19:18:00.003-05:00

Everyone seems to be talking about what has been announced to be in the budget. Experience with this Conservative government has me wondering more about what they haven't announced.

So far we have heard about all these wonderful spending initiatives for infrastructure, job training, etc. All the things we the public would - should - be expecting when a government talls about stimulus spending. What we haven't heard announced is anything to do with contentious tax cuts (GST?), policy changes (relaxing environmental-based rules?), cuts to social programs (women's equality?), vicious partisanship (cuts to political funding?), or even self-sacrifice (scaling back the size of the Cabinet).

Since Harper and his team are generally less than forthcoming with what they plan to do it after making promises, it is reasonable for us to expect a lot more from tomorrow's budget than what has already been announced (in an election style). Harper has shown he can't help himself when it comes to trying to be 'clever' and poking the opposition and others with sticks. Tomorrow isn't likely to be any different. There is no way that he would cave and offer all sorts of measures that he doesn't believe in or want without exacting some small token for himself.

___

(Update) Check out this entry over at Archiblog. (h/t CuriousityCat)

Let's Have a Good Ol' Fashioned Book Burnin'

2009-01-16T17:04:00.005-05:00

I just came across this article from the Toronto Star's Parent Central website. When I originally heard about some guy wanting to get Margaret Atwood's novel, A Handmaid's Tale banned I laughed right out loud.

The father complained that the book is "rife with brutality towards and mistreatment of women (and men at times), sexual scenes, and bleak depression" and "anti-Christian".

And the problem is...? Seriously.

Nowhere in Atwood's novel are the former issues promoted or deemed a positive. They are in the novel to make the reader think and feel scared or sick by what they are reading. It's about forcing a reader to understand a problem. It makes me think about people who get worked up about Harper Lee's, To Kill a Mockingbird, over racism and slurs, when the major theme in the novel is anti-racism or inequality and the problems associated with these. The father's latter complaint touches upon a similar theme of what I talked about prior when I examined the issue of the Philip Pullman's, His Dark Materials trilogy.

There is nothing wrong with challenging religion. If anything religion, especially organized religion, needs to be challenged or it faces irrelevancy by becoming dogma. To hide children away from such an inquiry only reinforces their curiousity. It's the nature of children, especially teenagers. Rather than taking the novel away and hiding from the question, have an answer to it. Provide alternative information, show examples of where the criticism is wrong. To lock it away is to essentially give it the criticism validation. This father has ultimately done more harm than good.

Anyway, I find it funny that someone is just now getting all worked up about Atwood's novel because it was written in 1985. It has also been apart of the high school curriculum, in Ontario at least, for most of that time - it was the first Atwood novel I read and that was because I was required to read it for an English assignment. And there is so much already written about A Handmaid's Tale and the controversy surrounding its themes, that a quick internet search may have alleviated this father's concerns.

I have looked at the issue of banning books within public education before. And my feelings haven't changed. Unless the novel is written by someone that intentionally tries to mislead, obfuscate or commit harm through their writings, then no book should be banned from a public school. However, I think more or less this has come down to ignorance on the father's part. If he was really that concerned about what was being assigned in his kid's class he would have known about the novel prior to it being picked up by his son. Furthermore, he himself should maybe take the opportunity to peruse more books that are considered 'must-reads'.

The Failure of the Media and Such

2009-01-10T14:03:00.001-05:00

In today's Toronto Star, Travers came out with an insightful and honest piece (link to come). The gist is that the during last year's federal election the media failed to do their job and ask real questions of our politicians. Rather the media was obsessed with things such as personality and issues that had little substance. In otherwords, the inane.

The election ultimately turned out to be a circus of sorts. And this likely played a large role as to why we had the worse voter turnout in history. And many of those that voted likely had did so without ever being fully informed.

Travers' piece made think about something that my Poli-Sci 101 professor stressed once. He argued that political parties in general, though more likely conservative parties, would rather fight elections on the unsubstantial topics. The thinking is that if you can bog down the electorate on issues that seem trivial and partisan, rather than addressing real issues, voters will become jaded and are less likely to vote. And one of the strategies is to use the media to achieve this objective.

My professor expressed this back in 1999, which puts him ahead of GWB or Harper. Cheney and GWB used this strategy almost perfectly and one can argue that Harper was partially successful with his attacks on Dion and such. That's not to say they were the only parties or leaders to try this as Paul Martin and John Tory also attempted campaigns on anything but the issues.

The strategy holds sway with the right in particular because their ideology doesn't generally have a broad appeal in developed societies. Being honest with the electorate is more likely to be detrimental to their cause. However, where right wing parties lack in broad appeal they partially make up with deep appeal. That is, conservative leaning citizens are easier to motivate to vote than non-conservative citizens, even though they are much larger in numbers. And fewer voters means a government feels that they owe less or are accountable to fewer people.

Travers' column will hopefully be taken to heart by those in the media. While we all need to do a better job in holding our politicians accountable, our media definitely need to turn it around. The media have access to our politicians - good or bad they are on the front lines, especially during elections. They are the first in line to ask questions and point out the issues. If they aren't doing their jobs then they are no better than those politicians that would look to be elected without ever being accountable to the public.

Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry

The Vicious Side of Politics

2009-01-10T08:58:00.000-05:00

It's only a few weeks until Canadians finally get to see the Conservatives latest bastard-proposal of a budget. With the economy in the midst of death throws and our minority government doing, well, nothing of note, there are more than a few people worried about what's to come. Flaherty has done little to calm nerves as he continues to speak in some type of personal code and mentioning ambiguous and cliché terms. However, one thing that might be certain is that whatever is thrown around on January 27th is likely to be not far from what Canadians have already seen - more vicious partisan and ideological maneuvering.

There isn't necessarily anything inherently wrong with either partisanship or ideology except for one glaring exception. Both of these, if too strongly adhered to, indicates a person is close-minded and thinks in extremely marginal ways. Even this can be benign in many circumstances unless that person is in a position where they hold influence or power. In this manner, subsequent actions can become, and are often, unintentionally destructive because the lack of various perspectives that are given consideration. In other ways, these are consciously relied upon or are the driving force in decision-making and therefore are intentionally destructive and still will cause some unintentional collateral.

In politics especially there are many examples that give cause for concern about those that would rely too much on their partisanship or ideology. The most obvious and easiest one is Iraq. By now there is little doubt that Iraq has gone horribly wrong. For whatever reason GWB went into Iraq, it is clear that his intentions were less than honourable and the outcome has been pure disaster. Whether its the war crimes that have been committed, the bungling of the rebuilding, the ensuing civil war, etc. Iraq hasn't turned out at all like it could/should have.

Another recent example is the fall 'financial update' from the Conservatives. Harper and Flaherty attempted to use the economic crisis to push an agenda that would crippled the opposition parties, attempt to further erode women's equity and break workers' rights. In the end Canada saw an unprecedented unification of the opposition and the fall of a six-week old government. Or we can also look at the Conservatives decision to cut the GST by 2% which has all but crippled Canada's ability to truly be effective in dealing with the economic crisis.

The problem that truly underlies vicious politics is intention. When making decision or taking a course of action, intention plays a massive role. Intention affects how a policy is carried out, how hard a person or team works, the effort put into the completion of the task. Everything from the leadership down to grassroots is affected by the intent.

If Iraq was a truly honourable conflict, there may not have been companies such as Blackwater or Haliburton taking advantage of the crisis because oversights and management would have been better regulated and monitored. It's likely fewer troops would have been caught committing war crimes because there would have been less pressure from the media, Americans back home, Iraqi's, etc. and pride in their mission would have been greater.

Closer to home, if Harper and Flaherty's concerns were truly about the economy when attempting to cut political subsidies or attacking workers' rights, then we would have seen greater consultation. Whether this was with the opposition parties, public employees, Canadians or whomever, if the Conservatives had spent any effort actually trying to be fiscally prudent rather than playing political games then we might have seen unprecedented cooperation between all of parliament in dealing with the economic crisis. Or Canada may have been without any real concern of assisting industries, paying for infrastructure or making any other considerable decision if the GST hadn't been cut for reasons of power.

It doesn't matter that sometimes through these politically motivated actions that positives do emerge. Saddam Hussein being removed from power is especially positive for Iraq but that is overshadowed and pales in comparison to what Iraq is now facing and how the situation has been and continues to be handled. If removing Hussein from power was the purpose in the first place - for Iraqis' sake not GWB wanting to do what his father didn't - then maybe American and allied troops wouldn't be seen as invaders or occupiers and Iraq . Maybe the conflict wouldn't be as severe or wouldn't be still ongoing. And while Andrew Coyne has argued that it doesn't matter why the Conservatives were looking to axe political subsidies, that it only matters it's a positive within itself (which it is) and that is reason alone to do it, he missed that the intent that it is based on is also the reason why the proposal failed and is still around. The underlying intent is a major reason why the opposition stood up and fought hard together, why our government prorogued and is now seemingly incapable of doing anything, and why much is falling down around average Canadians and Canadian industries.

Intent is almost everything when it comes to making decisions and taking action. That is why when intent is based on deeply rooted ideology or partisanship it almost surely becomes destructive. It becomes vicious. There will be negative outcomes. There will be uncertainty and instability. That potentional, positive outcomes are never explored or given a chance. But worst of all; there will be victims. And therein lies the real problem. In most cases, people get left behind. Or worse.

Fleeting Curiousity on Senate Appointments

2008-12-23T11:59:00.001-05:00

While most of the talk is focussed on 'senate reform' and 'patronage' - as it should be - or about whether or not Mike Duffy's appointment is a breach of ethics, I found something else curious.

It may be just a given but I haven't seen or heard too much on this subject. But in today's Vancouver Sun and yesterday at the Globe and Mail website there were specific comments about Wallin's and Duffy's appointments. Both papers made the comment that their appointments were made in part because of their objections to the coalition.

For many of the other people who were named this is a given but these two appointments were supposedly made because of their belief in senate reform regardless of their partisan views. Further to that, why does it really matter if any of these people sit specifically as 'Conservatives' if some were made outside of political affiliation? This is something both Wallin and Duffy, and others have agreed to do.

Many questions, indeed, surround this entire episode.

-- Sent from my mobile device

The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

2008-12-05T09:56:00.000-05:00

The title of this post is a quote from Warren Bennis, a pioneer in the study and implementation of leadership. I used this quote as recognition of what my extremely intelligent and insightful wife had told me two nights ago; "expect status quo."

So what did she mean by this exactly? It's the underlying theme of the past, present and future of this current episode in Canadian politics. It perfectly describes the catalyst and the successive events, the prorogation and what we should expect going forward.

The catalyst was 'status quo' in the sense that is was more of the same hyper-partisan political gamesmanship. Harper and the Conservatives have shown that in almost all things they attempt they look to further erode many of the balances between parties, people and groups. Rather than govern for the good of all and in an accountable manner, they would rather divide, distort and deceive.

The catalyst of this parliamentary showdown was a combination of all these things. They made an attack on workers' rights and women's equity. Then in an attempt to distract from these issues they went after political party subsidies so they could either take their opponents out at the knees or use this as a theme in the event the opposition fought back. Their intent wasn't one based on economic concern or something equally just. Their intent was to use a crisis to justify some of their more extreme parts of their ideological and partisan proposals. These are ideas that are really attacks on democracy and that I have been referring to as 'vicious'.

What followed was much more of the same. The Coalition was deemed unconstitutional, undemocratic, and unpatriotic. Meanwhile, evidence of hypocrisy and opportunism were presented, verbal barrages against Quebecers' opinions were made and their was fleeing from the mandate set out by Canadians. All of this so Harper could appeal to the worst side of nationalism. Divide, distort and deceive.

The granting of the prorogation is status quo in the sense that our Governor General, right or wrong, played to the image of the figurative character. Arguably, too afraid to fulfill her duties as the "guarantor of responsible government" she allowed the lack of requirement of her position to influence her decision. Our Governor General, typically, is unnecessary. Most governments act responsibly in a general sense and put importance on governing and progress.

Mostly, Canadians have elected majority governments, which eliminates many gray areas within parliament. Therefore, it's easy to go decades - if not generations - without a significant requirement of the Governor General (as it should be). However, this lack of requirement has allowed for the entrenchment of the image of the antiquated and figurative role. No real lasting decision has been made by a Governor General in some time but that shouldn't mean a removed opinion from a constitutional or parliamentary debate has little value or shouldn't be weighed. This is especially true in times of minority governments where the mandate is one of compromise and consensus and an impartial mediator is warranted. Michaëlle Jean went with status quo and we now enter a period of just the same.

The immediate future is fairly predictable at this point. Since parliament is not sitting, little progress will be made. With the granting of prorogation, our government is essentially paralyzed. No ideas will be voted on, the mandate of the people will not be fulfilled, and in the event some sector or institution should suddenly take a turn for the worse no action can be made to counter it. It's not as though Canada's government, for many years (not just the last 2.5 or so), has actually made many major decisions or worked to solve some of our greatest challenges (poverty, health care, etc.) anyway. So not responding to a crisis or an unexpected (though all too predictable) occurrence is pretty much par for the course in contemporary terms.

Even in regards to what we should expect from our current batch of parties and leaders is pretty much the same. Harper will sound conciliatory and compromising but will act just the opposite. And we'll likely see more election-like campaign leading up to the Conservative budget. A budget that rejects much of what the majority opposition proposes and is interlaced with wonderful red herrings to distract us from the more vicious ideological and partisan inclusions. I also don't expect much more from the opposition leaders than what we've already seen.

Expect 'status quo'. And my wife, after all, was right.

Why Bennis' quote as the title? Because in the end it all comes down to leadership. Last night I had the opportunity to see John Ralston Saul do a speaking engagement at the University of Toronto. He's on tour to promote his latest book, A Fair Country. He spoke mostly to the themes and the more interesting aspects of his latest offering - this included the idea that Canada has become a nation led by 'functioning elites'. These elites have become addicted to complacency. They've lost the art of and the necessity of negotiation to develop answers but rely upon complex analysis when the solution is generally simple. They've become wrapped up in action that leads to nothing when a decisive response is required. And ultimately they begin to speak in a language that differs from that of the challenge that they face and this renders all else ineffective because communication becomes impossible.

John Ralston Saul was speaking in terms of Canadian history and identity - it wasn't supposed to be a critique of the current showdown in parliament. However, this showdown and all of what I've been describing as status quo is essentially a physical and political manifestation of his argument. Whether it's the fear of making a lasting decision, proposing a significant solution, spending time in constant argument and deliberation, battling ideologies - all of which can be applied to what we've just witnessed - our government is addicted to complacency; to the status quo. Leadership, real leadership, is something of the past and has been replaced with managerialism in some cases, something less and worse in others. Most of our current challenges were predictable and/or avoidable. But complacency and the lack of grasping the bigger picture has brought us to a situation where little is accomplished and ultimately, the disagreements we have are over items of little significance.

And for what is the first and likely only time in my life, I'm agreeing with Ronald Regan when he said, "Status quo, you know, that is Latin for the mess we're in."

A Retooled Reflection on the Liberal-NDP Coalition and Parliament

2008-12-02T22:25:00.001-05:00

I want to take a moment to slightly change an outlook and further develop my view on the Coalition. Don't mistake any of this as a change of heart about this - Harper went too far and can no longer be trusted on this issue or any other, we know where his intentions truly lie. However, the Coalition needs to be smart and it needs to fulfill the mandate of the election.

I don't buy into the whole notion that Harper was elected as Prime Minister- he wasn't. Too many polls during the election indicated that Canadians disliked Harper as much as any other leader, but that the supposed "steady as she goes" policies and Dion's lacking attributed to the final results. Furthermore, we do not directly elect our Prime Minister. I also don't buy that the Conservatives won the election - they didn't. Yes, they came out ahead in the end but they still only managed a minority government. In other words, the mandate that the Conservatives were handed was essentially to be at the helm of a compromise and consensus government. Harper ignored that mandate and I believe that someone else now deserves to carry that mandate.

That can happen in one of two ways. The first, which is where I am slightly backtracking, is that the Harper can show his apparent sense of remorse for being viciously ideological and partisan by making a changing of the guard. Those that were responsible for making this play (Flaherty, Giorno et al.) are removed from their positions. Harper must also publicly admit his role in making this mistake and provide an honest reflection (and possibly, but not necessarily, step down as Prime Minister and Conservative leader). Furthermore, he should reach out to the opposition and provide them a number of senior and significant roles within the cabinet. Harper will then include the opposition within all developments of and make public as soon as possible the details of the coordinated economic plan to deal with the situation. It must be done in full view of the public so that no backroom or underhanded tactics can unfold. Canadians wanted leadership and consensus to deal with the current crisis and this I feel this would achieve both.

The second method is that the Coalition takes power at the first opportunity. They then take on the mandate of a compromise and consensus government. They stick to the original agreement of shrinking the cabinet and appointing six NDP cabinet members and with six secretaries. With the last eighteen positions they will find a suitable role for a number of Conservative MPs to also be apart of this cabinet. All cabinet positions must be given to elected members of the Parliament. The idea of this Coalition is to force the mandate of multi-partisan government that was given by Canadians and therefore must also include Conservative members for this to be honoured. This cabinet cannot include non-elected members (just in case there is any truth to the Elizabeth May rumour). Again, all developments should be done under public scrutiny in order to avoid power plays or any means of trying to undermine the process - possibly through the use of an extended formal agreement. Now is not the time for further partisan gamesmanship but a renewed focus on the situation at hand.

This government needs to work and it needs to be working now. Canadians need to feel as though this entire situation can lead to something better. So far it has only made many Canadians feel much more cynical towards our politicians. There is a lot of tension and bad blood between all the parties. However, if the Bloc is able to officially put aside separatism and the Liberals are able to put aside their disgust for the Bloc and work towards a common, positive goal, then I see no reason why this Coalition cannot put their legitimate distrust for Harper and certain members of the Conservatives, and vice-versa, to also work towards dealing with this issue. The latest election did not provide any one party the mandate to govern as they wish. And while the Conservatives definitely tried, in a way that was beyond unethical and undemocratic, there is still time to get the government back on track and focused on the economic issues.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see Harper opting for being a leader in this. I don't know if he is actually capable of admitting his mistakes, seeing past his hyper-partisanship, preference for political gamesmanship over governing, and getting over his grudges. And therefore, I believe the best possible situation for Canada, at this moment, is the Coalition taking power and including, within the framework of an official agreement, members of the Conservatives.

On the Latest Conservative Talking Point and Leadership Issues

2008-12-01T19:43:00.000-05:00

Conservative Talking Point: After flipping back and forth between CTV Newsnet and CBC Newsworld, it has become clear the Conservatives are going to indirectly accuse the Coalition as sell-outs to the Bloc Quebecois. All they've been saying is, "what did it cost to get the Bloc onside?"

The fact of the matter is that Quebec isn't isolated from Canada and vice-versa. What's going on in Quebec will have an impact on Canada to some degree, however, if Canada isn't healthy it's guaranteed that Quebec isn't either. Gilles Duceppe knows this and so does every other separatist. At this point, as Canada goes so does Quebec. If there is going to be a recovery, coast to coast, it is going to take all provinces, territories and regions working together.

Yes, Duceppe is a separatist running a separatist party. However, Duceppe's main job as head of the BQ, at this point in time, is to make sure Quebec's interests are listened to and addressed. Separatism is a low priority amongst Quebecers. Just ask Marois or Dumont - who have essentially dropped talk about separation. It is in Quebec's interest, who is mainly represented by the BQ, to be involved in and benefit from a Coalition that is looking to make economic progress.

I would also argue that since the BQ, in its current incarnation, is really nothing more than a regional representative - either by necessity or by concession - other Canadian regions will also benefit from BQ's involvement. The Coalition will specifically look to create equity between regions - whatever Duceppe asks for other regions will receive something comparable and/or equitable. The one thing this Coalition will try to do is alienate the West and this is one way to do it.

Let's not forget Dion's role in the Clarity Act and how much Duceppe detests it. And likewise, there is no love for Duceppe from Dion. These two men have had to put a lot aside to be able to work together for at least eighteen months. But the one thing Dion would NEVER do is make any concessions that would strengthen the separatist cause. Dion also knows the risks - and there are many, politically and federally - to working on the same side as the BQ. Neither Dion or Layton would have went into this without heavy consultation and a little on the defensive. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

And since we're talking about Dion...

Liberal/Coalition Leadership: I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the argument that Dion was rejected by voters. Not all voters mind you, but there is some indication that Liberal voters stayed home and that is enough to pay attention to this argument. What I think people should keep in mind is that under this Coalition it doesn't really matter who is Prime Minister. Why? Because it is a Coalition brought together under a common focus through concession and compromise (something Harper didn't attempt).

The decisions under this Coalition are being made through a group/team effort. That means the Prime Minister won't be the main or sole idea producer who is relying on his team to hash out details. Rather, the ideas are being developed in another format where one person cannot overrule the others. To try to do so would be political suicide and in violation of the agreement that was signed. This is also why when the new Liberal leader is chosen in May, the transition into the Prime Minister position will likely be smooth and have little (if any) effect on the operations of the government.

This does mean that the eventual new leader/Prime Minister, at least in the beginning, will not have the same privy afforded to them that Chretien had during his days as PM. They will, however, be front and centre of a functioning and progressive government working towards the betterment of all Canadians.

The Coalition Already has Proposed More and More Anonymous Liberal Sources

2008-12-01T16:32:00.001-05:00

Coaltion Progress: This whole coalition thing has really taken off. If the Conservatives actually have some ideas they should probably begin talking about them immediately. If these reports are true, it shows that the opposition parties are extremely serious about going forward with the coalition in an attempt to deal with the economic crisis. For the Conservatives to do anything (e.g. ask for a prorogue, further delay confidence motions, etc.) but put out a real economic plan, that can take effect ASAP would be tantamount to admitting they either have not the willingness to do what's necessary and what Canadians have asked of them or they are devoid of any ideas of how to deal with the current situation. Unless an actual plan is immediately put forward the Conservatives will be admitting that they are incapable of governing and the proposed coalition would be necessary.

Update @ 11:38am: CBC Newsworld is reporting that the coalition has already developed a economic plan and will possibly be making it public shortly. I'll add a link when one comes available.

Ivison on Ignatieff: In regards to John Ivison's posts that keep popping up - one that mentions Ignatieff is not in agreement with the coalition and another that Ignatieff is going to be appointed leader - over at the National Post, let's keep in mind he's quoting the ever popular anonymous Liberal source. My own anonymous party contacts have told me Ivison is either writing a bunch of garbage and attaching the source tag to make it sound legit or he's talking to someone outside of Ignatieff's camp that doesn't have access to details. Booya! There you go! Anonymous Liberal sources for all is what I believe. Everyone should have one so they can print random, inane quotes on any topic with any slant they like. I wonder if I can ask my anonymous computer programmer friends to develop some type of bot that would just randomly produce anonymous Liberal insights?

Check out these links for more on Ivison and his posts:

Updated @ 4:29pm: Proof-positive that Ivison is wrong...

It's Time For, "Who's Playing Politics and Who's Trying to Govern?"

2008-11-30T20:51:00.005-05:00

One of these two are playing politics and another is trying to govern and lead Canada through harsh economic times. Can you guess which is doing what?

Conservatives:

Recently while in Peru meeting with other international leaders, Stephen Harper, Prime Manager of Canada, talked openly about the need to implement a plan that would create fiscal stimulus, protect jobs and workers' pensions. These measures would be comparable to other industrial nations' plans. Upon his return to Canada, the Conservatives proposed their 'Ways and Means' fiscal update that presented ideological and partisan proposals. These proposals offered little for the economy but much to their base support. The proposals were meant to subvert workers' rights, women's equality, and the finances of the opposition parties but framed them as necessary in a time of economic crisis. It was also proposed to sell of Crown assets in an attempt to artificially and temporarily balance future budgets. When the opposition did their job and held the Conservatives accountable, the governing party balked and has now begun crying foul even though Stephen Harper supported similar actions when he was in opposition. Furthermore, in a complete act of desperation the Conservatives unethically (and possibly, illegally)taped at least one NDP caucus meeting and released it to the media with completely inane and hypocritical talking points attached. Lastly, to boot, the Conservatives have considered shutting down parliament in order to avoid having to deal with the concerns of the opposition and Canadians over the economy.

Opposition Parties (Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois):

The opposition have remembered that they are the majority. Combined they hold more elected seats and received more votes than the Conservatives. In the face of a brutally poor proposal that didn't address the economic crisis or the needs of Canadians, the opposition got together and have begun the process of hashing out a coalition. This coalition would see, at least in the near future, the opposition parties drop partisan agendas and past arguments to work together and attempt to put out a meaningful plan that would aid Canadians and help alleviate some of the impact of this crisis.

For Harper, the Corruption of Power (or the Want of it) is Absolute

2008-11-29T06:00:00.000-05:00

Politics - Ideology - Power

For Harper, only those three things hold any interest. The recent fiscal update/mini-budget proposal thingy exposed that. Harper and Flaherty proposed to bankrupt the opposition parties, override any recent and ongoing contract negotiations with federal civil service employees while taking away their right to strike, and didn't propose any measures to help stimulate the economy. Harper's ideology, joy of political games, and want of power has put him into a position where he confuses management with leadership, has a narrow vision of Canada and has no idea how to actually govern (even if he wanted to, which he doesn't). And this is more painfully obvious than ever.

The way I see, Harper believed he would get the best of the opposition by trying put them into a corner. He proposed a completely unreasonable and undemocratic budget with the subsidy-removal proposal (a red herring) in hopes of being able to paint the opposition parties as only self-interested if or when they voted against it. He would then go into an election with a money advantage and a nice little theme too boot. Or maybe at least one party would support it to avoid an election and in the end the opposition parties would be technically broke for quite some time.

Unfortunately for Harper, the opposition focused on the lack of stimulus and the public didn't seem to buy his red herring, either. The opposition began openly talking about a coalition and I think Harper got somewhat concerned. So this morning the Conservatives removed the subsidy-removal piece - claimed it was in there by accident - and waited for talks of a coalition to fade away, get the support of at least one opposition party, and still claim the opposition were only interested in themselves when the economic update passed.

Unfortunately for Harper, the opposition only seemed more determined to form a coalition. This was made clear with the Liberals preparing to make a non-confidence motion this coming Monday. Now suddenly Harper is scrambling to figure out where he went wrong. I think it's pretty obvious that Harper didn't plan for this outcome. He must have believed that somewhere along the way at least one of the opposition would have faltered. But they didn't. And now Harper's only response is, "I need more time." He underestimated the resolve of the opposition parties to see something done about the economy - likely a plan that somewhat follows the lead of every other western nation and the advice of respected economists - and now he's unsure as to what to do.

Out of his three interests, one holds a great more sway than the other two; power. His breaking of his own fixed-date legislation, breaking election financing laws and so forth, attest to this. So Harper and Flaherty put out their economic update chock-full of ideological and political postures hoping to use the economic crisis as justification. Ultimately though it was about getting more power - through bankrupting the opposition or holding another election with a stronger financial position and newly minted theme. Harper has never been this close to a majority before and he wants it so much and so he seems willing to do whatever it takes.

When this didn't work out and Harper saw that he might lose power, he balked. There is no way he is just going to hand over power. Harper knows he's on a tight leash with his base. He hasn't been able to win a majority through three elections. The last election especially hurt him. In spit of pandering to Quebec and other groups, playing the role of moderate centrist, wasting $300m in the face of a deficit, etc. It didn't pay off and he's still stuck not being able to fulfill the wishes of those that have been waiting for ages for an opportunity to inflict the rest of Canada. Since he hasn't been able to get the right to the promised land, he's been relying on little bits of ideology and politics to keep himself propped up. These will only get you so far, however. For him to simply pass power over to the opposition would likely be his proverbial death knell as leader of the Conservatives.

Harper, like some have speculated, may have considered passing power to the opposition to let the economic crisis take them down rather than him. However, there are too many risk factors involved with this. For example, what happens if all the stimulus pumped out by other nations has a positive effect? Then the opposition parties will get credit. What if the coalition proposes a package combined with new regulations and jobs are saved and Canada shows some strength? Then the opposition gets credit. What if the opposition does their due diligence and hires independent audits of the government's budget? Well, just take a trip back to Ontario, 2003? What if...? What if...? And therein lies the problem for Harper. Giving up power is likely too much for him but the prospect of never getting it back? Well, maybe if Hell froze over, but even then...

As for what Harper is going to do now? I'm not certain. Maybe he will take the risk of letting the opposition coalition get buried by the economic crisis, though I seriously doubt it. Will he make a considered and reasonable proposal to deal with the economic situation? I doubt that as well. Being on short leash may let you speak like a Keynesian convert but it doesn't mean you actually get to act like one without some repercussions. I suspect they've delayed the idea of using a stimulus package until it's absolutely necessary in hopes that Canada will reap the benefits of other countries'. They want to play the role of bench warmer in this situation. So while the US, England, Germany and others are out on the field sacrificing themselves to win the title, Canada still gets the championship ring for just being on the team. No work, but all the glory. And with that in mind, I figure that Harper and his crew are going to use the extra week to come up with some proposal ideas that look like something but amount to doing little or nothing (i.e. The Clean Air Act). That way they can look the part of concerned and active government but still hold face with their base support. And in the end, Canada is still left devoid of a governing party with any vision or leadership when it comes to governing.

Michael Ignatieff, Liberal Leader

2008-11-25T10:39:00.001-05:00

I figure it's time that I throw my support behind one of the Liberal leadership candidates. Can anyone guess who it's going to be? Well if you read the heading and then applied some form of reason, you would be correct; I'm backing Michael Ignatieff.

This wasn't an easy decision for me. In the past I have looked at Ignatieff as an outsider who was brought in by party insiders with the sole purpose of taking over. He was to be a pawn. His speeches back in '06 made me cringe because he seemed to say a lot of the right things (despite a few gaffes) without any genuine understanding of what the party truly needed. In many ways he and his campaign very much reminded me of Paul Martin when he was running for leadership and during his two elections - and trust me, I haven't ever been a fan of Paul Martin (even to the point I once mused at the prospect of him being trounced at the polls so he would be removed as leader). There was a lot of rhetoric from Ignatieff, as there was with Martin, but nothing substantial to back it up. And with all of this tagged onto Ignatieff, he obviously didn't represent the next generation of Liberals, the Liberals that are looking for relevance to their views and lives.

However, I have always had some admiration for Ignatieff. During my undergraduate years at Waterloo, I had the opportunity to see him speak on human rights and I was extremely impressed. I then read his book "The Rights Revolution" and was impressed even more. Both of these accounts presented a man with passion, belief and understanding. These exposed him as someone that envisioned something greater for the world. In those moments he was a leader with a vision. So when he came back home and was propped-up as the next leader and spoke without any of those things, I wondered what had happened to the person I admired just a few years earlier?

No one is perfect and between those two periods of time Ignatieff had made some mistakes of sort, such as supporting the war on Iraq. He has been called on them over and over, and somewhat brow-beaten over some of these mistakes. And from that maybe his saying all the right things and acting the right way was an attempt to avoid providing more material to his critics. Don't take this as my attempt of creating an excuse for the man. If anything it's another shot. One thing I believe leaders need to be able to do is to reflect on their mistakes, admit when they were wrong and correct themselves. They need to be able to continually learn and evolve. And this is something Ignatieff has begun to do.

The last few times I have seen Ignatieff speak, both in person and through the media, I have seen a return to the passionate academic I admired. Along with it has come a renewed sense of confidence that has allowed him to admit his mistakes and genuinely learn from them. He no longer is the pawn to a group of Liberal insiders as he has come into his own as a politician on his own terms. He truly is showing his leadership qualities, beginning with honest attempts at party unity. Already he has shown the ability to unite Liberals along the left/right divide, and from the old Martin/Chretien sides. He represents an honest return to (small-l) liberal ideals and along with it a return to the political centre.

For the next few years the Liberal Party has a lot of rebuilding to do. It has to reconnect with grassroot members and re-prove its relevancy to ordinary Canadians. It has to change the way it develops policy and fundraise. It needs to re-establish itself as the 'big tent' party that balances the needs and concerns of all Canadians, not just central Canada or urban Canada. It needs to make a generational transition. Will Ignatieff be able to do all these things? I don't know. The task is so large it may take more time than one leader has to do it all. However, I do believe that Ignatieff understands how daunting the task is and is willing to begin the process of renewal. And at the same time I believe he is our best option to stand-up for Canada against the focus on power and ideology of Harper and the Conservatives. Ignatieff has proved he can do this during the last few years as Deputy Leader within the House.

Do I think Ignatieff is the saviour of the party as many seem to believe we need? No. But then again, I think a saviour is the last thing we need right now. An omnipotent leader would make us forget about all that is broken within the party and when that leader faded away we would still be left dealing with the mess of pieces. What we need is someone that can competently fill the gap between the present and the next generation. Ignatieff does this. While I think Dominic LeBlanc is qualified, he is better suited to be that next generation leader at this point and with some more experience he will be well positioned to be just that. Bob Rae is more than qualified and competent to be the Liberal leader he does come with 'baggage' (as cliche as that has become). If Rae were chosen I still believe the Liberal Party could succeed but it would come at a greater cost of resources, finances and time. All of which the party has little of these days. Ignatieff has a lifetime of varying experiences and without being a life-long politician and therefore comes much more baggage-free. Ignatieff will make an amazing leader combining world experiences, academic knowledge, journalistic curiousity, etc. He is displaying qualities that no other leader in Canadian politics has. He still is that outsider but that is exactly what we need right now.

And with that I am officially endorsing Michael Ignatieff for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Harper Preaches "Be pragmatic, not ideological" and Exposes Himself

2008-11-14T11:35:00.003-05:00

...and why would that be, Mr. Harper?

If you have to ask your supporters, caucus or whomever to put aside ideology in tough times, that should indicate a problem. Either the ideology is 'too scary' and not likely going to be acceptable to the general public. Or the ideology doesn't work. In this case it's one of those 'a little from column A and a little from column B' scenarios.

The problem with column A is that the right-wing ideology isn't acceptable to the majority of Canadians. There's a reason why Harper still can't win a majority despite the Liberals pushing a good plan at the wrong time and having one of their weakest showings ever. Voters would rather not vote at all than vote for Harper. And with Harper's only focus being the elusive majority, he needs a more pragmatic, faux-centrist appearance to get it. Unfortunately, these people looking for the hard, right turn have been waiting very patiently to get their way. They handed the reigns to Harper to lead them to the promised land where they could ravage social and economic policies, but he has yet to deliver. That doesn't mean the faithful are willing to wait any longer.

The problem with column B is that it is partially the fault of the right-wing ideology that the world is in the economic crisis in the first place. However, there are still those - many that support the Conservatives - that still cling to the pure free market, libertarian (neo- or not), Chicago-school or Calgary-school ideologies that pose a risk to stability. Harper is one of them. Leading up to, during and even shortly afterward, Harper still clung to those right-wing views. Not until other nations realized they had no choice but to switch gears did Harper follow suit and now is singing a different tune. How could he, while every other right-wing government around the globe had to concede defeat still push the agenda? He couldn't. To do so would have seen him look like the strange loner as there is also the pressure of image weighing on him. The last thing he doesn't want to be seen as is the Prime Minister that oversaw the loss of millions of jobs and entire industries by sticking to his guns while everyone else attempted to save them.

Therein lays the real Harper. Out of both columns A and B, the common denominator is image or electability. Since he is in a minority situation, Harper is all about looking good in hopes he can one day capture his desired majority. He preaches pragmatism for no other reason than to make himself more appealing. This isn't a man with real concerns about the situation or the average Canadian. This is about a man with a vision of a more conservative Canada that has greater appeal to him and those around him. This is ultimately about creating his vision of Canada, not accepting Canada as it is. To do get there he needs to win more seats, he needs more power. And so, he puts on his centrist mask, begs for more time from his core and preaches about pragmatism over ideology - for now.

Flaherty Must Be Getting Dizzy From All His Turning Around

2008-11-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

What it all really comes down to is that Flaherty really isn't qualified for the job of Minister of Finance. The biggest issue is that he's a politician first and foremost. He's a politician that also happens to have some knowledge of financing - too bad knowing isn't the same as understanding. But who am I to say anything? I'm not an economist or an accountant. Though I do understand the poor economics of rushing to cut the GST rather than cutting income taxes. I also understand his reasoning and solution, for breaking his promise on taxing income trusts, was flawed and so forth.

When Flaherty starts talking about his 'plans', I just cringe. Selling off items such as the CN Tower is a short term fix that is tantamount to Harris (with Flaherty) selling off the 407. It's a short-term political posture that has no benefit in the long term. There's nothing to gain except Flaherty being able to say he balanced the budget - this year. Which is the point, for him.

This is why he's spinning around like a top with his comments. Though that also seems to be a problem with him since he seems to like blurting out comments without thinking. Which really means he's just as poor at being a politician.

--------------------------------------------

Flaherty on running a deficit (Oct.08/08):

In responding to the worsening global financial crisis that has slowed economic growth in Canada and elsewhere, “we'll do what we have to do, so long as we remain economically prudent. We're sure not going to run a deficit ... We will maintain a surplus in Canada and we will continue to pay down debt.”
Asked if running even a small deficit would be bad in these difficult times, Mr. Flaherty said flatly: “Yes, it would be.”

Flaherty on running a deficit (Oct.22/08):

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is leaving the door open to the possibility that the Conservative government could run a budget deficit in future years as a result of the current economic crunch...But in an interview with CBC-TV yesterday, Flaherty was less certain about balancing the budget in the 2009-10 fiscal year or thereafter.

------------------------------------------------------

Flaherty on reaching a balanced budget (Oct.29/08):

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the federal government will do what it can in this challenging economic time to keep the budget balanced, but it won't do so at any price.
"We're not going to engineer a surplus on the backs of Canadian families and Canadian businesses for the sake of being able to say we have a surplus," Flaherty told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live on Wednesday.

Flaherty on reaching a balanced budget (Nov.13/08):

The federal government is looking to sell capital assets to help balance the books, a sale that could include the CN Tower, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said today.

Optimism - the Deciding Factor in Obama's Historic Win

2008-11-06T15:13:00.000-05:00

The concept that people only vote these days 'against' something rather than 'for' has become rather cliché. The three most recent Canadian federal elections were apparently all won by those who weren't what voters were running from. The same argument has been applied to several of the more recent provincial elections. This isn't to say that there isn't merit in these claims as I've even been known to toss it out there. However, I have my serious doubts that it has become the norm as so many bloggers, pundits and other politicos would make it appear to seem.

For me, the first evidence of this is Obama's historic win this past Tuesday. While so many have talked about this being a win based on the anti-Bush vote, I believe it was a win based on the change and optimism that Obama represents.

Why did I emphasize 'optimism'? Because that is what really separated Obama from McCain. Both of these candidates represented change. Obama represented greater change but McCain really is the Republican maverick who often did things his own way and without the blessing of his party. McCain would have surely run the government differently from Bush Jr.

With Obama's focus on optimism, unity and hope, American's were provided with a message that has been lacking for almost a decade and they voted for that as much as they voted for change and/or voting against the legacy of the Bush/Cheney Republicans. Though it does go beyond this as well. As Obama had to overcome the racial barriers that still exist in America.

Leading up to election day, Obama was touted as having anywhere from an 8-15 point lead in the polls and yet, he only won by 4 points in the popular vote. This in part can be attributed to those Americans that will pledge support for an ethnic candidate in public but in private do the opposite. As well, identity politics is alive and well in the US and this wouldn't be possible or it wouldn't matter if those barriers didn't exist.

I am always blown away by how many 'groups' the campaigns focus on in the US. During election night I heard about Hispanics and sub-groups such non-Cuban Hispanics and Cuban Hispanics within Florida or elsewhere, working-class whites, middle-class whites, middle-class females, African Americans and all of its sub-groups, etc. Canadian political analysis usually focuses on males, females, French, Anglophone, urban, rural, etc. Race is hardly at hand whereas race seemingly makes up the majority of groups identified within the US. And this is because the barriers between races are still ever-present.

Let's not also forget that Obama had to win the support with those that don't share his views. Obama supports civil unions for LGBTs, a partial firearm ban, stem-cell research, etc. These and other positions that he holds aren't very popular with many of the groups that supported him. However, Obama was able to overcome these differences of opinion and still gain support of the people.

For Obama to be able to achieve his historic win he had to be much more than just a candidate for change. As McCain himself represented change as well. If it wasn't for McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate, this race would likely have been much closer (though I still think Obama could have pulled it off). With the economy in bad shape, Iraq going poorly, and so forth, things were up for grabs and change was what people were after and both candidates offered. However, McCain makes this difficult for Obama because he has credibility that crosses party lines.

However, Obama also offers hope and unity. He offers optimism. His campaign focuses on these themes just as much as he does change. McCain on the other hand, knowing he needs all the support he can get, chooses the socially conservative Palin to guarantee he gets the far-right votes of the republican base. Palin also serves as another potentially historic (first female vice-president) and generational-shift candidate, the things that Obama himself represent. Instead, McCain's selection of Palin was really a cynical, political move and takes some of his 'change' credibility away. Worse than that, Palin's views are intricately woven with the type of positions that Bush Jr. and Co. have been championing for the last eight years. The type of views that is now synonymous with fear, division and distrust. And thus, Americans were left with a choice between change (McCain) or change-plus (Obama). We now know the outcome.

Obama's win wasn't won simply by not being Bush Jr., there was too much for him to overcome if that were the case. If it were only change that American's were looking, McCain offered that as well. American's wanted something to look forward to. For too long they have been told to be afraid of everything and everyone around them. They have their own concerns these days, they shouldn't have to worry that their government is adding to that pressure. While McCain offered a change in approach to almost all facets of America, Obama went further. And so Americans voted for optimism - the premise of Obama's campaign - and what allowed him to overcome so much, whether it be race, difference of social view, age, party, and achieve his historic win.

Renewal from the Ground Up (Liberal 308 and Beyond)

2008-10-31T11:03:00.003-04:00

This past March I began to question, along with many others, the Liberal leadership's willingness to listen to the grassroots. There seemed to be some desire for an election based on the many gaffes made by the Conservatives and the direction they were taking us in. However, none of the upper Liberals would pull the plug. This left many people disillusioned and frustrated with the Liberal Party. Seven months later we now know what that level of discontent meant for the Liberals...

With a dismal turnout at the polls, an immediate stepping down of the leader and supporters still right pissed, the Liberal Party is back to where they started several years ago. Once again we're gearing up for another leadership race, divisions threaten still, and policy and fundraising initiatives are being largely ignored. However, a bright light of sorts is beginning to shine through the fog with the creation of Liberal 308.

Liberal 308's mandate is about real renewal of both the party and its values. It's about rebuilding all 308 local associations, introduce greater accountability to the grassroots with decision making, develop new fundraising initiatives and provide tools that will lead to better election readiness and success.

The party's last shot at renewal was supposed to come after the development of the Red Ribbon Report. The report recommended big changes in policy and outreach. However, after some consideration, I believe the flaw of the report was that all changes were to come top down. It was supposed to be up to the senior Liberals to implement the recommended changes. Liberal 308 is looking to do the opposite. If the party won't make the changes for us, then we'll just have to go to them. That is why a 'movement' such as Liberal 308 is so important. The grassroots cannot afford to any longer hope for the best. If we want to be heard and given regard then we have to force this issue to the front of the agenda.

Last night I had the opportunity to review a proposal from a good friend and fellow Liberal. While he has yet to officially get involved with Liberal 308, the proposal he's looking to present, at the LPC(O) conference in November, essentially addresses the same issues and ideas. His proposal refers making changes in the way associations are supported, how fundraising is conducted and making changes as to how grassroot initiatives are addresses by the central party. While his proposal is about making the initial changes within just Ontario, his hope is that eventually the changes will go national.

What the Liberal Party needs to realize is that while they have not yet become irrelevant, irrelevance is where they are heading. If you're no longer willing to listen and reach out to those that make up the backbone of the party, you can forget ever getting general voters to jump on board. It's no longer good enough to just develop policy and ideas on the spot and ignore the concerns of everyday Canadians. The Liberal Party needs to be open and accountable and be able to present a true vision for Canada. There is a desire for that type of leadership; the leadership that used to course through the Liberal Party. The Conservatives and the NDP have shown they aren't able to take on that role, which means there is an opportunity for the Liberals to get back to where they once were. It will come in the process of renewing the party and reaching out to the grassroots. That is why, more now than ever, grassroot initiatives such as Liberal 308 and the proposal for the LPC(O) are vital.

“When the heroes go off the stage, the clowns come on” (Just another perspective on the Liberal Party)

2008-10-17T16:30:00.001-04:00

Like so many others I am sick and tired of hearing from 'anonymous Liberal sources' or other hacks about what the party is or isn't doing and what should or shouldn't happen. The fact of the matter is that all this nonsense and backstabbing was supposed to have been dealt with when we elected a new leader and yet it seems nothing has changed and no lessons have were learned two years ago.

Simply put, these so-called 'strategists', 'insiders', 'senior officials' or whatever they are, need to be removed from their positions (from here on in, they will collectively be referred to as 'clowns'). This is the second time these clowns have brought the party down through with their childish bickering and want of total control. First they were willing to divide the party when they weren't getting their way while Chretien was leader and Prime Minister and now they willing to undermine Dion because he wasn't the leader they chose and wanted to do things differently. So much for unity, respecting the will of the membership, reaching out to the grassroots, transparency and renewal - all things that were apart of the Red Ribbon Report.

Well, I hope these clowns got exactly what they wanted. Through their actions they brought down a respectable leader, killed membership and voter confidence, and are making us go back to the drawing board again. They've wasted two years of trying to rebuild. The best thing we could do is remove most of these clowns and replace them with people who actually care about the state of the party and providing an option for true representation in Canada. The party and Canadians cannot afford to have a Liberal Party that is being hijacked by those that are more interested in themselves and their need for control.

Dion deserves much more respect than he is getting or has ever gotten from these clowns. The party and its membership deserve even more. Even guys that have come out of the woodwork, like Joe Volpe, should be shown the door. Volpe is one of those guys that have been taking aim at Dion likely since the leadership race. Too bad for Volpe as he has little credibility when it comes to leadership and therefore he too should either shut up or get out. Guys like this, who are willing to divide the party, should just exit stage left. It's time they begin working as a team or face being cut. Otherwise, the Liberal Party, as a whole, will fall apart and become something of a joke - just like the clowns that go on after the heroes have left the stage.

Campaign Notes: Sign Watching

2008-10-14T00:43:00.002-04:00

So Andrew McKeever has officially stepped down but that hasn't kept a couple local NDPers from putting up Jack Layton signs throughout the riding. Since McKeever stepped down after the nomination period ended his name is still on the ballot. From what I understand if he were to win the election, a by-election would be called immediately. However, the national NDP will still collect their $1.75/vote for McKeever. In otherword, McKeever can't benefit but the NDP can. Hence, the appearance of Jack Layton: 'Toronto-Danforth' and 'Team Toronto' signs within Durham.

This has created some chatter though. For one thing, many of the Layton signs do not contain an authorization. Elections Canada has been notified and word is that they are likely going to be pulled. Being this was a holiday weekend, it seems that that won't happen until election day sometime. Another thing is that there has been some commenting about how the signs are unwelcome. Several locals I have talked with - not all Liberals but does include NDPs - have mentioned that Jack Layton isn't running in Durham and his signs have no place in Durham. As well, the signs are for his Toronto-Danforth riding. Many comments have implied that it feels like an encroachment of the big city.

Will the signs make a difference? I'm having my doubts. The situation with McKeever is well known at this point and the appearance of the Layton signs may serve to just remind people that Layton defended this guy and still hasn't officially denounced the nasty comments. I understand the purpose of the signs, which is to motivate the core support to vote NDP no matter what, but I can't see it doing much more than confusing people and coming across as an elaborate prank. Besides, the rest of the Durham candidates have put in too much work - some much more than others - at getting their names out and building up support.

Whatever, I guess we all now know what inegrity is worth: $1.75.

Campaign Notes: CTV Playing Politics? (The 'Does This Still Need to be a Question?' Edition)

2008-10-09T23:49:00.001-04:00

A member of the local Liberal campaign team and several other, non-partisan people I know have signed up to receive the CTV news feed to their Blackberries. When looking at the feeds, one of them noticed that they were getting Conservative feeds shortly after the Cons made an announcement. However, feeds for the NDP and Liberals weren't arriving until several hours after their announcements were made. When mentioned, another person mentioned they were having the same issue and in fact, both feeds times had matched. This was then compared to others and they too had the same experience. One of them asked about service providers and they weren't all with the same company.

For example: The Conservatives made an announcement on Sept. 22nd at approximately 10am; the feed was sent within twenty minutes. On the other hand, the Liberals made their platform announcement at 11:00 and it was sent out at almost noon. However, the NDP made news this morning and the feed on them wasn't sent until the early afternoon. From the account of the news feeds on the Blackberries, this isn't unusual. Conservative headlines are arriving sooner than the other parties' headlines.

Maybe it's only a coincidence that these CTV news feed subscribers are receiving their feeds on the opposition much later than that of the Conservatives. However, they're not all with the same provider. Then again, maybe Andrew Krystal was on to something afterall...

Update (10/09/08 @ 11:15pm):
I'm not going to play any violins or anything like that. However, I will say that if there were any doubts, Duffy just showed his true (blue) colours. I won't link to the video of Dion asking to restart his interview a couple times. I won't promote something that is so obviously designed to smear a man. I completely believe that what Duffy did was despicable and likely ethically questionable. And it must be bad when the Cons and Duffy are being called out by other media that are hardly Liberal friendly. While some people have questioned how many other interviews Dion has had to restart, I think a better question is how many other leaders have had to ask for clarifications and do-overs in their taped interviews. Retakes happen all the time and I can guarantee that each of the leaders have probably had at least one or two. The difference here is that Duffy is still likely irked that he got blasted by May for being a Conservative shill. Or maybe Duffy was hoping to distract Canadians from the fact Conservatives have fudged numbers for Afghanistan and haven't been transparent on the issue.

So what does this all mean? Well, Duffy exposed himself for what he really is and has likely lost his integrity and respect. For the Conservatives, I'm guessing the way they went after Dion, it's possible that they just provided the catalyst for many people to go with strategic voting against them. Many non-Conservatives already believe Harper to be bully and he just proved them all right and probably convinced those that were also unsure.

Harper's not a leader. Harper is the kid in the school hallway that pushes others into locker doors as he walks by and laughs, alone. These type of people confuse negative attention with respect and end up being forgotten by their peers or are only remembered for pulling off stunts such as ~~mocking a facial deformity~~ attacking someone's hearing impairment.

Campaign Notes: And Talking About the Media and Politics (Re-Redux)

2008-10-05T19:29:00.002-04:00

(Note: Updates can be found at the end)

Extremely early this morning, I raised a question about CTV and their wireless news feeds. Something about sending out Conservative-related feeds fairly fast while dithering on the the opposition parties'. To continue with the theme of the media and politics, I wanted to look at Metroland Durham Region Media Group, a subsidiary of Torstar and who publishes my local paper, Clarington This Week and the website durhamregion.com.

To anyone in the region, it doesn't surprise when they shill for the Conservatives. During the 2007 Ontario Election they published an 'editorial' written by the local Conservatives. How do I know this? I called the paper during the election to ask where it came from and they told me. So it's no surprise that when Bryan Ransom's response on manufacturing wasn't included in the Sept.13th paper, local Liberals cried foul.

I decided that we should inquire and I wrote the editor. He replied that the piece was misplaced and then overlooked but that the paper would print it ASAP with an attached apology. They did just that on the 17th. For the next response, the paper asked for positions on Afghanistan. Bryan Ransom's reply went in and it was published on Sept.18 - as were all the candidates' responses. Online, all the responses were about Afghanistan. In print, however, all but Bev Oda's responses were about Afghanistan; her's was about industry and it differed from her manufacturing response.

I inquired with the editor once again but this time was not given a reply. Yet, I'm still hearing from others that there is going to be a printing of Oda's Afghanistan response sometime this week. A cynical person might look at this as an intentional mistake to appease Oda's campaign. Afterall, when the paper printed Ransom's manufacturing response it was essentially a stand-alone article, despite the editorial apology. And now Oda is going to have her very own stand-alone piece. I'm interested to see if her industry piece turns out to be the same as her economic response that comes out in two weeks. If not, then there will be some questions about why she had a random industry response on file with the paper.

On the other hand, this could be just the poor work of an editorial team. Two big screw-ups with candidates' responses, missing headshots above articles even though the required headshots were on the previous page, etc. leads one to wonder about the editorial team.

Update (09/24/08): So I was correct. Oda did get her very stand-alone piece with an editorial apology. However, the best part was that her response was printed right above her brand-spanking-new election ad! A double Oda bonus brought to Durham by the good people at Clarington This Week. I also noticed on their durhamregion.com site that even though Ransom's manufacturing response was eventually printed it has yet to appear online.

Update (10/05/08):Once again Clarington This Week has possibly shown its true (blue) colours. Just to clarify; this week's candidate response was on the economy. Now, Oda had already kind of had an economy piece that was printed 'by accident' where her Afghanistan piece should have been. At the time I questioned whether or not this was an accident because it seemed strange that she would have a random response on industry printed that differed from her manufacturing one. I was willing to wait to see if maybe she handed in an economy piece early, that focused on industry, so her campaign wouldn't have to worry about doing it later. Turns out that her economy piece turned out to be very different from her random industry response. Obviously this begs the question, 'why did the paper have a random industry response on file from Oda?' None of the campaigns were asked to print an industry piece and her response wasn't a press release. So where did it come from? Me thinks something stinks...

I've written the editor in hopes of getting an explanation. I doubt my letter will get printed or placed online - they print very few and most end up online - but I also stated that doubt and only asked for the explanation. I'll update this post again if I get a response...

Warren, You Missed One Helluva Show! (Rise Against @ The Sound Academy)

2008-10-04T15:16:00.004-04:00

It's too bad Warren missed the Rise Against concert last night. It was loud, energetic and it made my ears bleed in that good way. It was also a great getaway from the election scene that has been keeping me from sleeping over the last few weeks - although it wasn't entirely without politics as Rise Against and Thrice are both politically-charged bands. Anyway, I thought I would throw out a few thoughts on the show.

The first band to come out was The Gaslight Anthem who were performing in Canada for their first time. I had no expectations for this band because I had only heard of them but had yet to listen to any of their tunes. They put on a surprisingly good show. Their music is identifiably straight out of the New Jersey hardcore/punk scene that also produced bands like Thursday and Saves the Day. However, they mesh this with the sensibility of blue-collar rock (ala Bruce Springsteen) and they pull it off really well and it was nice change from the generic stuff that has come from this scene of late. They interacted with the crowd and were able to make a connection. I expect we'll all hear more out of these guys in the near future. In the meantime they definitely have at least one more fan.

The next band to play was Thrice. I had HUGE expectations for their performance because I am a big fan. It may even be safe to say that next to The Tragically Hip, they are my favourite band. I've been following (not in the stalker sense) these guys since 2003 when I randomly came across their newly released album while working in the US. I heard one song and it blew me away. And before I get too fanboy-ish I'll get back to concert. Thrice's roots are in post-hardcore but as of late they have been experimenting with their sound by branching into and incorporating prog-rock, bluegrass, and electronic music. Somehow they've been able to avoid betraying those roots and have always come across genuine in their albums. But I was still unsure if they could pull it off live. Those concerns were quickly put to rest as they came out heavy, hard and with massive intensity! At the midway mark they flawlessly toned it down a bit playing songs off of their Air disc from their latest double-disc release. After a few of more-relaxed songs Thrice returned to their heavier fare beginning with a cover of The Beatles 'Helter Skelter'. When it was all said and done Thrice had just blown the crowd away and they fans wanted more with a chant for an encore. I've been to a lot of shows in my young life but never had I heard a crowd ask an opening band for an encore and neither of the other two opening bands got the same response. Thrice definitely didn't disappoint and I can't wait to see them again, hopefully with a longer set.

The third opening band was the alt-rock/punk band Alkaline Trio. To be honest, I had low expectations of this band. I saw them sometime around 2000/01 opening for another band and they weren't very good in any way. They had no presence, little interaction with the crowd, the music was fairly bland and they didn't sound very good. Though I was willing to listen with an open mind since it had been at least seven years since that time. While Alkaline Trio sounded really good, all the other problems still remained. AT have been around since 1996 and have likely been a huge influence on many of other alt-rock/punk bands that have since emerged. What's most disappointing, I would think, is that many of the bands they've likely influenced are doing the same thing but much better. It seems as though AT haven't evolved much and honed their craft better. They were also the unfortunate victims of being placed between the intensity of Thrice and the expectations of Rise Against. At would have been much better off is they had played in the second slot and have Thrice play immediately before Rise Against.

Last but not least the headliner, Rise Against came on to sing their brand of protest music. These guys know how to put on a show! While Thrice has gone on to reinvent themselves and experiment within the post-hardcore genre, Rise Against is finding new ways of expressing their pure post-hardcore roots. Sure there are other bands out there doing similar stuff and RA wear some of their influences on their sleeves but at this point none of them are doing it as well or with the passion that Rise Against is. All of their songs speak to a cause and you can feel the connection they've made with their fans by providing that voice. Having many songs that are anthemaic doesn't hurt either. Rise Against were intense and they left the crowd sweaty, ringing and hoarsed. You couldn't ask for anything more.

All-in-all one of my favourite concerts in recent memory. I was worried that my buddy and I would stick out as the 'old guys' (we're 27 and 28), which happened when we attended the Taste Of Chaos show in Mississauga. However, there were plenty of peers at the show, they just all happened to be in the beer tent while we were having our eardrums destroyed. The Sound Academy is a pretty decent venue - it was my first time there. It's definitely better than Arrowhall. Rise Against et al. are playing again tonight at the same place and I wish I had tickets to see this show as well.

And It Ends... Durham NDP Candidate Steps Down.

2008-10-04T10:41:00.003-04:00

It's being reportedthat Andrew McKeever has finally bowed out as an NDP candidate. This was the right decision. Showing a stark contrast between his own and the NDP's views and values, his candidacy seemed strange. However, it was his offensive and threatening comments that proved he was neither mature enought or qualified to be a potential representative of Durham. Stepping down at this point was the right thing to do.

While I struggle with some parts of his resignation statement, enough has been said and done already that criticism is no longer necessary. However, the NDP still have yet to make a statement or denounce his comments. I'm assuming that is coming shortly...

And as this has concluded so will my previous posts that dealt with this situation. Over the next few weeks the past posts will be changed in order to address the issues and themes only. Direct references to McKeever will be removed as there is no longer a point in keeping him included.

How Much More Convincing Does the NDP Need to Realize They Have a Problem in Durham?

2008-10-04T10:40:00.002-04:00

Before I get too far let me say that after this I am finished with reporting on the Durham NDP candidate's online idiocy. The first chunks of online comments found, where he used misogynist and threatening comments in an attempt to silence those who opposed his views, already beleaguer the point that he is beyond unfit for public office. All along that has been my only goal. The likely-hood of him being elected was poor in the first place but is now pretty much guaranteed.

Questions still remained about why Layton and the NDP refused to remove him as their representative without ever denouncing his comments. I doubt that the Layton or NDP central party support this candidate's views or values but they gave tacit approval by doing nothing. Furthermore, all involved have been unreachable by the media and public who have questions and concerns. And for that Layton et al. have been getting picked apart on Rabble's message board and other online forums. Unfortunately for the NDP, the online presence of this candidate and his knack for making really detestable comments hasn't gone away.

Yesterday two things happened that may be the breaking point for the NDP in holding onto to this guy. First, the Liberals released screen captures of the candidate's public MySpace page where he makes reference to the movie Schindler's List. There he states,

"I like the part in Schindler's List when the guard starts waxing the prisoners."

Furthermore, on his personal facebook page he lists his political views as "Baathist" and links to Saddam Hussein's entry on Wikipedia.

Shortly afterward Krystalline Kraus, the journalist who made the joint statement with McKeever and publicly accepted his apology for his original derogatory statements seemed to have a change of heart. On Rabble's message board, under her pseudonym Statica, Kraus left this message,

I'm tired of being expected to take bullets for the NDP and stay quiet when I'm screaming inside to speak. I don't like being silenced or manipulated by anyone in my life.
This McKeever -- NDP Durham candidate -- is not my fault and I won't be treated like this is my fault. I had asked for Mr. McKeever to resign and/or be removed by Layton but it was made clear to me that that would just not happen.
I cannot force the NDP to do anything.
Regardless of Mr. Layton's decision regarding Mr. McKeever, I still think he should finally stand up and speak about this issue by condemning Mr. McKeever's comment -- to speak against misogynist comments and violence. Make that statement.
Other candidates got the condemnation and correction of their party's leaders for what they said. Other parties -- whether they kept their candidates or not in the end -- made public statement to show they do not condone offensive, vulgar or insulting comments.
I can't do this with them anymore. I have given them nothing but kindness and generosity in this situation and they have ignored me and betrayed me in return.
I’m a good journalist and a strong, smart person. I can speak for myself.
krystalline kraus
(H/T to Big City Lib)

Kraus' statement indicates that the NDP refused her request for McKeever's resignation. She asked them to remove him and denounce his statements, likely because she was offended by his comments and appauled by his candidacy, but ultimately a joint statement was released by Kraus and McKeever. From the sounds of it, she seems have taken many of the punches aimed in the direction of the NDP while she offered a positive compromise. And in the end, rather than backing Kraus up the NDP seemingly just cut her loose.

Obviously, this raises questions. Already I've raised questions of the NDP's hypocrisy and accountability on this issue and what the message the NDP were trying to send by supporting McKeever through all this. Now there are questions over the NDP's motivation over keeping McKeever around.

As I stated earlier, this guy's chances of winning were poor at best from the get go. When all of his comments were made public his chances got even worse. The odds have also been on the decline with each day as he has yet to appear at any debates or forums and neither he or members of the Durham NDP are responding to calls. He also missed making a one minute taped statement for CFRB(1010 am). So why hold onto this guy if he obviously doesn't represent NDP views or values or represent the party in person?

There is little doubt that Layton and the NDP need to cut their losses now. This situation doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon and is beginning to have a negative effect. To save face in Durham, the NDP have to cut their candidate loose and denounce his comments so they can show that while choosing this guy was a mistake and admit that isn't ready to represent the residents of Durham that at least the NDP still deserve Durham's respect.

(Editted on 10/04/08 @ 10:40am to reflect the clarification provided by Krystalline Kraus in the comments section.)

In the End, Only the Public's Opinion Counts

2008-10-02T09:23:00.004-04:00

Chantal Hebert and Don Martin and other media types can dismiss Dion and write whatever spin they want but in the end they don't matter. At least not when the public sees it differently...

Tonight's English debate should be interesting.

People Running for Public Office Should Think Twice Before Making Threats Online (Still Waiting on the NDP to do the Right Thing)

2008-09-30T12:46:00.005-04:00

This morning the following article appeared on Metroland's durhamregion.com website:

Sep 30, 2008 - 08:16 AM
AJAX -- A classroom outburst aimed at a teacher has led to criminal charges against an Ajax teen.
Other students had to be moved to another classroom when the 15-year-old girl launched into a diatribe that included abusive language and threats of physical violence, Durham police said.
Police said the incident occurred last Wednesday when a high school teacher attempted to get students in her class to quiet down and pay attention. A 15-year-old girl took exception and began swearing at the teacher, police said.
The situation escalated when the girl threatened the teacher with physical harm, police said. High school liaison officers arrested the girl and charged her with uttering threats and mischief.
The girl's identity is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and police withheld the name of the school.

She uttered threats, only once, and she was immediately arrested and charged. The Durham NDP candidate makes several threats to several people and he is allowed to continue running for public office. Is the difference because he did it online? Well that can be addressed as well. One only has to look to refer to a Toronto Star article written last year.

Nov 20, 2007 02:48 PM
Justin Piercy Staff Reporter
A high-school student accused of threatening fellow students and staff online has been arrested.
A witness told police that someone had posted threatening messages about Eastdale Collegiate in Oshawa on the social-networking site Facebook last Friday.
The messages included threats against staff and students and also outlined a 'hit list' of people the author would like to kill.
Investigators received calls from concerned students and parents over the weekend.
The accused was arrested at a home in northeast Oshawa on Sunday night without incident.
The teenager, who cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, has been charged with threatening and was held for a bail hearing.

While it is admirable that Krystalline Kraus was able to accept McKeever's apology, unfortunately this issue isn't ultimately about her (or the candidate's stance on war resisters). It is about the words and actions that the candidate placed on an online, public forum. It is about his attempt to hide his words by deleting them before anyone found them. It is about how his apology only came after he was caught. And it is about how he has yet to take responsibility and be accountable. His own words and lack of accountability truly show that he isn't mature enough or responsible enough to be running for public office.

The NDP candidate for Durham's words were vulgar, derogatory and threatening in nature. His words may have been directed at several specific people, however they were placed in a public forum and therefore are offensive and derogatory in general. This also doesn't exclude the fact that there is precedent set for a person being charged for the type of things this candidate said. Precedent has also been set by federal candidates stepping down or being removed for comments that are at least on par with his comments.

This is the truly unfortunate part in regards to Layton and the NDP. At a time when the education system is making strides in its combat against bullying, even as it moves to the internet, and we are asking for civility amongst those that are supposed to be leaders within Canada, it is sad and a backward step that Layton would shrug off his own candidate's actions. In turn, this inaction shows that Layton and the NDP are at least trying to play politicswith the situation. However, by doing nothing they have indirectly sent the message that it is okay for someone who is supposed to be held to a higher civil standard and represent the values of the party and their constituents that it is okay to to threaten and bully others (as long as you apologize two months later and only after you were caught).

That isn't good enough.

If a student can be charged with uttering threats for making those comments in person or online, then at the very least a grown man who has aspirations for public office can step down and admit that at this time he isn't ready. But he hasn't done that, so at the very least he should be have been removed by the party. The NDP have shown they're not willing to do that. Then by my accounts this is a matter for which the police should maybe investigate. If the candidate isn't willing to accept responsibility or the consequences of his words and actions, then maybe he should be forced into that position.

This wasn't a smear job by the Liberals or others who have expressed their disgust here at my blog or on the Rabble message board. This has been about holding someone accountable for their derogatory and threatening statements. And that has yet to happen.

NDP Displays Hypocrisy Involving Questionable Candidates

2008-09-26T16:07:00.001-04:00

How can the NDP even consider keeping this guy around? His apology was obviously lacking and was more of an (poor) excuse. So what kind of message is the NDP sending? At what point is it okay for someone who wants to enter public life to hold these views and make threats? At a time when there is a issue with cyber-bullying amongst students, what kind of example does this set? It's possible that if these type of comments were made in person he could be charged with uttering threats.

However the NDP seem more bent on playing politics rather than doing the right thing. More specifically they are supporting they're candidate while at the same time they are calling for the heads of Gerry Ritz and Lee Richardson? The misogynistic and threatening comments of their own candidate are at least on par with Richardson's immigration remark and much worse than the extremely poor joke from Ritz. At least Ritz's joke only involved jokingly wishing someone was dead rather than offering to do it himself. This smells of hypocrisy.

There is precedent set in this type of situation. Earlier in the campaign Conservative candidate Chris Reid was forced out from running just because he had some controversial conservative (small-c) views. Furthermore, the Liberals and the Greens both had a candidate quit over offensive remarks. Meanwhile the NDP candidate expressed views that contradict those of the NDP, along with his offensive and derogatory comments, which are obviously in contrast with NDP values. The Durham NDP candidate should be bowing out or he should be getting tossed. Immediately.

Update (09/26/08, 12:39pm):

Only minutes ago Dion announced that he has canned Winnipeg candidate, Lesley Hughes, for expressing controversial comments she made about the 9/11 tragedy. Hughes painted the tragedy with conspiracy theory overtones. Meanwhile, Jack Layton at his press conference earlier today took questions. One question at the end of the conference touched upon several NDP candidates having their pasts coming back to haunt them. Layton responded by saying something to the effect that candidates were let go because the NDP are only interested in providing "quality candidates".

Quality candidates, eh? Does that quality involve misogyny or uttering threats? If Dion is going to boot a person for questioning the official 9/11 story then it shouldn't be much of head-scratch to boot someone for derogatory and threatening remarks.

I'm not alone...

'Heated Online Debate' a Really Bad Excuse for Unacceptable Behaviour

2008-09-26T16:06:00.002-04:00

The Durham NDP candidate can disagree with war resisters all he wants. That's his right. Calling them "crybabies" is just a petty and poor way of expressing that opinion. However, my real concern lies with his misogynistic and threatening remarks. I have an even greater problem with his apology - that only came after he was called out - and the excuses that are being made for those remarks.

More specifically, my problem lies with the 'heated online debate' excuse.

There is an obvious problem with using this excuse for extremely offensive and derogatory remarks. When personally involved with a heated debate people may make offensive comments because they're 'in the moment'. Your brain has failed to filter the content somewhere in the nanoseconds it takes to think it and say it.

Being 'in the moment' doesn't apply online (unless you're involved with a live chat and even then that's pushing it). For one thing it's not like you're just blurting out some random comment. You actually have to think it, process it, type it, see it, and make the effort to click on the send button. You're internal filter at some point should have kicked in and threw up red flags. To proceed indicates that you're consciously knowing what you're saying and putting out there for others to read.

My second concern with this excuse is that online debates take time.

Comments and responses in a personal debate happen within seconds and minutes. Online debates generally take time to make responses and comments. With the exception of a few, the Durham NDP candidate's comments generally came hours after the post he was responding to. His comment about making someone "squeal" and called someone a "cunt" came more than nine hours later. His threatening comment came more thirty minutes later. His "fuckwad" response came was more than five hours later.

So how do comments such as constitute a "heated online debate"? And how is this an excuse for misogynistic and threatening remarks?

This is about being accountable for your words and actions, and to the people you want to represent. You cannot use the veil of the internet to say whatever you want and pretend it doesn't matter. If you cannot say those things in person than you should not be saying them online. Putting that type of hate online is just as bad as saying it in person, if not worse. There is a greater degree of mental processing that goes into posting than just blurting something out and the words are not only available but they are visible and on record. That record is now out to the public and all credibility has been lost.

In this case, the candidate hasn't taken responsibility for his words. He only apologized after he was called out and made a (poor) attempt to delete all his offensive comments. Had he been successful at deleting all the evidence I don't doubt that he would denied making the misogynist and threatening comments. He would have never taken ownership of his words. Unfortunately for him he didn't delete them all and therefore taking responsibility in this case means admitting you're not fit for public office at this time and stepping down.

Getting to Know Your Candidate the Wrong Way

2008-09-25T17:31:00.002-04:00

Several days ago I wrote a post that did two thing:

I questioned the state of the Durham NDP; and

I questioned their candidate, Andrew McKeever, after three NDPers implied concern about him following his nomination.

The post made reference to McKeever's family connections, which was provided by the concerned NDPers. Following that post I had my character attacked by the likes of Harry McAlister (under the name Wireless), the president of the Durham NDP and Andrew Reese-Taylor, under the pseudonym, Wilfrido. Reese-Taylor was also defending Andrew at his facebook group. I reviewed my post and I came to understand that there is a fine line between raising legitimate questions based on hearsay and guilt by association. Rather than be subjected to their continued abuse and having confusion about which side of the line I was on, I altered my original post to this; only questioning the state of health of the Durham NDP.

Shortly afterword someone named Amy Brown posted a comment that contained a series of questions that she had posted at Andrew McKeever's facebook group.

I saw the earlier version of the post, and honestly wish it was still up, as I wished to bring it to the attention of the NDP campaign staff. I have some serious reservations about Mr. McKeever as an NDP candidate. To give you an idea of my concern, here is a posting I put up tonight on Andrew McKeever's NDP Facebook page:

"Andrew, I don't know you personally, but I've followed many of your Facebook postings and comments. So I have some questions for you.

1. Why have you removed postings and groups of yours from all over Facebook? Don't you want people to see all the (unsanitized) comments you have been making over the past year or so?

2. How can you, with any integrity, run for an NDP posting, given the the apparent conflict between your personal views and the NDP's positions?

3. Are your constituents aware that you've been stirring up *$&% on Facebook groups related to the peace movement, from at least Toronto to Newfoundland, over the past year or so?

4. Are your constituents aware that you have often cursed at, derided, defamed and even threatened other people in publicly-viewable forums like Facebook?

5. Are you just planning to run for NDP, then (if you got a seat) cross the floor to a more right-wing party or go independent? (That's my prediction.)

Serious answers, please."

This led me to look into his facebook group where Amy's above comments were also posted. Other people began to respond on the wall including friend's of Andrew. Several of them kept making the point that they didn't support the NDP but would support Andrew because of their friendship. That's fair. As more posts were made more people began to question Andrew and were calling out his comments from other facebook groups. One post in particular asked Andrew to speak his real opinion on "Iraq war resisters".

With several people calling Andrew out, curiousity got the best of me and I went to several groups that supported the war resisters that were in Canada. In one group there were posts left by Andrew McKeever under several topics. I was taken back by the extent of Andrew's offense. Andrew's comments involved calling one woman a "cunt" and eluding to beating and assaulting a person if he ever saw them in person. All because they disagreed with him.

Now Andrew did provide a half-assed and only semi-public apology. This apology tried to justify his comments however and is only posted on his facebook group. But how do you justify being that derogatory and violent? Now I think I understand why there is concern from certain NDPers about Andrew being the candidate in Durham. He doesn't seem to support the NDP stance against Iraq or the NDP position to support the war resisters in Canada.

Andrew's derogatory and violent remarks are definitely against the principles of the NDP. And since some of his positions seem to contradict NDP views and principles, I now think that there is justification to ask whether or not he himself has another agenda for running under the NDP banner. And how he could be representative of Durham's residents whether or not they sympathize with the NDP. I will now ask again, could his real views be more in line with his supportive but non-NDP friends and his apparent family members, Cathy McKeever and Paul McKeever. I'm not saying you can't have a difference of opinion from the party you support - I don't always agree with my party - or that guilt by association is a valid claim, but Andrew's comments made within the last few months warrant a deeper look into his other views and whether or not he is suited to be representative of the NDP or candidate for public office in general.

In the interest of transparency and accountability, it is only fair if Durham residents and supporters of the NDP to know more about Andrew McKeever. So will the real Andrew McKeever please stand up and tell us what you really think?

Durham NDP in Disarray? (v2.0)

2008-09-02T13:48:00.000-04:00

I've decided to change the original post and ask a straight forward question in regards to the the Durham NDP:

How does the Durham NDP provide representation when it is not election time?

I'm asking this question because in the few elections I've been around for they seem to have little representation in the riding - lack of attendance at local events, last minute candidate nominations, no explicit representation at rallies, etc.

For me it's a question based on my principles and views of democratic representation. I'm involved politically because I believe that standing up and providing a voice for those that share my views, at all times is important. I make the continued effort to hold what I see as unjust, undemocratic, and non-transparent accountable because it is necessary. That is the principle I hold. I also believe that a healthy democracy needs all views represented and defended. No one party has all the answers and I know not everyone shares the same views as I or the Liberals do - I don't even share all the same views as the Liberals. These people deserve to be represented and need that voice if democracy is to be justly served. Go here for further discussion.

Note: character attacks, insults, etc. will no longer be allowed in the comments. Old comments were removed because they weren't constructive - in any way. Starting fresh...

An Issue of Trust?

2008-08-06T10:48:00.000-04:00

The following is going to be a generalization. So don't get your knickers all twisted just yet.

Having just returned from a visit to New York City, not even three days ago, and a trip to Florida earlier in the year, it occurred to me that there seems to be a very different level of trust when it comes to motorists. This is regards to gas and tolls.

Anyone that has been to the U.S. probably knows that pre-paying for gas is the norm. However, the same the mentality has also been applied to tolls. Many of the toll routes now have the option of electronic tolls, similar to Ontario's 407 system. The biggest difference is that for the U.S. the accounts must have a pre-paid balance whereas in Ontario you pay after the fact. This is much like the gas situation where gas in Ontario and most provinces (BCers started pre-paying this year) is paid for after the fact but in the U.S. it all must be paid for in advance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. It's just a simple and generalized observation I've made. It makes me curious about the way motorists, or people in general, are viewed by the the decision-makers or by each other. And for me, it begs some questions; Is there a lower sense of trust given to Americans by Americans than to Canadians by Canadians? If so, what drives the underlying fear of fellow Americans that doesn't exist for Canadians? Does this extend into areas beyond gas and tolls?

Cons Try to Buy Ontario Votes

2008-07-24T10:46:00.002-04:00

This was too easy to pass up...

Yesterday's headlines, 'Canadians hungry for an election this fall: Dion'

"We have seen over the winter and the spring more and more interest for federal politics," Dion told reporters Wednesday at a hotel in Ottawa's west end. "And more and more appetite for an election."

Today's headlines, '$7 billion deal to lift economy'

"The federal government will pump almost $7 billion into Ontario's aging infrastructure – most of it in towns and cities – under a deal with Queen's Park to be announced today...Those on hand will include federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, who is also responsible for Ottawa's communities and infrastructure portfolio, and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty."

So Dion practically calls for a fall election and the Conservatives suddenly want to play nice with Ontario? Flaherty (or any Durham Conservative) has yet to show his face in any place in his own riding that one of thousands of soon-to-be unemployed autoworker might be present. Though he'll show up and make a purely cynical announcement about giving funding to Ontario after he trashed the province and said it was the 'last place' to invest.

The Conservative Party has generally ignored the issues facing Ontario as they have been more worried about trying to buy Quebec or trying to show too much support for the East for fears that the West may question their loyalties. My faith lies with the judgement of Ontarians, however. We experienced the Flaherty road-show for too many years and were right to initially mistrust the empty promises of Harper. Ontario will gladly take the funding the Conservatives are offering but they shouldn't expect anything in return - let alone, support. After all, the $7 billion likely came from Ontario in the first place.

Looking for Long, Lost Website

2008-07-17T15:43:00.003-04:00

I know that there are much more internet/tech savvy people out there than myself. And its you that I'm appealing to.

I used to have a website called Crying Out Loud. There were two manifestations of this website: One was hosted on Geocities and the other on the Univ. of Waterloo servers. I am hoping to find an archive version of this site out of personal and blogging interest. Is there anyone that can help me?

I have tried to use the Wayback Machine and can't seem to get anywhere. Not sure why that it is, though it's likely me not knowing enough about how to use it. Anyway here are some details.

Title of the site was called Crying Out Loud, the homepage had a picture of Edvard Munch's The Scream. It was originally hosted by Geocities (I believe in the Athens neighbourhood, though this could be wrong) between the years 1996 and 2000, and there was incarnation of it on the arts.uwaterloo.ca server between 1999 and 2002. There were several pages connected to the database of it that were essay-like or blog-like. The titles for some of these were 'history of lies', 'human animal', and 'creative destruction'.

Any assistance would be really appreciated.

Annual Summer Hiatus

2008-07-07T15:57:00.003-04:00

Taking a summer hiatus, I am.

Traditionally, the summer is cooling off period for my brain. Why? Because I work so damned hard at this blogging thing. This year I've already posted a whole 29 times. That matches the total for the entire 2007 session. While I may have one or two posts that pop up during the summer months, it's unlikely there'll be much until September.

September is a big month for me this year. It will mark the 4th year I have run this blog. Four years! That's right, I may not post a lot but at least the longevity is there so far.

I was sorta hoping to to get to my 200th post (I'm at 176) around the same time but that seems unlikely, as I was worried about posting too much irrelevant material for my own good just for the sake of reaching my 4th anniversary and 200th post all at once. Instead, I'm going to take my cue from Wedding Crasher's Jeremy Grey (aka Vince Vaughn) and leave you with this quote.

"I'd like to recharge my batteries, and shut down the engines, and get myself back to neutral."

In the fall I'll return and be more than ready to begin feeding cyberspace more of my reverent and idiosyncratic thoughts. Until then, keep fighting the good fight. So goodnight and,

"You stay classy, San Diego"

Attacking Dion not Conservatives Best Move

2008-06-20T15:49:00.001-04:00

Our bumbling Prime Minister has set off to the West to spread his virulent brand of fear in an attempt to bring Dion and the new carbon plan down. While this strategy may have worked in the past (i.e. Dion is not a leader), and with the exception of Alberta, it may not work now. The difference this time around is that Harper has very little, if any, credibility left, especially in regards to accountability, leadership and the environment, and the Conservatives are bankrupt of any ideas beyond childish retorts and deceitful attack ads.

Harper can attack the Liberal Carbon plan all he likes. The fact of the matter is that Canadians are well aware that Harper speaks with no credibility on the issue. Harper trashed Kyoto and tried to sell his own 'Made-In-Canada' Clean Air Act that was based on hollow targets rather than real numbers. Even reviews of the plans by arms-length government programs gave Harper's policies a big thumb down while emphasizing the shell game the Conservatives were playing with the figures. More recently Harper and his group of whiners attacked the historic agreement between Ontario and Quebec to develop a carbon trading program. And now they are going after Dion's carbon tax program. All the while they are pushing an idea of intensity targets and lots of patience (before it becomes effective). However, this program has already been rejected by pretty much everyone in the world because it doesn't really do anything except waste paper.

Dion is right to believe that Canadians are intelligent enough to know the difference between what he is offering and the Conservatives offering of 'truthiness'.

The attack ads the Conservatives are pushing are likely to help Dion and his plan. The ads will bring attention to the carbon tax plan and Stephane Dion. If the Conservatives are so afraid of the carbon tax program that they have to run out and try to discredit it through deception, many Canadians may deduce that the plan is significant. Canadians are likely skeptical enough at this point to take much of what the Conservatives do or say with a grain of salt. Especially when Harper and Kenney are running around making jackasses out of themselves predicting a doomsday scenario. The funny part is that Harper has essentially done this to himself by being consistently poor when it comes to his words versus reality. The politics of division and fear are beginning to die off and are no longer palatable to Canadians. Harper needs to learn that very quickly.

The Conservatives also seem to be overlooking something else in regards to Canadians and the carbon tax. Dion is being completely forthright when he refers to it as a tax. In the current political climate, new taxes are taboo. The only good time to refer to taxes is when your talking about cutting them. Any government looking to significantly increase taxes or create new ones are possibly staring at a death sentence. Good thing Dion's plan also calls for tax cuts. Thanks to the Chretien governments, balanced budgets without tax increases has become the norm. However, Dion is willing to put it all out there, giving Canadians the opportunity to exam it for themselves. This will get people to listen. While it's a gamble to talk of a new tax it will make people interested in the details. And with this plan being touted by environmentalists, economists and indirectly, the Green Party, Canadians will begin to realize that the carbon tax might be legitimate and reasonable for a 21st century Canada and the environment.

Hamlet: Starring Stephen Harper as King Claudius?

2008-06-12T18:23:00.000-04:00

There is a moment in Hamlet, the famous tragedy by Shakespeare, where Claudius is in his chapel begging for forgiveness for murdering King Hamlet and other wrong doings (Act III, scene 3). The fallacy for Claudius, obviously, is that while he may be remorseful he can't be truly forgiven since he is still willing to be king - the title he knew he would inherit after the murder. The point of that scene is that with apologies and forgiveness there is an expectation of consequences and actions. For Claudius, he would have been expected to give up his title and everything he had gained by being king.

For Harper, the long overdue apology has significant meaning for the First Nations peoples, however it's ultimately meaningless unless Harper is willing to commit to certain consequences and actions. First off, Harper's government has to finalize the commitment of financial restitution for the residential school victims. Most importantly, the social and mental health fallouts have to be addressed. Too many victims still suffer from their experiences and these have had an adverse effect on First Nations' communities in the process. These need to be made right or else this 'historic' apology is nothing more than words and a empty spectacle.

It's hard to say at this point what next move the Conservatives have planned - whether or not they will follow up the apology with actions. However, if the past is any indication, it may amount to nothing as the Conservatives trashed the Kelowna Accord, voted against the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples and have consistently avoided dealing with the many problems that have come to light in the time the Conservatives have been in power. And then there is also the telling, double-speak filled interview that Pierre Poilievre gave that essentially diminished the supposed sincerity of Harper's apology, only to have Poilievre make his own 'apology' - likely since he got caught - because he screwed up the other apology. With this track record, it doesn't come as any surprise that there are many who are skeptical of Harper's intentions behind the apology.

If the skepticism has a basis in reality, it's no wonder that Harper's speech was much more formal and general while the Layton and Dion gave emotional and reflective speeches. If the Conservatives are not truly remorseful, it's also, in part, likely they do not truly understand the situation and its meaning to First Nations peoples. And that is why there are comments from Aboriginal such as this,

"They (Liberals and NDP) dug down deeper into the history of what happened. It seemed more sincere. I don't feel that Harper did that."

At the end of the play, King Claudius is killed by Hamlet but not before Hamlet is inflicted with with a mortal wound. There is a lesson there. If Harper's words are empty and are not followed up by action Canada may also be subject to a tragedy. Without action and real support Canada's First Nations communities will further degrade and eventually be beyond both saving and reconciliation. If that were to happen, there is little doubt that the government at the time, especially if it's Harper and the Conservatives, may take the fall but not before a mortal wound has been struck and Canada's Aboriginals are lost forever. And that would be a tragedy of epic proportions.

Flaherty inTwo Different Situations but the Same Approach or If It Didn't Work the First Time...

2008-06-11T23:47:00.000-04:00

I don't blame Canadians for doubting Flaherty's ability to manage the economy and make judgments about growth and whether or not we're heading for a recession.

Flaherty can go on all he wants but the reality is that he couldn't get it right when he was Minister of Finance of Ontario during a period of seemingly exponential growth and prosperity. So how are Canadians supposed to believe he can get it right when the economy is on its way down? Remember, his approach to both situations has been pretty much exactly the same.

Putting Party and Ideology before Constituents: Durham Politicians at Their Worst

2008-06-08T11:36:00.000-04:00

For the last two days, I have spent time amongst the protesting workers of CAW Local 222 at General Motors' office in Oshawa. I have been hearing heart-breaking tales, experiencing angry emotions, seeing confusion, disappointment and bewilderment on the faces of so many. These are people who have been let down, in the worst of ways, by the company they've worked so hard for and made this GM division one of the best in the world. All they want from GM is recognition for their work and respect - enough respect for GM to honour the agreement that was signed only three weeks ago and supposedly under good faith.

From the government, most of all their elected representatives, they want empathy and support. From local and non-local Liberals and NDP they have gotten just that with visits from Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough) and others. From their local MPs - Jim Flaherty, Bev Oda and Colin Carrie - they've gotten nothing except cynical and convoluted, indirect replies. These local MPs have essentially brushed these constituents off in this time of need. What these Conservative MPs have done is exposed the worst of politicians and given aid to the growth of public skepticism towards politicians and government.

At what point does a politician worry more about their career and standing within the party than they do their constituency and issues that are facing them? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question. These people rely on their elected officials to represent them, not look down on them and treat them like they are a nuisance, which is what Flaherty, Oda and Carrie have done, if they've acknowledged them at all. The problem here is likely, in part, to do with the Harper's demand that members remain silent and out of the public eye and enforcing this through threat of status and such. There is also the issue of the Conservative ideology that tends to favour concepts such as not getting involved with business and supposed market-issues, about keeping the government from being involved with people and so forth. Lastly, there may be some fear that the members of CAW are unhappy with the Conservatives' views or the belief that these workers tend to vote with NDP and Liberal. However, all of these 'reasons' are arbitrary and contrived in comparison to what has happened to these people and the illegal actions by GM, and to the responsibilities politicians are supposed to have to those they represent.

Bev Oda hasn't really said or done anything. Jim Flaherty has offered nothing except vague and empty responses that borders on patronizing and arrogance, while insulting and putting down Ontario. Colin Carrie made excuses and then told CAW he needed a formal invite to meet with them, which he still hasn't done despite several offers made. These MPs are representing the worst in politicians. They are more concerned with their status within the party, the opinion of their leader and their ideology. They should be more concerned about providing good, strong representation to their electorate, about giving support to those who need it and making sure the ridings they represent are healthy and not being left behind in illegal, irresponsible and unforgiving ways. Yet, they are doing everything they shouldn't.

Flaherty, Oda and Carrie are representing their ridings through ignorance and absenteeism. They are giving comfort and support to the cause of a Prime Minister that delights in the idea that Ontario is struggling and whose loyalties are with Alberta and the oil companies. At what point do these local MPs realize that if their ridings - and Ontario - falter enough so do they? Oshawa and Whitby have enough problems already with unemployment, substance abuse, which has a lot to do with people struggling with economic issues. From one year ago, the number of people receiving EI has increased by 56% within Oshawa, Whitby and Clarington. When are Flaherty, Oda and Carrie going to put their party and their leader aside and stand up for their own people, ridings and province? That's what they were elected to do and that is where their loyalties should lie! Forget ideology, forget the party and the leader, and forget yourselves. This should be about local representation, the public good and principle. Flaherty, Oda and Carrie exemplify exactly what is wrong with many politicians and what is wrong with the Conservative Party.

General Motors Bad-Faith Bargaining Not the Way to Go

2008-06-06T13:14:00.000-04:00

It was announced today that GM is sticking by its story that the market changed so drastically from two weeks ago that they have to continue with the violation of their labour agreement with CAW. It likely goes without saying that CAW doesn't believe their woeful tale. And they shouldn't because who would?

As I wrote yesterday that market trends don't just appear over night and restructuring plans of this magnitude take longer than mere days or a couple of weeks to put in order. General Motors would know all along what their sales are like and would be able to read the market trends long before they occur in any drastic measure. The past has shown that with spikes in gas prices sales of large vehicles will slump somewhat. The success of companies such Toyota and Honda with their compact and low-fuel consumption over the last several years, at least, would also be an indicator. GM should, have been preparing for slowing sales of trucks and SUVs for sometime. It's likely they have been.

This begs the question, why would they have bargained in bad faith with CAW?

One possibility is that they wanted to wrangle many concessions out of its employees. However, with there being precedence set by the Ford contract, it's likely GM couldn't get everything they wanted. They are now going to use the threat of closure to get even more concessions out of their employees before willing to change their plans. Think of this as a back door method of locking-out their employees. GM, just signing a new contract can't legally lockout its employees so instead will threaten a permanent closure to bring CAW back to the bargaining table to renegotiate the current contract.

Another possibility is that GM wanted to see what they could get out of the current contract so they could tally what the possible penalties would be when they made the decision to violate their contract. From GM's point of view, the financial costs of buyouts and severances, and the penalties that they are possibly going to incur for breaking the terms of their government assistance and labour agreement are worth it in the long run. In other words, they are willing to foot the bill on massive payouts right now in hopes of saving money later.

I understand it when a company is looking at their long term viability. That is likely what GM is doing here. However, they've gone about it the wrong way. It's one thing to present all the facts in negotiations and work together with your counterpart to find workable and longterm solutions, together. Ford was able to do it and they set precedence doing it. But to hide your facts and plans during the negotiations comes with much more problems. The public relations fallout may be enough to knock sales down even further and drive customers to your competitors. The financial costs may be much higher than you expect, especially if it is deemed you were highly dishonest. And if you're losing billions already losing more money, in this manner, doesn't seem to be in your interest. Let's not forget that the GM brass have already made errors in judgment, whether it came from the supposed misreading of the market, the closing of your most cost-effective and highest quality rated plant, and so on. Pulling this stunt is not going to reflect well on the company and is likely a huge miscalculation on the part of GM's brass.

Is General Motors Dishonest, Incompetent or Both?

2008-06-05T11:32:00.000-04:00

The recent decision by GM to close the Oshawa truck plant is a devastating blow the local area and employees. Living within the area, I am seeing and hearing the effects of this announcement everywhere I go. The fallout is going to be felt by so many. I completely support the efforts by CAW and the employees are trying to make to get GM to abide by their recently signed contract. What type of company and its leadership pulls such a stunt? Who signs a brand new, concession-laden, unprecedented agreement than turns around and takes full advantage of the situation?

Obviously there are problems with the GM leadership.

A company such as GM doesn't decide to close a truck plant and ultimately restructure their entire company overnight. In fact, this type of planning (restructuring, etc.) takes months - Tim Horton's doesn't release a new food product without months of planning. What this means is that when GM negotiated their recent contract with CAW (less than three weeks ago), they negotiated in poor faith. That may be a strong accusation but the pieces are there to support such a theory.

With rising fuel prices, less demand for trucks, the growing environment focus and so forth, the writing has been on the wall for sometime and the GM brass would have seen it. Market trends aren't some elusive creature that appear out of nowhere and then suddenly disappears like Polkaroo. There are reasons why investors are making so much money these days on speculation. The information is available and with some knowledge and common sense they can be put together to form a future outlook. The warning signs and signals would have been in place months, if not years, ago and GM would have begun their restructuring plans long before they signed their current agreement. Therefore, it's easy for me to accuse GM of bargaining in poor faith. It's easy to accuse them of hiding relevant and important information, and making empty promises just so they could take advantage of CAW and its willingness to make concessions on wages and benefits.

On the flip side, I'm sure there are skeptics that may question whether or not GM had full intentions to dupe CAW. One could make the case that they signed their recent agreement to extend the life of the Oshawa truck plant to 2011 and only decided to renege based on more recent information. However, if that's the case then that would mean the decision to restructure, including closing the truck plant is a hasty and reactionary decision. Therefore, one could question the wisdom of their decision and the entire decision-making process of the brass. This would mean that GM is being run by fools and the entire company is likely doomed.

Maybe that is the problem. GM is run by damned fools. After all, part of the reason the Japanese manufacturers have been able to penetrate the North American market as well as they have and stem the economic downturn is because of their ability to foresee consumer trends and develop efficient manufacturing methods. They did this long before the domestics and it's forced the domestics to play catch up. This was a mistake made by the domestic companies years ago, however. And for them to still be ignorant of the situation would mean they exist in a strange time warp or are not fit to be running the company.

That may also explain why GM wants to shutdown the most efficient truck plant they own, which is another real head-scratcher. If GM isn't completely stable financially, and so it needs to find ways to cut costs, produce better products, etc. is it the wisest step to shutdown your most efficient and reliable plant, and move production to a factory that costs you more? There's something missing in this equation and that is competence. Whoever made that decision likely did so rashly and is likely the same person(s) that possibly missed the whole change in the trends and economy. And if that is the case then the whole recent restructuring decision deserves to be questioned and the decision-making process and reliability of management needs to be reviewed.

When it comes down to it this recent issue with GM is either one of dishonesty or one of incompetence. Either GM intentionally hid information from CAW during the bargaining session and had no intention of honouring their side of the agreement or GM is being run by fools who have missed changes in trends and the economy and are making poor reactionary decisions. Which is it? I'm leaning towards dishonesty since one would think that GM, like the other big North American car companies, had learned from their earlier mistakes and lack of foresight. I don't believe a company makes rash decisions when it comes to a major restructuring. A company cannot have the detailed outline of such a move in only a matter of days. Though who really knows? Because even if this is a case of dishonesty, that would still reflect poorly on the ability of the management to do their jobs effectively. But in the end, it's still the workers and the Durham region that suffer. And ultimately that is what we should be focusing on.

Open Letter to Government of Ontario Ministers: Invesitgate Clarington Mayor and Council for Ignoring Democracy

2008-06-03T22:31:00.003-04:00

The following is an open letter to be sent to three Government of Ontario Ministers. It's concerning the lack of transparency, accountability and respect for democracy that has gone on for some time by Clarington's conservative and Conservative mayor, Jim Abernethy and several local and regional council members - Ottawa's not the only one with municipal council problems. Most of the issues stem from the process surrounding the proposed energy-from-waste incinerator that these municipal politicians are trying to enforce on the unwilling electorate. At the end are some articles that are from the local paper addressing these concerns as well. The most telling part is that the local paper has an open, right-wing bias, yet the situation is to the point where even it can't ignore some of these issues. -------------------------------------------------------------------

Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of the Environment

Honourable Gerry Phillips, Minister of Energy

Honourable Jim Watson, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Dear Honourable Ministers

The undersigned are all directors of the Durham Provincial Liberal Association and it is with grave concern that we write to you today.

Democracy is at risk in our riding due to the behaviour of our local government that seems bent on ramming through an Energy from Waste facility with neither input nor approval from its electorate. Find attached a detailed description of how some local representatives are denying the democratic rights of those it governs. This behaviour makes a mockery of both the democratic process and the vulnerability of citizens. Also find attached a list of a few issues and questions we feel are relevant to the proposed EFW facility for Durham.

While it is understandable that you would not want to meddle in local affairs (and we do not think you should), we do call on you to you to help us by clarifying your stance on the issues that we have presented. We would be grateful if we could meet with you at your earliest possible convenience.

Sincerely

Pam Callus

Kyle Selmes

Scott Maxwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Local Governance Concerns

Clarington Council

During the last municipal election, the Progressive Conservatives ran one of their people in each of the municipal seats in Clarington; we see this as a premeditated effort to gain control of council so that the incineration issue would pass easily
Clarington Council voted Clarington an unwilling host, yet the mayor and two regional councilors proceeded to the region with votes in support of the incinerator
Delegation times have been reduced from ten minutes to five
Council’s agendas have become intentionally long and delegations are scheduled after presentations; at one recent council meeting delegations did not start until 10:30 p.m.
Council agendas are so long that business items cannot be addressed before the 11:00 p.m. deadline and so are adjourned until another day; (in)conveniently not all members of council can attend these reconvened meetings
The Mayor of Clarington lobbied the members of a Green Advisory Committee to become the chairperson; when this was shown to violate a bi-law, staff recommended that a member of council should, in fact, be permitted to chair such a committee. The Mayor is using his influence to wield power over both staff and citizenry.
Delegations have been banned from Council because they made suggestions that some members of local government were bullying others.
Members of the public have requested that various speakers be permitted to speak on both sides of the issue at a forum where the public can ask questions. The Mayor has decided that this will not happen and he will invite a variety of speakers to appear at council so that councilors may ask questions on behalf of their constituents. This is a very convoluted and non-transparent process.
The mayor and the three regional councilors that support this project may not seek re-election (or may not be re-elected). If this is so, we will be left with a legacy that we have not had a transparent opportunity to question, let alone oppose.

Regional Municipality of Durham Council

The Regional Chairperson has publicly indicated that whether or not Clarington council is an unwilling host, the project will proceed.
Staff members are clearly prejudiced towards the EFW project; there is no effort to step up diversion as other communities have done
Council has rejected calls for a “backup” plan for both the potential incinerator site and alternative waste disposal possibilities
The Director of Waste Management for the Region has stated that he doesn’t want to hear about zero waste philosophies.
One reason why the Region maintains that landfill is not an option is because the Region itself created a policy whereby they would not allow any landfills within the Municipality; we don’t believe that this policy is coincidence and it creates the impression that officials are backed against the wall.
Residents have been polled regarding their thoughts on EFW. However, the questionnaire and reporting of its results were conducted by the industry stakeholders.

Issues and Questions

Ministry of the Environment

If guidelines for the proposed incinerator are established, will you enforce the guidelines?
Will your Ministry develop a comprehensive plan for the province regarding the disposal of waste?
If incineration is appropriate for any community in Ontario, then it could potentially be appropriate for all communities in the province. Is this the Ontario of tomorrow?
Too little is known about the effects of nano-particles released to the air during the incineration process. What regulations could your Ministry propose to address such contaminants?
Is it really true that this incineration project could be considered recycling?
The local press has reported that Mayor Abernethy requested a Ministry official to speak at council about incineration and that the Ministry’s response was that it does not take a stance on thermal technologies. If this is the case, why not?
A moratorium on incinerators in the province would provide time for enough research to be carried out so that an informed decision can be made regarding their future.
This facility, if built, will spew its airborne waste not only onto the surrounding farmland and homes, but also onto the Region’s composting facility virtually across the street and onto our most precious local resource, Lake Ontario.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs

What suggestions can you make to us that would help us put a stop to the autocratic governance in Clarington and the Region of Durham?
Are there checks and balances that we are not aware of that we could put into play to help make the processes of council more accountable and transparent?

Ministry of Energy

Will power generated from such a facility be deemed “green” as has been suggested by staff at the Regional Municipality of Durham?
Is this facility really necessary to generate energy, given its location next door to Darlington Generating Station, just 2-3km away?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading (all from local newspaper that is very open about its right-wing bias):

PM Touts Our Green Record OR How the PM is Preparing for Life After Power

2008-05-28T11:28:00.004-04:00

The following is from today's Toronto Star

May 28, 2008 09:15 AM

THE CANADIAN PRESS

BONN, Germany –
Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised Canada's environmental record today during a speech at a UN bioversity conference in Bonn, Germany.
Following the PM's speech the international delegates promptly broke out into a chorus of laughter. Harper was also praised afterwards for showing a sense of humour despite his reputation for being stiff.
One delegate was overheard saying, "I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. It's too bad [Harper] didn't have more material. He definitely made this conference tolerable."
Harper is using this trip to lay the groundwork for the upcoming G8 meeting this summer in Japan, where he will do a full comedy set. In Japan, Harper will focus on the environment and other topics such as accountability and social equality.
Harper will now meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, before heading to Rome, to get advice on how to improve his language and delivery.

Message from the Minister of the Environment

2008-05-26T23:00:00.001-04:00

The following is a letter to the winners of the 2008 Canadian Environment Awards from the Minister of the Environment, John Baird. It can be found on page 93 in the June, 2008 issue of Canadian Geographic.

Congratulations to winners of the 2008 Canadian Environment Awards! Even though your contributions may play a significant role in defining new environmental standards for government, for private industry and for every Canadian, I don't really care and will never uphold them.
Every day, Canadians are taking action to tackle our environmental challenges because we won't. In homes, schools and workplaces across the country, we see people dedicated to the protection, restoration and preservation of our environment which we believe more than makes up for the unfettered development we'll allow for oil production.
The success of Canada’s environmental protection and sustainability lies within these community efforts because it sure as hell doesn't with us. Without a doubt, progress is being made to improve the way we develop and exploit our environment. Many of these tireless efforts and valuable contributions are recognized through the Canadian Environment Awards.
During Environment Week and throughout the year, there are a number of ways we can take action to protect our natural surroundings. Use brick for walls because they are strong and asphalt will provide a sturdy support for the ground. But most of all I invite Canadians to lead by example because I definitely haven't and carry on the challenging work of reducing air and water pollution, greenhouse-gas emissions so we won't have to ask corporations to and to continue their fight against ~~climate change~~ other things.
In order to tackle the challenges that face Canada’s environment, significant ~~progress~~ thinking still remains to be made. Our Government is committed to finding concrete and tangible approaches to solving these challenges as long as there are no costs or sacrifices. Let us continue to learn, support and take action in making Canada a leader in denying that environmental challenges exist.
We have the tools and the means for change; let’s continue to let them lay by the wayside and be underfunded. Once again, congratulations to all the winners - don't expect to ever get funding or be hired by our government.
John 'The Useless' Baird, Minister of the Environment

On Underestimating Stephane Dion

2008-05-25T19:45:00.002-04:00

Dion hasn't had it easy since taking the reigns of the Liberal Party. He's been portrayed as weak, indecisive, lacking personality, not truly having the support of the party and more. Even I have written criticisms of Dion. Some of these characterizations are not without merit and his personal polling numbers bare these perceptions. However, I don't think Dion has yet been completely written off and can - will - make a huge turnaround.

I think Dion's biggest obstacle is his public perception. As his public perception has soured, so have Liberals' since we were essentially looking for a saviour, of sorts, during the leadership campaign. Dion didn't provide us that instant boost and things have been rocky for quite some time and the hopes of an instant change of government dissipated. If public perception were to change, I have no doubts so would the Liberal naysayers'.

The problem with Dion isn't so much that he isn't without vision, leadership, strength or the like. He crafted the Clarity Act. At the time it was risky and bold, and yet time has shown that move to be both the right one and highly significant as separatism has been dying a slow death ever since. His campaign to be leader was plagued by similar sentiments that he faces now yet he's the leader of the party because he was willing to be himself and take chances on ideas and issues he believes in. Once again he's proposing a bold yet risky plan in the carbon tax and with it he's willing to lay everything on the line. He's once again being himself.

Dion relying on what has been successful for him the past will is a gamble because public perception isn't favourable. This is based on the dual problem of him being both a Francophone and an academic. Neither of these are necessarily liabilities. However, as a Francophone, Dion hasn't shown he 's fully mastered his English-speaking skills. As an academic, he doesn't provide a series of nicely-packaged one-liners. These combined compound the issue how the media and opposition like to toy with quotes as was seen in the attack ads the Conservatives used to air. They take advantage of the fact that Dion isn't a walking sound bite. In turn, the public became acutely aware of this struggle and with it weariness and skepticism grew. Yet, this is understandable. As John Ralston Saul states in The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense,

A leader who read and thought and spoke in more than sound bites would disturb us because he would sound undecided. He would be forcing us to listen and respond to the authentic noises of a human brain functioning in a position of responsibility. (pg.271)

The public has become so accustomed to the concept of urgency and unnatural, context-less clarity through the media and elitist politicians (i.e. Stephen Harper) via sound bites, it's hard to understand the person who has a vision or idea and wants to share it. That is why selling the carbon tax plan won't be easy. It's complex and it's a tax system. It can't be explained in neatly packaged sentences and it will be easily manipulated by the opposition. Yet, it will naturally force people to begin paying attention.

This is something that Dion has been successful with in the past - getting people to listen. The opposition will aid him because while they're running campaigns of manipulation and division - something that is quickly losing public favour - people will slow down and begin thinking for themselves and will give time to this bold plan and other aspects of Dion's (and the Liberals') campaign. Underestimating Dion and attacking him while not presenting anything of substance - which is what the Conservatives and the NDP are facing - will be to their own detriment. Dion has shown to be a survivor and a fighter in the past and we'll see that once again.

Could Carbon Tax Turn Economy Around?

2008-05-24T13:00:00.008-04:00

I'm not going to get into the encyclopedic version of what a carbon tax shift is or go off on an anthem of why we need to deal with climate change. Rather, I'm going to throw out there why I believe a well-designed carbon tax can make a difference for both Canada's economy and environmental impact.

In the last couple of weeks there have been several articles written about the state of Canada's innovation - or lack thereof coming from private companies. The amount of money invested per worker in innovation and R&D has steadily decreased. Since the early 1990's Canadian companies have dropped from 85% of what American companies spend to the current level of around 75%. This means that Canadian companies aren't as efficient in the way they are doing things and are missing out on new business opportunities. Furthermore, Canada is far behind in green technology investment and development. Out of the estimated $5 billion of investment in green technology in OECD nations, Canada only accounted for 3% and in terms of trade, Canada is an importer with a $3 billion trade deficit. Interestingly enough, on terms of strength Canada is apparently a leader on natural resource technology while we sit near the bottom of the pack on green technology. From this dismal outlook is where opportunity lies for a well-designed and implemented carbon tax. Not only could innovation be invigorated but the economy could also get a boost.

Currently there is a bit of stagnation in the manufacturing sector and Ontario has been dealt the largest blow. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a chance for some recovery as the recent news of Wal-Mart experimenting with a solar-rooftop project has also breathed new life into a local tool and die plant. This is the type of change and recovery that can take place if there was enough incentive for all Wal-Marts and other major businesses were to adapt this plan. Furthermore, if we hark back to the days of the Montreal Protocol and the banning of CFCs, a perfect example of innovation exists. Tim Flannery wrote about this in his book, The Weather Makers (p.220),

...consider how Nortel, a US telecommunications company, benefited from the regulation. It had used the chemicals as cleaning agents, and in the late 1980's it was forced to invest $1 million in new hardware; but once redesigned cleaning systems were in place and operating, it saved $4 million in chemical waste disposal costs and CFC purchases. Furthermore, the early adoption by the United States of regulations to reduce the emission of CFCs gave American-based firms a head start on the rest of the world in innovating alternative chemicals.

And therein lies the opportunities. In one instance regulation, or in this case a tax, could foster introspection for businesses looking to cut costs through tax reduction and energy costs, and therefore turn to innovation, while at the same time the methods to cutting costs and emissions, and the development of new technologies and solutions would lead to new manufacturing and business opportunities. Aside of the benefit to the environment, I believe that a well-designed and implemented carbon tax could reinvigorate Canada's economy.

To do this the carbon tax needs to be applied to all climate change-related pollutions. Initially, the carbon tax would have to be offset through the lowering and refunding of taxes in other areas (revenue neutral). However, there would then have to be a shift in the policy - the offset has to be temporary. This is where the incentive for innovation comes in. If a company wants to further reduce their tax burden, their only option would be through cutting their emissions or creation of pollution. In the end it means that companies control their own destiny in how much tax they pay. If they want to further negate environmental responsibility then that decision comes out of their bottom line. If a company wants to pay less tax and boost their bottom line, then they cut their pollution, which in turn would cut their taxes. It's a system of mutual benefits. Canada needs to drastically reduce their eco-footprint and businesses need lower taxes. Careful design of a carbon-tax may provide the solution to get businesses to innovate, develop, and manufacture, all the while lowering Canada's global environmental impact. Now, is the time to think in extremely creative ways and use incentives and policy in a positive manner. And so far Dion seems to be the only man willing to go that far.

Dion's carbon tax shift has created quite a stir and not surprisingly the Conservatives have already exploded into episodes of hyperbole and lies about what this plan may mean for Canada. Let's remember that it's the Conservatives who have essentially denied the existence of climate change, dropped Kyoto while holding the chair position of the committee and have consistently failed to sell their own pretend emissions-cutting plan internationally. And even though the Conservatives were touted as fiscal and economic conservatives, they themselves have shunned supposed economist-wisdom by cutting consumer taxes before income taxes. So it should be no surprise that the Conservatives are quickly attacking something that tries to solve issues pertaining to both the environment and methods of taxation. It just goes to show that the Conservatives lack ideas and leadership and is a big example of why this current group won't ever win a majority.

Survey on Natives

2008-05-22T18:26:00.004-04:00

Last night I received a call from a survey/polling company. The questions were about Native issues and government strategies to deal with those. It became obvious that a certain level of government is looking for input on whether or not they should make it an issue to work on or go with the status quo.

Some of the earlier questions were about my personal feelings on the state of Natives' living conditions, their claims, etc. The questions then went on to how I feel about the methods that have been used to draw attention to these issues. There was then a group of questions on how the government has handled past and current issues. The last grouping seemed to be focused on how supportive I would be of resolving these issues and whether or not handing Natives money and land was something I would support.

At first I thought the questions seemed fairly benign and that it could have possible been a survey being taken for Natives. However, the further along we got in the survey the questions became very focused around the issue of government involvement and the like. The later questions didn't even feel like they were neutral in the sense that I was asked about land and money several times. And the wording of those questions felt negative or antagonistic about the issue of using land and money as pieces to assist in settling issues.

I just wanted to throw this out there to see if anyone else has been contacted about with this survey and get further feedback. It seems as though the federal or provincial government (though I highly suspect it's the federal) is fishing for some public response on settling land claims, etc. I worry that since the tone of some of the questions weren't necessarily neutral that the responses will also be tainted and may provide someone an excuse to continue passing off on their responsibilities and leaving Natives behind.

Stephen Harper, Prime Manager: The Problems with Only Managing Issues

2008-05-09T18:20:00.003-04:00

It's funny that Harper endorsed the entire 'Dion Is Not a Leader' campaign when in fact Harper himself has also not been a leader within Canada. Rather he has only been a manager - much like he has been with his party. Yet, it's one thing for Harper to be a manager over his people it's another for him to approach government and policy the same way. Management of government and policy is ineffective and self-destructive. The downfalls of managing issues is rooted in two things: efficiency and reason.

When managing an issue, rather than dealing with the root causes of the problem, only the symptoms or the current manifestations of the problem are dealt with. This means that while the government has reacted with a policy or strategy to tackle what's making headlines, the underlying issue still exists. The real problem with the managerial approach is that the symptom itself is also only being dealt with the quickest shortcut to cover it up - as efficiently as possible. This should be a serious concern to everyone because it also means that it is unlikely that the symptom itself was effectively dealt with and the root cause will spring up somewhere else.

Much like how the few problem Conservative members have continued to pop-up and will likely completely explode somewhere down the road, so too will the issues that aren't being dealt with. Take the equalization program and its restructuring or the softwood issue. Both of these programs have underlying problems that haven't been addressed and the symptoms were given band-aid solutions. Both areas are seeing other symptoms arise and in some cases, it's the same or very similar problems that were 'dealt' with prior. Now picture the same scenario with poverty or the environment. These two issues' root problems haven't ever been truly addressed and under Harper and the Conservatives they are being talked about at best. This has to do with the stream of reason that they're applying.

Unfortunately being as efficient as possible doesn't work, not when you're working with complex social and economic issues. There are too many extremities and variables that need to be considered. Finding the easiest or quickest method to make the issue 'go away' doesn't consider the problem in the long term. This is much like the problem that one faces when they rely on reason alone.

The second major problem with pure management is the reliance on reason. It's not that reason is a problem in of itself. Rather, using reason alone is a flawed strategy because it leaves other qualities aside (i.e. creativity, emotion/empathy, common sense). Pure reason can only be truly effective inside a vacuum of sorts. This vacuum must contain simple absolutes. Facts that are true 100% when they are applied or are universally applicable. The problem is that in society, absolutes don't really exist. Again, not all people are the same or share the same experiences or develop the same understanding. Therefore, reason itself would dictate that if people aren't the same then neighbourhoods, cities, societies, etc. are definitely not the same or universal. These differences can range from tiny little details to massive generalizations. And consequently, there can be no universal answer. The smaller the base is and the fewer details that need to be accounted for, the more applicable pure reason is. Social and economic cases have huge bases and far too many details for pure reason to work - there can be no silver bullet solution, which is what managers look for.

The problems that arise from the managerial approach are exacerbated when ideology is put into play. Ideology is simply the marginalized use of reason to package a perspective and sell it as something significant. In turn, applying ideology to a problem relies on using a twisted concept of reason, usually based on personally accepted, yet often warped, assumptions of truths or absolutes. The scariest part of this type of thinking is that while itself is marginalized, its application will marginalize its targets as well. This is especially true in cases where theoretical concepts (i.e. economics, political theories/sciences) are applied, which hold little weight beyond the paper they were printed on. Issues only become even more confused and are left to drift in the ether until there's another flare of the symptoms or the issue grows beyond its tipping point and explodes into a pandemic of sorts.

Harper faces this dilemma. He is a notorious manager of both his party and our government. Unfortunately for Canada, his ideology dictates to him that he should be hands-off when it comes to economic and social problems, that everything will magically work itself out on its own, which is why we see extreme efficiency and twisted reason at work. Too bad it isn't true (that everything just works out). Why? Because there are forces of interference or influence at work. Whether these are other nations, other ideologies, cultural influences, corporations, or whatever, they exist and have effect. The response can only be about creating a buffer made up through a combination of common sense, reason, creativity and so forth.

There is a reason why no economic or political theory has ever truly worked; People and nations do not exist in vacuums. In fact, there is enough evidence to suggest that when the 'governing by not governing' approach is taken, problems generally get worse and people are marginalized in part due the lack of response by the so-called leaders and the invasion of outside influences. This is the complete opposite reason why we typically want to elect our governments, which is to provide a form of stability against these outside influences. For people to prosper and our nation to progress there has to be leadership at the top developing ideas that take many facets and variables into considersation so we can continue in the long term and not just exist in the short. Those are things that leaders do for us and why Stephen Harper is nothing of the sort.

What's With the Ontario Pile-On?

2008-05-05T19:37:00.000-04:00

It is no secret that there are some serious concerns over the state of Ontario's economy. TD recently gave a report that argued Ontario is heading to a 'have-not' position under Canada's equalization program due to the high Canadian dollar, a turned-down American economy and rising energy costs. To bring the point home, GM announced laying off 900 employees shortly thereafter. And prior to that, one can't forget the battle-of-words between McGuinty and Flaherty that brought Ontario's apparent plight to the forefront.

For a couple weeks, the Globe and Mail has written and analyzed the Ontario situation in many different ways, from many different angles. Some of the positions have been depressing while others very positive. Yet, the most interesting part of G&M's articles, online at least, have been the readers' comments.

From the many comments there seems to be several common themes with the comments.

Is the "The West is booming and Ontario should be more like us" statement.
Is the "Ontario should cut all its taxes and stop spending" argument.
Is the "Ontario doesn't deserve any help from equalization or another government" position.

The reality is is that none of these statements make much sense when facts and common sense are figured into the mix.

Looking at the first theme, it doesn't take a genious to know that natural resources are the real reason for the economic boom out West and in Newfoundland. Since 2003, the cost of oil has increased by almost five times, from $25/barrel to $120/barrel (as of this posting). This is in steep contrast to Ontario's economy that is based on manufacturing and product export. To say that Ontario should suddenly be more like Alberta doesn't make much sense. Ontario doesn't have the good fortune to be sitting on top giant oil reserves or have the vast fertile flatland to support natural resources in the same capacity. Ontario's economy is more market-based and it is through no fault of its own that its economy is much more effected. The same can essentially be said for the West and Newfoundland that it is sheer luck that they are sitting on top of huge amounts of oil.

The second theme is pretty similar to the argument Flaherty has been making - cut spending and taxes. One of the better points of interest is that in terms of spending, Ontario spends about 1/3 less per person on social programs than Alberta does while it offers more within its social programs. So Ontario spends less for more? Despite having a significant provincial debt versus Alberta being debt free, Ontario is still able to be more efficient with its money.

In regards to Ontario cutting business taxes (what Flaherty has been advocating), it should be noted that Ontario's business tax level is actually lower than the federal tax rate and that McGuinty has cut taxes for businesses, through property and capital tax decreases, to the tune of $3 billion. If Ontario were to make business taxes any lower it is likely that Ontario would then have to affect the efficiency level of its spending. Additionally, the other provinces' lower business tax levels are 'affordable' much due to the fact that, historically, they receive quite a bit of money from Ontario and Alberta through equalization.

Since we're on the topic of equalization, let's address the last theme, which is basically that Ontario should get lost. This theme has been expressed by calling Ontario a place of whiners and referring to it as a wasteland. Again, let's get one thing straight, the Ontario government did not cause the economic downturn and therefore cannot be blamed. Just as McGuinty cannot be blamed for wanting a better deal in equalization.

Ontario has faithfully paid out to the other provinces since the inception of equalization and in return it got less than those other provinces from the Federal government (including a reorganization of equalization in 1982 to exclude Ontario when it qualified for payments). For a kicker, even if Ontario qualified for payments it wouldn't even get enough out of the program to cover what they'd still be putting into it, with the current formula. It's justifiable that Ontario is looking for a fairer deal from the federal government at a time when it needs it most. However, the response has been nothing short of nasty brush-offs.

So when Ontario is looking for some short term help, and is justifiably doing so, until the economy turns itself around, why do non-Ontarians, other provinces and the federal government insist on kicking Ontario when it's down? Ontario has never really asked for much from the federal government or other provinces. It has only been a recent phenomenon that Ontario has started to make a point about the lack of federal funding it gets for certain programs versus the amount other provinces receive despite being the only full-time contributor.

This is the one area that seems to be most disturbing when it comes to regional differences in Canada and the comments being made. People are far too happy to be receiving money from Ontario, but as soon as Ontario is in need, those same people act completely... ungrateful. It's like a child that relies on his parents to support him through college and periods of unemployment until he got on his feet only to turn his back on them when they fall upon hard times and blames them in the process. While Ontario has always been there for other provinces, why is too much to ask for the same consideration in return?

Ontario Should Be a Green Leader

2008-04-27T11:02:00.003-04:00

At the end of Earth Week, it's dawned on me that truly bold leadership on and ideas concerning the environment haven't been floated through any government body within Canada. Sure, there has been good legislation such as BC's carbon tax, Quebec's pesticide ban and Ontario's awaited elimination of incandescent light bulbs. However, while these are good ideas, they are easily offset by ~~Alberta~~ other provinces' lack of action and the head-in-the-sand, fingers-in-ear approach by the federal Conservatives.

At some point, one province is going to have to take the plunge and make real changes to many different areas to show that it can be done and that these changes can work within our society. Personally, I believe Ontario is the province with the most to gain by stepping up. With the largest population and being the main manufacturing hub of Canada and all the environmental concerns that are associated with that (electricity consumption, creation of waste, resource use - such as water), etc., Ontario could make itself a national leader by making some major reforms in all areas of the environment.

As I already mentioned, Ontario has made a good start. A new pesticide ban was just implemented, incandescent light bulbs will be eliminated by 2012, private citizens are given incentives to generate green energy, etc. However, Ontario has a far way to go before it can consider itself truly green. These ideas, as a package, are good but definitely not great. The light bulb ban is too far off and the green energy production doesn't carry enough incentives for a large chunk of the public to get involved. However, I would argue that they constitute a decent starting point and it's more than what most other provinces have done. Below I'm going to explore two major issues - energy and waste - facing Ontario and a couple other ideas. In no way are these ideas the limit of what can and should be done in Ontario and the rest of Canada. However, I think these are only a starting point from which real change can be fostered and grown and set up Ontario as environmental leader within Canada.

Waste:
In the past I have tried to make the case for a better waste policy that involves mixing Nova Scotia's policies of extensive recycling and composting (for areas outside the GTA) and replicating Edmonton's Waste Management Centre (for the GTA). Together these programs could eliminate a massive amount of Ontario's waste and essentially eliminate the need to ship garbage out of province or into remote areas, build new landfills and rely on incinerators. In the meantime, Ontario should look at putting out severe restrictions on waste disposal such as by switching garbage pickups to every other week and limiting the number of bags that can be placed curbside. As well, Ontario should ban all non-biodegradable bags from being used for throwing out garbage.

Energy:
While Ontario has a decent program that allows the public to install home generation through solar panels and wind turbines and earn revenue from any extra generation, the plan has a couple problems. First, comparable plans found in Europe offer more money for any extra generation which makes the plan more viable. And second, the cost of purhcasing and installing the equipment is fairly high, enough so that the average family either can't afford to get involved or it isn't in their financial interest to do so. Obviously, this needs to change. The Ontario government should look at cutting the PST and providing retrofit funding on the retail side and provide incentives for producers so that the cost of the equipment is minimal. Additionally, Ontario should increase the rates that are paid, even if it's only temporarily, to make the program more attractive.

There is still more that can be done. As far as small-scale generation goes all new residential and commecial buildings being built should have, at the very minimum, solar water heaters installed. While general solar and wind generators should be built into all new homes and buildings, not all structures or properties are reasonable and therefore something such as a solar water heater or geothermal heat pump or the like should be the installed minimum standard. A plan such as this would have a far greater impact on the lowering of energy consumption in Ontario than the light bulb ban. This would also be a better alternative than building numerous nulcear facilities while at the same time many people and businesses could earn money.

Air:
For a single term in university, I wrote for the school newspaper. The very fist article I wrote was on urban heat islands after I attended a guest lecture. There were a lot of great ideas presented at this lecture on ways to counteract heat islands. Some of the ideas were simple as well and could easily be adapted within Ontario. Not only would some of these ideas help mitigate the issue of heat islands within our cities they would also significantly reduce energy consumption during the summer months and eliminate some of our air pollution problems.
* Factories, warehouses, etc. should all have reflective roofing (where solar panels are not reasonable>; * Apartment buildings should use green roofs; * Ban black tar roofing and shingles - switch to light coloured roofing; * Ban black pavement and ashphalt - should be lightened; * Trees and plants should be planted in open spaces and along sidewalks; * There should be a mandatory percentage of tree coverage within cities and all trees taken down through development should have to be replaced somewhere within the area.

Water:
Water is something that we all take for granted. In Canada, water is readily available and the idea of having shortages or another associated problem seems like something from the twilight zone. However, problems have occurred or will begin to occur unless something is done about it. To begin, people should have to pay the real cost of water. Measured intake and outtake should be the norm and the cost should reflect the importance and value of water. As well, using clean, treated water for your toilet, watering your lawn, etc. is a vast waste. Ontario should begin a process of recycling greywater. While Ontario doesn't necessarily require that we begin such a large conservation program, a program such as grey water recycling combined with paying a realistic cost of water would assist in changing the mindset around water and its usage. Even a simple solution of putting restrictions on the sale of shower heads and toilets that don't meet a minumum standard would go a long way to assist with water conservation and changing our habits of use.

Previous Posts:

As If There Aren't Enough Issues In the Great Lakes Already...
Status Quo for Toronto's Garbage Problem
McGuinty's Energy Plan Lack's Vision
Ontario Solar Power Plan: Some Numbers
Portlands Project Another Band-Aid Solution
It's Time for Toronto and Ontario to be Realistic About Their Garbage
Cleaning Up Ontario
Exporting Toronto's Trash
Powering Ontario

McMillan and Shaidle are Irrelevant: It's Time to Let Them Fade

2008-04-05T19:19:00.000-04:00

There comes a time when every blogger questions their motives for continuing on with writing or struggles with finding their creativity (I did so openly here and from time to time wonder if I should stayed the course). We all have our reasons for getting into this silly game of online sparring but probably it really comes down to the belief that we have something new to add to the many conversations that are already taking place. We continue on because we are motivated by the feeling that that something new we are saying is somehow relevant. Relevancy, however, takes work and time.

If we are struggling to find our voice, the one that we originally were trying to channel, our posts can become just partisan rehash or an echo of some interesting oped we've read and we work with that until we find our voice once again. Or we take time away until we find the right issue to refuel our cells. Sometimes, if things are truly heading south, our posts just become meaningless, inane diatribes that are more about getting attention and getting others riled up than it is about finding your voice and relevancy. In otherwords, you know you've become irrelevant and are merely now looking for something to occupy a void.

I've noticed that there has been quite a bit of nastiness streaming through the Canadian blogosphere of late. I also know I'm not the only one. ALW gave the increase in sniping and disgusting behaviour as a reason for questioning his own continuation with blogging (which only makes his intelligent writing more relevant than ever). And from what I can tell it seems that with the increase in nastiness there has also been a decrease in the useful and insightful writing, especially amongst many of the older and more established blogs. More specifically, I'm reffering to Small Dead Animals and Five Feet of Fury (which won't get links from me).

While I've never given Shaidle of FFoF any real credit for anything, McMillan of SDA at one time was a force to be reckoned with. I don't recall ever agreeing with her views but she could make me think - but only long enough for me to realize she was likely wrong. However, for the last while both of these writers have resorted to outright racism, insults, pranks and other garbage. Some of their material has been so obviously prejudice or offensive that it is hard to imagine they didn't know what they were saying prior to writing what they had. And there is my point. These two writers, while still popular - albeit, with a less than desirable crowd - are no longer writing anything useful, insightful, original or the like. They are playing to a particular audience with a generally, warped view of reality. It's more about getting attention, putting down those they don't care for and upsetting others.

Someone could make the argument that both SDA and FFoF are relevant because either they are presenting the viewpoint of a small, marginalized group or because their usefulness comes through providing the arguments that need to be tackled by other defenders. However, in their instances, I have my doubts that either case is made. For one, everyone already knows that these type of people and viewpoints exist. Also, some of the garbage they have said has been so specifically, directed at an individual or individuals who are not members of the offended group, that any point they may have been trying to make is lost and/or discredited (as if it had any credit anyway). As well, they have yet to actually make serious cases for these types of viewpoints. Both have went on tangents that are not backed up by any evidence or statement of realistic fact. Generalizations, stereotypes and prejudices are the norm which only goes to show that either the positions hold no weight or aren't actually believed by the author. In either case, their points are then moot.

So what would lead someone to write the such unsubstantial swill? Attention. They just want attention. They have nothing original or substantial to say, so they are willing to say anything as long as it gets some people pissed off or others burning crosses. They aren't worried about the consequences of what they say because they are nicely isolated away in their homes, behind their computers, laughing at how others react to their latest crap, safely knowing that their lives will hardly be effected by whatever may come from what they just said.

Unfortunately, in the short term their stunts can only do more harm than good for those on the receiving end of their brand of bigotry and masturbation. Fortunately, in the real world, there is little use for these types of people and they, in the big scheme of things, factor very little. And therefore, SDA and FFoF have become irrelevant and should be viewed and treated as such. Good riddance to them both.

Side Note:
No one should twist my post into some sort of attempt to make claim to my own relevance. I know that in the grande scheme I have little influence. However, that type of relevancy is different than providing something new or different, which is the type of relevance that I'm dealing with here.

On Isolating Ontario: Conservatives Borrowing from Chinese Playbook?

2008-03-25T12:22:00.001-04:00

Lord Kitchener's Own has been doing a fantastic job of tracking and analyzing the current squabble between Ontario and the federal Conservatives.
The short: The Conservatives are trying to provoke Ontarians into an uprising against our provincial Liberal government in an attempt to distract us from reality. That reality being Flaherty eyeing the Ontario PC leadership job (and ultimately the Premier's office - though I doubt he could pull that off anytime soon) and that Ontario is getting the dual treatment of the short end of the stick, stuck up our wazoo by the federal government when it comes to representation and financial transfers. However, the plan is likely to backfire as Ontarians are only going to be further enlightened on how good the country has it because of Ontario.

I would add that the Conservatives should realize that by provoking Ontario they are doing anything but helping their own cause. While underrepresented with Parliament, Ontario's seats are essentially needed if the Conservatives ever want their elusive majority. So beyond personal glory (i.e. Flaherty) and continuing to rip-off Ontario, what purpose would 'poking the bear' have? To answer this, one may only have to look at China's verbal assault on Tibet.

Chris Edey's latest post argues that China continues to blame Tibetans and the Dalai Lama, and plays the role of victim, not because it's true, trying to gain sympathies from the West or convince Tibetans. Rather, it's about building support with the Chinese population and it's about nationalism. China doesn't care what the West or Tibetans think. They know that the international community won't do anything, so China isn't worried about international opinion. What they are worried about is their own self-preservation, which comes from within. And therein lies their m.o. They blame the Tibetans and Dalai Lama to play on the historic prejudices that exist in China to have support of the people for whatever actions they take, any justification they make to isolate Tibet (as well as Taiwan and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region) and to buffer against any dissenting, international opinions that may make their way within China's borders.

So how does the China-Tibet conflict equate with the current rift between the federal government and Ontario? Well, most of it doesn't with the exception of the reasoning behind the words being used. Whereas China is trying to curry greater favour with everyone, except Tibetans, within their borders by being negative about Tibet, the federal Conservatives are also trying to isolate Ontario with the rest of Canada. There are likely at least three reasons for this:
First, to win a majority government at the federal level, generally, the support of Ontario is needed. Given that support for parties is often divided across the nation, having Ontario on your side can often tilt the scale in your favour. Lacking Ontario's support would essentially mean that you need significant support everywhere else and one way is to play Ontario against the rest of the country, which seems to be the case.
Second, in the event that Ontario, for the second time in Canadian history, qualifies as a 'have-not' province, don't be surprised if the equalization rules are changed (as they were in 1982) to exclude Ontario. This will need to be justified somehow and having favourable opinion outside of Ontario (through the negative attacks on Ontario) will buffer the Conservatives against the unfavourable opinions coming from within.
Third, there is also the general isolation of Ontario within Canada. Since Ontario has been playing the 'patsy' for years, in terms of representation, financial transfers, equalization, etc., during this economic slowdown, Ontario just might ask for something in return or begin lashing out on its own. The Conservatives need Ontario isolated to avoid Ontario influencing other provinces. Think of the 'Not a Leader' campaign the Conservatives ran against Dion and you'll get the picture here.

Fortunately for Ontario (and the rest of Canada, really) this plan will be much more difficult for the Conservatives than it is for China. In Canada we have a free media that will point out the reality. Ontario isn't Tibet in the sense that we are a small and effectively, controlled state within an authoritarian country. For Ontario it's quite the opposite. Ontario is the most populous province and generally the most powerful. And while the Conservatives may want to isolate Ontario, in the end Ontario has all the money that the Conservatives want. Furthermore, the Conservatives aren't an all powerful party. And even in the event they succeed at isolating Ontario, they won't necessarily get the votes elsewhere because they aren't the only party with substantial support and have burned other bridges elsewhere.

Update: Lord Kitchener's Own strikes again!

'Roadside Zoos Hopefully Coming to an End' Or 'Hopefully, This is Only the Beginning'

2008-03-12T12:04:00.000-04:00

I can't say it enough that most, if not all, roadside zoos in Ontario need to be shut down, immediately. And it finally looks like the Ontario Liberals are going to crackdown on these grotesque excuses for entertainment.

The legislation, aimed at overhauling a 90-year-old law, is expected to set standards of care for small zoos and give the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals the right to inspect the operations, The Canadian Press has learned.

Definitely, this is long overdue. The current legislation was put in place 90 years ago, a lot has been learned since then in regards to animals' care, biology, needs, etc. To know just how appalling things are in some of Ontario's roadside zoos, go here. It's scary, sad and disgusting that people are willing to do this to animals that are biologically disposed to create territories that are vast or are social and/or pack animals and then argue, as the owner of the deplorable Lickety-Split Ranch and Zoo in London, Ontario did,

"Check your facts and do your research and you'll see there's nothing wrong."

Remember, this is coming from a woman that created an international firestorm over her housing and treatment of a red kangaroo. At one point, the Australian Environment Minister was calling for an official investigation into the situation. My response to owner Shirley McElroy is simply this: I've read the research on kangaroos, though, even a 3 year-old child could see that a tiny cage is no place for the world's largest marsupial.

To see these deplorable 'zoos' shutdown or subject to tough restrictions would be a nice change. The Ontario Liberals should be commended for finally bringing this forward, even if it's long overdue. It's even more encouraging because it is likely to include a section that will penalize people who hurt animals with tougher penalties.

The bill, if passed, will also likely ensure there are tougher consequences for people who abuse animals by making it a provincial offence to hurt an animal, sources said.

Hopefully, this means that there will be meaningful penalties, not just marginal increases of the current penalties, which are a complete joke. When I say 'meaningful' I pretty much mean significant jail time and financial consequences. Animals deserve considerably more respect and recognition as sentient beings in our laws. Something along the lines of Ajax-Pickering MPP Mark Holland's bill C-373, is really where I'm going with this. However, even C-373 isn't complete though it is much better and thorough than bill S-203 (formerly, S-213), which is currently making the rounds in the House and Senate.

Animal rights and welfare is not an area I write about often. Mostly this is mostly due to how easily I get worked up about the subject and find it hard to keep my emotions in check. From where I sit, not just Ontario but all of Canada is completely antiquated when it comes to animal rights and welfare. There is no reason that a country as modern as Canada should still have an archaic outlook on animals and how they are treated. Animals are sentient, at the very least, and given that should be afforded much more respect and protection than they currently receive.

Six Unimportant Things

2008-03-11T10:45:00.000-04:00

Good ol' Scott Tribe tagged me with this silly, little meme that has been making its rounds through the blogosphere. So I figured I would give it a shot and toss it out there. I'm also supposed to tag six others and here are my six tags: Apply-Liberally, BCer in TO, Quito, Lord Kitchener, This Year, and Edey.

I don't eat any warm-blooded, furry animal - for any one specific reason - unless I'm a guest for dinner and that is all they are serving;
As a child I walked into the handle of a lawn mower and the branches of a tree and required stitches for both incidents;
I like to play Call of Duty (whichever edition is current), online;
My car is a standard;
I have an aquarium with 6 fish (1 sunburst platy, 3 neon tetras, and 2 white cloud minnows) and 4 amano shrimp;
My wife and I share custody over Meisha (see below), with my parents.

From a Snowball to an Avalanche?

2008-03-07T12:40:00.002-05:00

It isn't exactly a revelation that many grassroots Liberals are beginning to wonder what the hell the leaders and advisers are doing. From Dion to his caucus to their cronies and so forth, all have talked tough when it comes to the many questionable actions of Harper and the Conservatives. Yet, when push to comes to shove our ~~fearful~~ fearless leaders renege pretty much every time. The scratching of heads by many Liberal and non-Liberal bloggers has reached exponential heights. Scott Tribe has documented the questioning that has been going on in the blogosphere and on any given day you can pick up the angst from non-bloggers over at Progressive Bloggers. While most Liberal bloggers are just expressing frustration and venting on the lack of action by our leaders, one blogger, Apply-Liberally, who is also a valuable Young Liberal, has completely pulled his support for the party.

My frustrations run deep now and I’ve decided I will no longer consider myself a Liberal supporter.
The icing on the cake came today when I was reading a note written by a Liberal MP lambasting the Conservatives over scandal and corruption allegations inside the current government. The tone was that the Conservatives have broken the trust of Canadians. There was a laundry list of examples. There wasn’t, however, any solutions. There has been no attempt to toss this government out.

His sentiments are not unique to him, either. Hearing from some local candidates the feeling is also being heard at the doors of supporters and potential supporters. A couple weeks ago people were more than willing to talk about the state of the government and issues. Today they are expressing frustration and are laughing at the state of the Liberal Party. It is not going unnoticed that the Liberal leadership isn't willing to walk the walk. I also have my doubts that this view is going to just up and disappear in the near future.

The risk the Liberal Party is facing is becoming irrelevant in the eyes of voters. If our party isn't going to stand up against our poor excuse for a government then what do they stand for? If they are waiting for the perfect issue to bring the government down on, I can tell you right now that short of a full, blown out scandal that this Conservative government isn't likely to give the Opposition much to run with. What they have done though is given the Opposition A LOT of little issues and these combined have given us enough fodder to strike with if an election were held now. Our leaders have to stop listening to their advisers and put their ears to the ground to hear what their grassroots members are saying, just like they said they would do during and immediately after the leadership selection. If not, not only do they run the risk of becoming irrelevant as the opposition but they also run the risk of alienating all their members, AGAIN!

It's time for the Liberals to stand for something and fight the good fight before all the quiet chatter becomes a chorus and the party walks off into the distance...

Update: My. Point. Exactly.

A Couple of Quick Updates: Smoking and Book Bans

2008-03-06T11:16:00.001-05:00

It's being reported that McGuinty is going full steam with the ban on smoking in cars while children are present. Good. It's about time. I've written on this a few times and have yet to receive any real challenge to this new law. Why? Probably because there is no real challenge to be made here. This law is about protecting the health of children and limiting their exposure to secondhand smoke. It's not about directly limiting smokers' rights to kill themselves like some idiots will claim. ALW has probably given the strongest analogy I've seen by comparing this ban with drinking and driving. Also, don't believe the clowns behind mychoice.ca when they argue this is going to lead us down a slippery-slope where cell phones, sneezing and scratching your ass are next to be banned. Slippery-slopes hardly come true and there are no foundations to back up any further bans. The ban in cars has a solid medical background and even though this evidence could also backup smoking in homes, the home is sacrosanct and therefore pretty much off limits.
See Also: here, here, and here.

And while we're on the topic of bans:
Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board has decided not to pull Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy out of their school libraries. However, they will be putting disclaimers on the covers to warn students about the supposed misrepresentation of the Roman Catholic Church - which is only likely to draw more attention to the Pullman's point. This is a change of view from the Halton Catholic School Board, which pulled the books from their library shelves in a misguided and cowardly manner. In that regard, I think Dufferin-Peel deserves some praise for not being so short-sited as to attempt censorship and hide with their tail between their legs. Just as Dr. Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, argued, this trilogy should be mandatory reading in religion courses to teach students about how to avoid the traps of organized religion control and losing the message to dogma. Furthermore, a publicly funded school board should not be able to censor books arbitrarily, like Halton had done. If the books are pornographic, racist or similar ilk, then maybe a school board would have an argument. But to ban the books because you disagree with them sets a very bad precedent for future books that may also bring up a challenge. Dufferin-Peel is the obvious leader in this situation. We now know is being run by confident and competent people.
See also: Here, here, and here.

To Test Or Not To Test...

2008-03-06T10:14:00.001-05:00

Apparently, testing leads to greater recall of information. According to this article, studying and repeatedly testing on information allows students to retain information better than if they were only to constantly study.

As a teacher, I think this is useful information to know. I'm the type of teacher that particularly despises testing based on pure recall but to some degree this information does present some validity to giving 'pop quizzes'. While I tend to focus more on teaching for understanding while providing tests and assignments that promotes this, it may not be too bad to throw in a few more quizzes to assist with retention.

This is one of those dilemmas that many teachers face. Since testing for pure recall only shows us which students are better at remembering but not the best with understanding, there are always questions about how best to evaluate students. However, testing for understanding is not only time consuming - for both teachers and students - it's also very difficult to design the right question and accurately mark making it hard to sometimes get concrete feedback from it. Sometimes, pure recall testing is simpler and more concrete for assessment and assigning marks. Especially when the government requirements are asking for concrete results, simple testing is the answer, however, as I mentioned earlier this curves away from the goal of education; understanding. The magic formula is really a mixture of testing for understanding, simple testing and observations of experiential learning and projects.

While the article has pointed out the usefulness of simple testing, it doesn't mean teachers should put more emphasis on it. Rather, it may be more useful to provide more pop quizzes to assist students with information retention. However, at the same time teachers should give less weight to the results when it comes to students' final assessments. Ultimately, it gives us something to think about. Now if I could only remember what I was trying to accomplish before writing this post...

h/t to Saskboy

As If We Needed Another Reason...

2008-03-01T07:22:00.001-05:00

... but this one is just as good, if not better, than all the others. And it looks like it might just happen, though I'm not holding my breath.

Cadman affair sparks election threat - Toronto Star

"The (Liberal) party may have to reconsider, in light of the allegations, whether it ought to prop up the government now facing ethical allegations that go right to the top," Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East) said.

"If this story is not discredited substantially in the next 48 hours, I am sure that a number of our colleagues will be very keen come Monday to pull the plug on this (minority) government," said Liberal MP Garth Turner (Halton).

There have been many Liberals, including myself, and non-Liberals calling for an election for quite some time now. Whether it's been an election over the inaction with the environment, detainee transfers and torturing in Afghanistan, poor governance by the Conservatives (i.e. lying, misrepresention, lack of transparency and accountability, etc.), etc. This list can go on as bloggers such as Scott Tribe and JimBobby have repeatedly pointed out. This latest development involving Chuck Cadman is another good reason to go to the polls.

Breaking the law and offering a bribe to buy a vote is a serious crime - Patrick Monahan, Dean of Osgoode Law, emphasised that himself several times on CTV yesterday. Let's also be honest, if the tables were turned there would be little doubt that the Conservatives would bring down the House themselves.

Many Liberals have been questioning why our party has been playing the part of the ostrich with its head in the sand when it comes to triggering an election. We have issues to run on, we have a strong core of leaders to put in front of the public (many more than the Cons have), and we know that the Conservatives are unlikely to get any more power than they already have. So why not take our chances with the public? The Liberals are only likely to gain in an election and the more seats the Liberals have the better off Canada will be because it sure hasn't been good so far with the Conservatives but it definitely can get worse.

Observations from the 2008 Academy Awards

2008-02-25T10:06:00.001-05:00

My wife and I are huge movie buffs (like any film geeks, we can have conversations using movie quotes) and as such, the Oscars is our Superbowl. For us it is the highlight event at the end of a long season of movies. Last night was no different as the 80th Academy Awards took place.

There weren't too many surprises.. Daniel Day-Lewis, check. Javier Bardem, check. Marion Cotillard, check. As far as acting awards went though, Tilda Swinton was a shock to us, as it was to her too it seemed. That's not to say she didn't deserve the award as her performance in Michael Clayton was great. I had my money on Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Bob Dylan in I'm Not There with strong considerations given to Amy Ryan and Saoirse Ronan.

As far as the movie awards go, I assumed it would be a total toss-up between Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood and the Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men. The only surprise is that the latter film completely swept the former, with the exception of the Best Actor category which No Country didn't have a nominee in.

Some people might argue that Diablo Cody's script for Juno was a surprise winner over Ratatouille in the Best Original Screenplay category. The latter movie was considered the highest critically acclaimed film of 2007 and was an easy winner in the Best Animated Film category. However, while it was the best animated film of last year, being animated was also its downfall for the screenplay nod. And history has shown that the Academy is afraid to truly award animated films with the more significant honours. I would even argue that they only created the animated categories because animated films weren't going away and at some point would begin to deserve serious consideration as movies. Rather than give animated films equal consideration to non-animated films, they created the animation categories to appease this grouping instead. Therefore, Juno winning for Best Original Screenplay was a given, in my opinion. However, I also don't believe the win is without some justification.

For the production awards, The Bourne Ultimatum kicked serious butt. The movie won for Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing. If anything this shows that most of the Academy members take their roles serious and really do look at the technical and production merits of all films. The Bourne Ultimatum was up against some big movies such as No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood and if either of these films had won these categories no one would have blinked or at worse it would have been assumed these were just given considering the level of impact these films have. Kudos, to the Academy members!

Jon Stewart was a capable host. I don’t think his performance was as strong as his 2006 appearance. Considering the uncertainty of the awards taking place and short time frame to script the awards following the writers’ strike, it wasn’t that bad. The only real struggle seemed to come from his attempts to comment on the upcoming presidential elections and seamlessly connect it to the Oscars. His political jokes seemed much more natural in 2006.

My parting observation on the 2008 Academy Awards is somewhat more a political-ish one. While Hollywood is generally seen as a haven of the left, they still have honour within them. In that regards, they gave a nod to American troops serving in Iraq by having several of them present the nominees and the winner of the Best Documentary Short category. However, while it may just be the skeptic in me, I giggled at the fact they presented the award to Freeheld, which is about the struggle of Laurel Hester and her fight with the New Jersey Board of Chosen Freeholders to have her same-sex partner receive her pension benefits after she passed away (she was dying of cancer). I giggled because the U.S. military has a very discriminative policy against gays and lesbians which essentially amounts to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. There are also too many negative stories about the experiences of homosexual soldiers being harmed in some way coming out or being outted. There just seemed to be something ironic or some sort of 'wink' occurring at that point. Though, the Academy prides itself on the secrecy over the winners up until the envelope is actually opened so there is plausible denial in this case.

And with that, there are my observations on the 2008 Academy Awards. Until next year…

Last Kick at the Bucket for the National Post?

2008-02-15T10:32:00.003-05:00

It has never been a secret that the National Post has played itself to the right-of-centre crowd, a group that isn't directly targeted by either The Toronto Star or The Globe and Mail; more so when Conrad Black was owner and less so with the Aspers now in control. All the while Canada's third-place national paper has been a losing venture with losses estimated to fall between $15 million and $60 million each year since its inception. There are likely several factors that have contributed to these losses despite having an apparent hold on a particular political spectrum. Particularly, the audience they want is already partially established with The G&M while the rest are established with papers from the Sun Media group.

And that is what may be the real explanation for the out reach to characters such as Shaidle and McMillan and giving them space for their nauseating brands of bigotry and twisted logic. The National Post has spent many years and lots of money failing to attract the right-of-centre crowds away from the established and better written G&M. Therefore, the NPs only option to right the ship, as it were, is to go after the other part of the same crowd, those who are enamored by the like of the Sun. Turning to Shaidle and McMillan is the perfect start since these two are willing to say anything to draw attention and attack anyone that is remotely to the left of their views.

I have my doubts the plan will work: - For far too long the NP has tried to reach out to establishment and the intellectual elites and in the process has alienated droves of ‘common’ people – the same people that are already established with the Sun-media papers. - Despite the Sun-chain being well-known for its right-wing stance and employing quacks of its own (i.e. Michael Coren), in recent years it has been employing columnists from across the spectrum (Sheila Copps, Syd Ryan, etc.) to broaden its appeal – likely from the understanding that their original target audience is considerably small. - A big part of the appeal of the Sun-media papers is their elaborate sports sections. In fact, I would argue that it is the largest appeal of the paper since on a daily basis there are typos found within the news sections but not within the sports. - The NP will never put a Sunshine Girl in their paper.

Where the NP may gain by courting the followers of Shaidle and McMillan is with the few, truly far-right group of Canadians. The type of people that reference and advocate lynching, shooting, mass killings, etc. of others that don’t share in their extremely narrow points of view which Shaidle and McMillan court everyday. One only has to glimpse at McMillan’s latest stunt where she demeans Holocaust survivors in order to ‘prank’ Warren Kinsella. Or take a look at the many supportive comments left at both Shaidle and McMillan’s sites or callous comments sent to others, to understand the people I'm referring to. These are people without logic, common sense, compassion or joy and are seemingly ready to blame and lash out at others at any given moment for lacking these traits. If this is where the NP is looking to go then I say by all means do it because it will be the last thing they'll be remembered for; the hiring and courting of racists and other bottom feeders.

The NP is seemingly taking its last kick at the proverbial bucket to stay afloat. Which it won’t be able to do. Hopefully, while it’s on its downward spiral into oblivion and obscurity it will give a fleeting wave to Shaidle and McMillan and the like who will also eventually follow in its path.

Allow me to provide my own insensitive addendum to this: There must be a punch line in here somewhere about the fate of the NP’s founder, Conrad Black, and his fortunes of late and hitting rock bottom and the NP itself spiraling downwards while hiring some of the lowest common denominator. Or maybe not...

Further Reading:
*THE NATIONAL POST: GETTING A FEW THINGS OFF MY CHEST
*A week of blogging demagogues at the National Post?
*The National Post just got more Toronto Sun-like.

It's Time...

2008-01-29T12:17:00.000-05:00

Simply put - It's time to bring the House down and go to the polls. In a completely unoriginal post I want to echo the sentiments of Scott Tribe, Jason Cherniak, JimBobby, and countless others. To my own credit though, I thought the time was way back in the fall when the House reconvened.

I don't even see a reason to hesitate. I don't believe an election prior to the spring budget will change the Liberals chances to gain seats any more than it will during the budget. It's not like Harper has shown any leadership or willingness to actually govern the country. And things are even worse for him when he's not controlling the messages that are being printed in the media, which right now he seems to have no influence whatsoever. Which is fine because most of what he says is only for the purpose of deflection from his mistakes or to make another non-announcement about a program that is already in place and was already presented. But that's what happens when you don't have any plans except how to dupe the public into thinking you're actually governing rather than running an extended election campaign.

Right now, Harper is probably at his weakest. Between the environment, Afghanistan, the nuclear generator, etc. Harper is fully exposed. Waiting for the budget might shut the window on the exposure a little and make the fight a little tougher. I say, go after him when he's down the most. That seems to be now.

Vote For Me... Pretty Please

2008-01-15T10:35:00.000-05:00

Probably half the blogs I've perused today have plugs for the Canadian Blog Awards (CBA). Apparently voting has begun so people are looking for support. So I decided to throw my support behind some blogs and when I got to 'Best Progressive Blog' category, I was pleasantly surprised to see that my blog was listed. Lil 'ol Random Noise was amongst the nominees. So in a futile, yet vain, pursuit, I am also going to ask people go vote for me because the Lord knows, if I'm going to get out of the first round, I need all the support I can get. There are too many actually good blogs (Dr. Dawg, April Reign, Jim Bobby, The Galloping Beaver, Dymaxion World, Apply Liberally, etc.) in there for me to even be a consideration or contender and have more than just there mom (Hi, mom!) read their blog.

As If There Aren't Enough Issues In the Great Lakes Already...

2008-01-15T09:47:00.000-05:00

Ontario to approve Great Lakes wind power - Toronto Star

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for implementing clean energy projects in Ontario however, I can't see the wisdom in building off0shore projects in the Great Lakes. The Ontario government did the right thing when they put a moratorium in place to study this issue but it seems enough pressure has been applied and the Great Lakes will soon be known as the Great Floating Windmill Farms.

There are enough problems, currently, with the Great Lakes that have been created by our lack of care when working in them. There are serious pollution problems caused by sewage dumping and other chemical dumping (i.e. mercury). There are massive problems with indigenous species being on the brink of extinction due to invasive species and over-fishing. Additionally, the Lakes are extremely fragile ecologically from shoreline projects and developments, dam construction and past logging projects. In other words, the Great Lakes are under enough pressure as it is and adding to that pressure, not just by Ontario but surrounding States as well, will only push the problem further. And this doesn't even get into the effects it will have on non-aquatic migratory species, etc.

Ontario, the Canadian Federal government and many US States are already spending hundreds of millions, collectively, to reverse and repair much of the damage that has been caused. There are also agreements in place about care and usage of the Lakes. From where I'm sitting, allowing many massive off-shore windmill projects is counter-productive to those efforts and therefore makes much of the money that has been invested a complete waste. Then again, this just seems to be par for the course when it comes to energy and the environment for this province. I may be supportive of the Ontario Liberals, but I have always had issues with their energy and environmental outlooks. This isn't any different. Taking the short-sited route when it comes energy is typical and unfortunately, I have a feeling it's going to come at a great cost.