Sunday, November 26, 2006

Clinton, Obama and Gore

We're fast approaching the protracted period during which US presidential candidates are chosen. Early indications are that there will be a higher caliber of candidate than the 2004 season brought out. Or maybe I should phrase that more personally and say - there will be more candidates who I support or am interested by.

The last presidential primary period was excrutiating. The Democrats had something like ten contenders, and I wasn't thrilled by any of them. I think Wesley Clark most closely matched my opinions on policy (in fact, I just filled out a survey on the Presidential Candidate Selector and found that we are in 100% agreement) but none of them inspired me.

Now we have exciting candidates gunning for both the Democrat and Republican tickets.

On the Republican side, there's one guy I like - John McCain. I might not even be unhappy if he won the presidency. Rudolf Giuliani is not, to my mind, a strong candidate - his career was in tatters on September 10, 2001, and he revived it by making some good speeches in New York City, but he still has a poor history of leadership. Perhaps the best thing about the list of Republican hopefuls is that there are (so far) no social conservatives or theo-cons.

But the Democrat side is where the stars shine brightest. If only we could avoid the giant line-up that dooms debates and keep the list to three - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Al Gore - what a primary that would be!

###

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Should Canada Recognize Quebec as a Nation?

On Wednesday, Harper shocked the country by saying he was asking the House of Commons to approve a resolution recognizing that the "Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." - Toronto Star

Alas, we have someone who hasn't been living in the country for most of the past 30 years to thank for this new "crisis from nowhere." ...It encouraged the Quebec federal wing of the Liberal party — the sponsors of the sponsorship scandal — to think that this "nation" formulation would revive their fortunes. ...Confident in his skills as a strategic thinker, Stephen Harper has tried to one-up both the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois by recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada. ...How will this all turn out? It will either fizzle or explode. - Nelson Wiseman

It seems to be a semantic debate that doesn't serve any purpose. - Steven Harper in June, 2006 (from CBC radio)

When Stephen Harper announced that he intended to introduce a motion in the House of Commons declaring that Quebec constituted a nation within Canada, this seemingly profound gesture was more about political tactics than about setting right historic wrongs. Harper deftly inserted himself between the Bloc Quebecois and a divided Liberal party on the eve on its leadership convention with his sudden initiative. - James Laxer

I'm not going to oppose the motion. ...we've been through this soap opera for long enough and if it can be brought to an end with something that has no great legal or constitutional consequence, then that's one thing. But I think we all need to reflect on what's happened and how these things can get more complicated than they really need to be. ...it would seem that some people are interpreting it to mean something quite dramatic and other people are interpreting it to be much less, which is one of the reasons why these symbolic debates can be so difficult. - Bob Rae

It's an unnecessary step on a slippery slope... But since it says Quebeckers, not Quebec, because it implies no constitutional consequences, and mostly, because it allows us to move on and deal with bigger issues, let's use it to close a door that was foolishly opened. - Justin Trudeau

###

Friday, November 24, 2006

Review of Isabel Bayrakdarian (Waterloo Entertainment Center, Nov 23 2006)

Canadian Soprano Isabel Bayrakdarian performed with her accompaniest husband, Serouj Kradjian, at the new Waterloo Entertainment Center on Thursday night. As part of a program to pair opera stars with young up-and-coming singers, mezzo-soprano Erin Lawson appeared in the second half.

Ms. Bayrakdarian's choice of music was inspired. Although she has made her name as a Mozart singer, in this concert she sang a series of little songs, mostly by little-known composers. The program included the English translations and the house lights were left up so we could read the lyrics. As well as a pure, beautiful voice, Ms. Bayrakdarian has an expressive style and a wide vocal range; this format showed off her considerable talents.

I was charmed throughout, but the ending went to new heights, from the two women singing Sull'aria... Che soave zeffiretto from Mozart's Marriage of Figaro through Rossini's Cat Duet (done with hilarious hamminess) and the famous Flower Duet from Delibes' Lakme.

Here's one of the songs she sang, a Spanish folksong by Fernando Obradors:

Chiquitita la novia
Chiquitita la novia
Chiquitito el novio,
Chiquitita la sala
Y er dormitorio,
Por eso you quiero
Chiquitita la cama
Y er mosquitero.


which is translated as:

Teeny-tiny the bride
Teeny-tiny the bride,
Teeny-tiny the groom,
Teeny-tiny the parlor,
And the bedroom;
For this reason I want
A teeny-tiny bed
And a mosquito net.


Review in KW Record
Profile of Isabel Bayrakdarian in Waterloo Chronicle

###

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Don't Ask Questions, Just Vote!

The London, Ontario by-election is shaping up to be a strange beast. Tory "star candidate" (and former London mayor) Dianne Haskett is refusing to talk to the voters. She was booed at an all-candidates meeting and since then has refused to attend any other all-candidate events. She also refused to answer a questionnaire sent to all candidates by City Council, as well as questionnaires given to candidates by other groups.

According to the London Free Press, even long-time local Conservatives are upset by her campaign. "The problem with her lack of response is it shows disdain for city council and the citizens of London," said deputy mayor Tom Gosnell.

I don't know what this all means, but I hope the voters of London don't let this woman win.

This is a particularly mean-spirited by-election, since it can hardly be a coincidence that Harper called it so that the vote occurs just before the start of the leadership convention... meaning that two of the leadership candidates, Kennedy and Rae, both of whom were rumored to be considering a run in this by-election, were unable to do so.

Update: After receiving a comment that some stuff I said about Haskett's platform was untrue, I removed the untrue stuff rather than publish the comment. I wrote this in something of a rush and I'm afraid I didn't think through my vitriol. ;-) Thanks for correcting me.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Harper Rescues Ignatieff?

With mere days to go before the Liberal leadership convention, Conservative Prime Minister Steve Harper comes to the aid of the floundering front-running leadership candidate Mike Ignatieff by agreeing with his stance on Quebec nationhood.

That's what just happened, right? I'm not really sure... I tuned out the latest "Is Quebec a nation or is it just a distinct society" debate, woke up with a fright when Ignatieff proposed to re-open the constitution, and then attempted to ignore the whole topic.

But it seems that the big story here isn't whether we use this word or that word to describe a province. It's whether Harper's speech is the turning point in what - just this morning - the Globe referred to as Ignatieff's "sputtering engine" heading into the convention. Timing is everything.

###

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Troubled Berlin

Several years ago I visited two civil rights museums, in Birmingham, Alabama and Memphis, Tennessee. Both are excellent museums, but very different. The Birmingham museum has a wealth of information about the oppression of Afro-Americans in the US South, but it is an optimistic place that seems to want to bring racial groups together in harmony. The Memphis museum, by contrast, is an angry place. Located in the Lorraine Motel where Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down, it confronts racism and condemns it.

I was thinking of those two museums when I was in Berlin this week. Berlin's Jewish Museum is another great museum. Housed in a remarkable building designed by Daniel Libeskind, it provides a fascinating view of two thousand years of Jewish history in Germany. As I moved through the chronology approaching WWII, I grew increasingly apprehensive, waiting for the whammee of information about the holocaust. It didn't come. There was the lead-up to the holocaust, and then there was the aftermath. The holocaust itself was barely mentioned.

This is in stark contrast to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, which is almost too much to bear. At the end of the exhibits there is a meditation room that I needed to use to recover before leaving the building.

Berlin's recent history is troubled, to say the least, having been the center of the Third Reich until just 60 years ago, and then an occupied territory - divided into sectors that were run by the Soviets, Americans, British and French. There seems to be a general lack of trust in the populace - at least, there wasn't a lot of smiling or friendliness. It's a beautiful place and I'm not sorry I spent a week's holiday there, but it feels alien (unlike Frankfurt and Weisbaden, where I spent the previous week).

My experience at the Jewish museum got me wondering about how Berliners cope with their history. That history is still raw, despite the 60 years since the end of the war. I saw many buildings that had poorly patched bullet holes from World War II. The Kunst Bibliotek (attached to the Gemaldegalerie, an old master's museum) is a mess of bullet holes. The bombing at the end of the war left many buildings patched or reconstructed. (Evidence of the Soviet era is found in the museums of the old East Berlin, which are full of reproductions. My guide book would diplomatically say, "This piece was misplaced during the period following WWII. The original is on display in Moscow.")

After my experience at the Jewish museum, I decided to make a search for public acknowledgement of World War II. My guide book told me of a place called the Topography of Terrors, built on the site of Gestapo torture chambers, but it turns out that public controversy has kept the building from being constructed. There is a temporary open air site (with not even an awning); tellingly, the parts dealing with WWII are in German only, and the parts dealing with trials held after the war are also in English.

There is a small modest memorial to Berlin Jews at Gedenkstatte Grosse, but it contains no information, just a statue.

I visited the Holocaust Memorial, and it is big - a small city block - but there are no signs or any words whatsoever, just hundreds of coffin-shaped concrete rectangles. There is not even a sign saying what it is. While I was there, kids were playing hide and seek among the rectangles.

I went away and did some more research, finally discovering that the Holocaust Memorial has an underground interpretive center. I went back to the site but had some difficulty finding the entrance, and eventually found it only because a school group was gathering at the entrance - which was nothing more than a small hole in the ground and steps, with no signs.

The interpretive center is very impressive. It chronicles the Holocaust by year, and then provides personal information. It details what was done to Jews, Roma, disabled people and political opponents. It tells of the development of the gas chambers, first used on the handicapped. One room contains letters written by victims, some thrown through the slats of boxcars. One contains brief slide shows of dozens of towns in Europe, telling how many Jews lived there in 1933, what happened to them, and how many were left in 1945. It is strange to find this huge archive of material hidden underground.

Coming from a slave-owning Southern family, I have first-hand experience of people being defensive about the horrors perpetrated by their ancestors, and I can sympathise with Berliners to an extent. Most of us have blood on our hands. The colonial era ended just 40 years ago, with horrors perpetrated by colonial powers. Our great-great grandmothers were denied human rights. Our ancestors fought many bloody wars, both for their countries and their religions.

But the negligible public acknowledgement by Germany's capital city of the world's greatest atrocity seems irresponsible and unhealthy. It's troubling. It fits with many other things: war reparations being paid so late, war criminals left unprosecuted for decades. While I was in Germany I read an article about the largest archive of Nazi prison camp records, which has only just been opened to researchers, despite decades of pleading by holocaust victim's families to learn what happened to their loved ones. One sad tale among the millions is of a Dutch man who was arrested for owning an illegal radio. His family, now all dead, was never able to get the archive to give them information about him, despite the archive having his personal effects and a first hand account of his fate.

When we say "never again" to the Holocaust, we should also say "never again" to the way we handle the aftermath.

###

Nobel Not Noble

What's with this Nobel prize for economics, anyway? It provides a huge dollop of public legitimacy to some pretty dodgy characters.

I'm thinking of Milton Friedman, recently deceased at the age of 94. Friedman was a bad guy who had a bad influence on the world. Ideologically, the guy was a complete nutbar. A libertarian, he opposed all forms of government "interference". He opposed taxation, public education, driver's licenses, the minimum wage and unions. He thought the regulation of doctors caused unnecessarily high medical costs and should be abolished. And so on and so on.

Friedman's great legacy was in shaping the economic policies of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Augusto Pinochet. Some legacy. He was also a public propagandist. His influence was in the encouragement of prosperity at all costs without concern for the effect on individuals. And what did it all come down to? - Tax cuts for the rich, more income disparity, more pollution, a smaller social safety net, higher crime, a meaner world.

I'm not arguing that the guy wasn't smart, or that he wasn't a good economist. He was a frickin' genius. So, probably, was Hitler. Had Hitler waited a few more years before invading Poland, maybe the Nobel committee would have given him a prize.

###

Saturday, November 04, 2006

We Don't Get It

Earlier this week the British government released a devastating analysis of the effects of global climate change. The report does not derive from the usual environmentalist perspective - Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank and current head of UK government Economic Services, wrote the report at the behest of the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer. (You can find the full report here.) His bottom line: climate change caused by soaring greenhouse gas emissions is going to:

- cost the world 7 trillion dollars
- displace 200 million people because of flood or drought
- make large areas of the planet uninhabitable
- hit developing countries first and hardest
- cause a worldwide drop in GDP of 5-20%
- cause an economic catastrophe greater than WWI, WWII and the Great Depression combined

Europe gets it. European countries have been leading the way for decades on alternative energy sources, better transit, urban planning for the carless, and on and on.

Canada and the US don't get it.

One small example of our disastrous public policy: It was reported today that the US has strong-armed international organizations into allowing US farmers to resume use of methyl bromide, a pesticide that is banned internationally because of its potent ozone-destroying effects.

Canada and the US are now both out of Kyoto. Our record is pitiful and our greenhouse gas emissions are soaring. Prime Minister Stephen Harper just cancelled a European summit because he feared his environmental record would be publicly criticized, even though British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Angela Merkel just reached out to the US and Canada on environmental issues in the most positive, friendly and diplomatic way possible. (The statement said things like, "there's a real opportunity to make progress" and "there are signs of hope here.")

Why don't we get it? I mean this as a personal question too. Why am I not outside right now carrying a placard to protest the Tory's "environmental inaction" legislation?

The number one reason has to be that we enjoy such low oil prices. Europe has paid over $2 a liter for gas for decades, and that changes everything. I keep saying this - all apologies to Joe Clark, who lost his prime ministership because he tried to institute an oil tax - but we must raise gas prices. This initiative has to come from the public. We can't expect another government to commit suicide by trying to do the right thing and institute a gas tax. We have to let them know that we want to pay a higher price at the pump.

Another reason is historical. Back in the 70s there was a huge movement to convince the public that nonrenewable resources were running out. Gaining popularity just when the oil cartel created a worldwide gas shortage, there was widespread panic at the belief that everything from oil to copper was going to be gone well before the end of the century. I still have my well-thumbed paperback copy of The Limits to Growth around somewhere. It didn't serve us well.

Also, we've been talking about this for so damn long and not getting anywhere. Oh, we've done lots of other good things. Canada has a brilliant recycling program that is reducing the cost of garbage disposal. But the average gas consumption of cars keeps going up in North America, consumer packaging keeps getting bigger, we keep buying bigger houses with bigger applicances, blah blah blah.

A big part of the problem is the enormous amount of misinformation we in North America receive through our media and the internet. It doesn't help to have conservative politicians say that climate change is bunk. I read a blog recently that argued that it doesn't matter what we in Canada do because of the enormous environmental disaster coming in China, where economic growth means more cars and industry, and where environmental regulations (according to the blog) are lax. In fact, environmental regulations in China are orders of magnitude better than ours. Their limits on car emissions are better even than California's. We can't pass the buck on this. It's us - North America - that's screwing the pooch. It's us - Canada and the US - that needs to get it together and start playing catch-up with the rest of the world.

See also: Earth Day

###

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Let's Not Americanize Canadian Politics, Please

I felt bad a couple of posts ago when I said "Sometimes politicians slip up and tell the truth" because I really meant "Sometimes American politicians slip up and tell the truth." (But I thought the extra word detracted from my prose's elegance... er, whatever.)

I think by and large Canadian politicians are straight shooters. Sure, they do interviews as all politicians do: ignore the questions and say what they want to say, and what they want to say is usually a lot less than we want to hear. But generally the level of fact and candor in Canadian political discourse seems a lot better these days than it is in the US.

Why is this? In recent decades the Republicans have become such masters of the sound bite and talking point that it's caught on with the Democrats too. But the Repubs in particular have perfected the use of the pithy three-word sound bite repeated over and over until it's taken on a reality of its own and everyone starts saying it as if they'd just thought of it. (Jon Stewart makes great fun of this by showing rapid-fire clips of politicians saying exactly the same three-word phrase ad nauseum.)

Now Canadian politicians are starting to dumb down their political style a la Americaine.

Today I saw a news clip of Michael Ignatieff giving a speech about the new tax on income trusts, and Ignatieff kept repeating the phrase "bait and switch." As a copy of the American sound bite it was sort of pathetic, because he didn't use it in context and because it doesn't have the immediate meaning that phrases of that type need to have. It just doesn't carry the punch of "cut and run", "weeks not months", "stay the course", and so on. (Bait and switch? How does that apply exactly?) Also, Ignatieff didn't seem to mean it: he kept his eyes down on his notes as he spoke. He really seemed to be dialling it in - maybe he was embarrassed by the speech he was delivering (he should have been).

Yesterday I endured a few minutes of the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, who has apparently been tasked with smearing Ontario's Liberal premier. This idiot federal guy, whose name I have wiped from my mind, kept using the phrase "political grandstanding" over and over to describe Premier McGuinty. I wasn't counting but I'd say at rough guess that he used the phrase 14 billion times. It got so bad that the interviewer started saying it too like some sort of hypno-zombie. You could tell that the whole thing was bullshit because the guy had nothing to say to support his claim and so filled the brief interview with constant repetition of this stupid phrase.

Then I read about the Ontario Liberal Party hiring American politico James Carville to speak at our recent AGM on the subject of effective election campaigns. Carville got $50,000 to give an 18-minute speech in which he told us that political messages must be simple, relevant, and repetitive. He said that political communication is the only endeavour that you multiply by subtracting, and that this means that politicians must "keep it simple and keep saying it".

Can you hear me howling NOOOOOOooooo!!!

###

Income Trusts

1. Income trusts were a tax loophole that needed to be closed. The Harperos did the right thing.

2. A lot of investors are losing money because of this new tax. Harper gave some tax relief to retirees and he softened the impact with a gradated implementation. It is still a going to be a financial loss for a lot of people.

3. There would not be this big a loss if Paul Martin had done something about income trusts back in the fall of 2005. Had he done this then, there wouldn't be such a mess now.

4. The stock market is a risky, risky place. Increasingly in recent years we have been sold the line that we should rely on the stock market (including mutual funds) to save for our retirement. We don't have a lot of options now that pensions are a luxury enjoyed mostly by civil servants. We need to revisit this whole area and start to think of regulations to help non-rich people who need a secure retirement fund.

5. Good government does not mean blindly following every campaign promise. Situations change (in this case, a flood of companies moving into the tax loophole of income trusts); people learn new facts (especially when they move from opposition to government); and opinions evolve. Good governance means being pragmatic and open-minded.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Sometimes Politicians Tell the Truth

He says he meant to say the joke as it was written by his speech writers: “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.”

But what he said was: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

His apology went like this: “As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loves ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop. I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended.”

Why did Kerry make the slip? My guess: he's a combat veteran and so he knows that soldiers in Iraq are mostly poor people who didn't do well in school and have limited options. Sometimes politicians slip up and tell the truth. The scandal should be the plight of the American underclass, not the politician who accidentally made reference to it.

###

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Where Will We Be On December 3?

I was just reading Jeffrey Simpson's column in today's Globe... Simpson calls Ignatieff a fool for pushing the idea of Quebec as a nation and makes a pretty fair case for it. It's got me feeling a bit glum.

On the one hand, there are pundits who say that no leadership candidate has ever had as big a lead as Ignatieff has and not won the leadership. On the other hand, Ignatieff is being seriously criticized from both within and without the party - to the point that he is starting to look like someone who doesn't have the support of rank and file Liberals and can't win a general election. When we wake up on December 3, the last thing we need is a leader who's so bruised and battered that he's crippled from the start and a party that once again is deeply and bitterly divided.

I haven't been happy with Ignatieff's public relations gaffes (Quebec, Israel/Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan). I still think he might make a good prime minister, but he doesn't have any political experience and he's not learning fast enough. Still, if the Ontario Returning Office hadn't lost my Form 6 and left me off the delegate ballot (and if I had won a place) and if Rae dropped out, I would still probably switch to Ignatieff.

I speculated in a previous post that Ignatieff wouldn't have given up tenure at Harvard if he hadn't had some pretty hefty reassurance from some pretty hefty party insiders that he was going to win. I have to wonder what those backers are thinking now. There have been some defections at the front of Ignatieff's campaign team because of some of his extremist statements; have there been any at the back?

I can see two ways to reach a good outcome. Either at some point we pull together and support Ignatieff (and this requires that we soften up some of the criticism during the campaign); or his backers have to start re-evaluating their support. If the former, more people need to start speaking up for the guy. Right now he's hanging out there like a stuck pig on a forklift. If the latter, we need those backers who are backing off to tell us about it so we have a better chance of electing someone else.

###

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Atheists Are People Too... Right?

Newsweek contains a column called "BeliefWatch" which this week is devoted to atheists. Now, strike me dead for reading a rag like Newsweek, but this article is so offensive to atheists that it has raised my ire even beyond what Steve, "Lying Man" MacKay, or GWB could do. Here's the opening paragraph:
At lunch with Sam Harris, one is struck by how personable, how familiar he seems—a soft-spoken, thoughtful man with pleasant manners, a man who wrote two best-selling books while pursuing a degree in neuroscience. He is, in other words, an unlikely infidel.

Can you imagine the outcry if author Lisa Miller were writing about Christians, Jews or Muslims? Apparently the Newsweek ombudsperson is not too worried about the persecution of us little old godless unbelievers.

I have to put up with overt religious expression all the time - even proselytizing - and I find it offensive, but I keep my mouth shut and play nice. I've spent my whole life tiptoeing around not telling the rest of the kids that there's no Santa Claus because I thought it was bad manners, and yet there's no quid pro quo.

But that's all old hat. The Newsweek article takes the total disregard of unbelievers to new levels by implying that we're all rude, loud, thoughtless, stupid losers. If that's really what Newsweek readers believe, what's next, lynch mobs and lobotomies?

Well that's my rant for the day. I also sent a much more polite version of this to Newsweek. But I sure ain't buying another issue for a while.

###

Monday, October 23, 2006

Those Who Support Torture

Last week, Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, aka the torture bill, which legalizes torture - along with secret CIA prisons, suspension of habeas corpus and military trials - for "enemy combatants." An "enemy combatant" is, apparently, any non-citizen the president says is an enemy combatant.

This outrageous move has been condemned by, well, everyone... around the world and within the United States. The Red Cross and ACLU have lodged objections. It's not a bill that should stand up to a constitutional challenge... except that the Supreme Court got two new members during the Bush presidency.

We all knew that Bush is a dangerous lunatic, but the US system of checks and balances was supposed to prevent this kind of fascist development. It did not because 65 senators voted for torture. The following senators voted for the torture bill:

Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Carper, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Menendez, Murkowski, Nelson (Florida), Nelson (Nebraska), Pryor, Roberts, Rockefeller, Salazar, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Sununu, Talent, Thomas, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner

These people should not be re-elected. McCain's presidential bid should be over. This should be the final nail in Joe Lieberman's career.

A disturbing side note: Washington insiders say that the torture bill was a cynical attempt by the Bush administration to deflect attention from its other scandals.

Garrison Keillor wrote a very good column on the subject.

###

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Good for Jack

This weekend's Globe & Mail has an article, "Layton demands MacKay apologize or resign," which says, in part:
Peter MacKay should apologize or step down as Canada's foreign affairs minister for sexist comments he allegedly made towards female parliamentarians, the leader of the federal NDP party said Saturday.

...During a speech to the Ontario NDP provincial council, Mr. Layton also slammed Mr. MacKay for a previous comment in which he told NDP MP Alexa McDonough to "go back to doing her knitting" after she raised questions about Afghanistan.

He suggested Mr. MacKay is often aggressive, patronizing and patriarchal during debates and that he clearly demonstrates a lack of respect for women.

"His apology should go to all women members of parliament and members of the country because I'll tell you one thing, it's certainly going to discourage women from seeking public office and in that, he's done a great disservice," Mr. Layton said.

I am deeply impressed by Layton's statement for several reasons:

* The Conservatives are trying to paint MacKay's harassment of Stronach as a fake issue dreamed up by Liberals. Someone outside the Liberal party needed to step up and call them on that.

* Too many people are letting their opinion on this issue be colored by their opinion of Belinda Stronach or their opinions on who broke up with who. Layton has changed the discussion by showing that MacKay has a pattern of inappropriate behavior towards his female peers.

* The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all have similar values and our values are in opposition to those of the Harperistas. We need to stand together more.

* I think the NDP should have a valuable role in Canadian politics as a party of ideas and conscience, but Layton has been too preoccupied by partisan politics. If he doesn't get back on the ball, the Green Party is going to overtake the NDP as the alternative party, and I don't want to see that.

I heard Green Party leader Elizabeth May (who I think is fabulous) talking on the CBC today, and she said that the environment was not mentioned in the last election. That may be true at the national level, but at the all-candidate meetings that I went to in my riding it was mentioned a lot, and the discussion was co-opted by the ridiculous Green Party proposition to install a flat tax/pollution tax thing. It was one of those stupid ideas that was designed to solve one problem but would be ineffective and would cause ten other problems. That's what you get from one-issue, fringe parties. The NDP has been so busy of late trying to destroy the Liberals (I mean that literally; Layton actually thought he could do it) that he didn't notice the Green Party sneaking up his backside, and now they're standing at 9% in the opinion polls. Jack Layton has to get back on track and start sounding like a leader. I know he can do it.

###

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Unfit for Public Office

Our current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter MacKay, was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party after promising, in writing, that he wouldn't merge the party with the Reform Alliance. Less than two weeks later, he merged the parties. The Progressive Conservatives never had a chance because of the way the vote was engineered. The move amounted to a hostile take-over and brand appropriation. One might even say the new Conservative Party is a fraud, using a venerable old name to hide an agenda that most Canadian conservatives would abhor.

It was inevitable that many Progressive Conservatives would not fit into the new party, especially after the election of Stephen Harper as leader. Scott Brison, Belinda Stronach and Garth Turner were all misfits. They didn't change; their constituents didn't change - the party changed.

Today's Globe & Mail reports on today's parliamentary debate: "A Liberal jokingly asked Mr. MacKay about the impact of pollution on humans and animals: "What about your dog?" According to Mr. Holland, Mr. MacKay motioned toward Ms. Stronach's vacant seat and replied: "You already have her.""

This odious remark fits other reports of MacKay's behavior towards Stronach after she crossed over to the Liberals. Initially he tried to play for sympathy, saying she'd dumped him and he was heartbroken. Later it came out that she tried to save the relationship but he wouldn't have it, and it is reported that since they broke up he has frequently made rude gestures and taunts towards her across the House. It got so bad that Stronach's seat in the House had to be moved so that she was further away from him.

I don't give a damn about MacKay's love life and I'm quite certain that Stronach can take care of herself, but this shows us some things about MacKay's character that are so serious that I don't think he's fit for public office. We already knew from the party merger that he's untrustworthy. Now it's apparent that he's nasty and vengeful and possibly unstable. For heaven's sake, they went out for about six months and he broke up with Stronach over 18 months ago. And yet he's referring to her - in the House of Commons! - as his dog?! This is harassment. It's the kind of ex-boyfriend behavior that forces women to take out restraining orders. It's frightening and ugly. It is very, very important that MacKay recognize, both privately and publically, that his rage towards an ex-girlfriend is unacceptable.

###

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Ontario Prefers Bob Rae Over Any Other Leadership Candidate

Some partisan bloggers who support candidates other than Bob Rae persist in claiming that Rae is unelectable in Ontario. Poll after poll have proved decisively that this is not true.

Today's Globe & Mail said:

...29 per cent of Ontarians believe Mr. Rae would be the best prime minister, well higher than the 22 per cent who picked Mr. Ignatieff and the 20 and 21 per cent, respectively, who picked Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Dion, respectively.

“It puts to the test — or to the lie —the notion that Rae carries the most baggage in the province of Ontario and that his five years as premier makes him unacceptable,” said Allan Gregg, chairman of the Strategic Counsel.

But don't trust media interpretations. Look at the polls themselves:

Globe-CTV Poll October 18, 2006
Gandalf poll September 14, 2006
Decima poll September 14, 2006
Globe-CTV Poll September 19, 2006

Why is Bob Rae the first choice of Ontarians? If you haven't read it yet, take a gander at this article by a non-partisan senior civil servant during Bob Rae's premiership:

Deconstructing Bob Rae: Political Myth-Making, Ontario Style

###

Monday, October 16, 2006

Incentivizing the Masses

I grew up in the 60s, a time of moral relativism, in which the religious underpinning of moral behavior was abnegated and we were left with our gut as the only justification for our sense of right and wrong. Right and wrong became societal, not universal, and were subject to change.

Over the last 40 years, this tectonic shift in the foundation of moral behavior has led to a change in perspective: in the obverse of John Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you/Ask only what you can do for your country," we have shifted from talking about how we should behave to how to make people behave in desirable ways. The Ten Commandments have been replaced by the Constitution: that is, what is right is replaced by what is legal - an appeal to our sense of morality is replaced by incentives (both carrot and stick) to make us behave.

One might speculate whether the current cult of incentivizationalism will in turn lead to a backlash movement... antiincentivizationarianism, if you will.

Okay, sorry about this, I'm just messing with you. I couldn't sleep and thought up the word antiincentivizationarianism and wondered whether I could find a way to use it in context. Now I've scratched that itch...

###

Me Speak Pretty One Day

Stephane Dion on CTV Newsnet last weekend, responding to criticism about his ability to speak English:

"I think it's mostly by people who never heard me to speak."

I feel a little nasty repeating that, but come on guys, this is a real issue. You can't write off Anglo candidates because their French isn't up to snuff and then ignore this guy's mangling of English.

Chretien got away with it because everyone said that he couldn't speak French either and it fit in with his "little guy from Shawinagan" mythology. And he didn't get away with it completely: in the English debates he always came off as hesitant and a little bumbling, while in the French debates he was forceful and much more charismatic, I'm sure because he didn't have to pause and translate in his head. Also, one might argue that the Liberals could have elected anyone after the disaster of the Mulroney administration, and then Chretien had the wile and wits to hold on. We're in a different era now.


###

The Big Mo

In case anyone missed Bob Rae on the Rick Mercer Report, here's a link. (Yes, they both get naked, but the big news is not the skinnydipping but the skinnydipping in northern Ontario in October. Crikey.)

Following his fishing expedition with Bob, Rick Mercer had this to say about the October 15 leadership debate: "For those of you who didn’t catch [the debate] here are the highlights in alphabetical order: Bob Rae. That’s it. End of highlights. ...Bob Rae has the big mo. Standing up there on the stage in front of all those Liberals – Bob Rae looked like a Prime Minister..."

Speaking of the debate, my hands-down favorite blog on it is this one by the Frog Lady. Way to go, Frog Lady!

###