Lord Kitchener's Own

What the frak???

2009-03-21T15:22:00.001-04:00

So, here's my own little theory on the BSG finale last night (this is a ginormous post, so be forewarned).

The great thing about a complex show like Galactica, is that there can be many interpretations and theories, and I'm by no means saying that my own interpretation is "correct" (in fact it’s likely filled with holes you could drive a truck through), but I thought it was pretty good, so I wanted to share! (Reader beware, this is a LONG post).

So the main point of particular import in my theory is this: Baltar and Caprica Six both died on Caprica in the initial Cylon attack that began the series.

OK, got that? Baltar died in the first episode along with Cap Six.

From then on, they're both "angels".

I know, but stick with me here.

Now, they're "angels" in the sense of dead people returned from heaven to the land of the living (I won't say "to Earth," 'cause that's a complicated wording, for obvious reasons) to help those still living their lives. So, they're not angels in the sense of the non-human beings described in the bible - they're not angels like Seraphim and Cherubim, a separate species between God and "humans" (I’m including cylons in the "human" category here) - but angels in the sense of those who have passed away to the other side, and who return to fulfill some purpose. That's a big premise requiring some explanation, but stick with me here.

One other point is that we know (or presume) that Six downloaded in to a new body when she "died", seemingly making her return less "miraculous". It's possible in my theory that she didn't really download into a new body, and that this is just what the Cylons THOUGHT happened, but that's neither here nor there for the theory. The important point is that both Baltar and Cap Six died on Caprica, went to the "other side" and then were returned to the land of the living by God to serve as “angels” (which, frankly, to me, is actually in some ways less problematic than the idea that Six was destroyed on Caprica, but that she nonetheless managed to save Baltar!).

So, basically, from the time we see Baltar's House get hit by the shockwave of the nuke, he's pretty much "returned from the dead" when we next see him. When he runs into Helo and Boomer, he's an angel returned from the other side (one might say a "fallen angel", but I think of him more as an Angel sent by God to do a job, not an Angel punished by being sent to the land of mortals... while he's not an angel in the Seraphim sense, nonetheless, for comparison, I see him as more Gabriel than Lucifer, his sometimes horrific actions during the forthcoming seasons notwithstanding).

Now, at this point you may be thinking "That's nice, Baltar would LOVE this theory!" and you're right. However, keep in mind that I'm not saying that Baltar is a "higher power" in any conscious sense. In fact, I don't think Baltar had ANY IDEA WHATSOEVER that he was an angel, and that's important. He, like the other "angels" in the series, don't know they're angels (though they may know, or suspect, that they have a "destiny"… hint, hint). Baltar may (MAY) have figured it out on ancient Earth (our Earth, not the original Earth), and my theory does holds that the Baltar we see at the very end of the series in New York is an angel who's actually aware that he's an angel. However, even on Galactica, when Baltar's talking to Cavil about “seeing angels”, I don't think he has any notion that HE's an angel, he's clearly referring to the "other" Baltar and Six he and Cap Six have been seeing in their heads, about whom I'll have more to say in a moment.

So, Baltar and Six, both die on Caprica in the initial Cylon attack, and Baltar's an angel sent back from death, but he doesn't KNOW he's an angel sent back from death, he thinks he's just a regular human (well, he's an arrogant SOB, so he thinks he's an EXTRAORDINARY human... but you know what I mean) and to everyone else he's an ordinary human. Now, Six is the same (substitute "cylon" for "human") but we don't actually see the resurrected Six for a while, so let's leave her to the side for a moment.

OK, so having wrapped your head around the notion that we've been seeing dead people (or, at least dead person, in the form of Baltar) for most of the series, let's move on to the hallucinations ('cause so far, this has been way too simple, right?). As we all know, there's a Six that only Baltar can see. It's in his head. In my theory, this is not the "real" Six (the one who dies on Caprica), or anything directly related to or attributable to her. I think this is made pretty obvious by the fact that when Baltar and Cap Six are reunited in corporal form, Cap Six seems to not know what Baltar is seeing in his head. If the Six in Baltar's head were Caprica Six, or some sort of "implant" left by Caprica Six, she wouldn't (one presumes) be entirely ignorant of what Baltar was seeing (and we're lead to believe she doesn't know what Baltar is seeing until the moment last night when she says to Baltar aboard Galactica "You see them too???" (The "them" is important as well. I also think this is the first time she sees the Six from Baltar's head, and the first time he sees the Baltar from her head... it's the first time the realize they've each been seeing flip sides of the same coin in their respective heads). So, just who (or what) is the Six in Baltar's head (and, by implication, the Baltar in Six's head, and also, someone else I'll get to, if you're not already ahead of me). My answer is that it's the voice of God.

Let that sink in.

The Six in Baltar's head that's always telling him what God wants, and telling him that God has a plan for him? She's not lying. She actually IS the voice of God, and God is actually telling Baltar what's going on (though he doesn't realize it’s God of course). The voice of Baltar in Six's head is the same for her. The reason only they can see these figures (and the reason why eventually they can both see the other's "hallucination") is that they're both "angels" sent back by God to fulfill a destiny. God speaks to them directly through the hallucinations of people they love who have died, but does not speak directly to others (well, not to others in general... I think he speaks to someone else too, but we'll get to that!). The reason He's only speaking to them (well, not only them... wait for it) is because THEY'RE ANGELS. God doesn't speak to Adama directly through hallucinations, or to Boomer, or to Roslin, because Adama and Boomer and Roslin aren't angels. They didn't die, meet God, and then get sent back. God has a relationship with Baltar and Cap Six. He met them, in person, in the literal sense, when they both died back on Caprica. Then he sent them back. He sent them back ignorant of having died and gone to the other side, but he still talks directly to them, and tries to guide them, using the form of people they love who have died (even if they don't realize that these people they’re seeing have died and gone to the other side).

Now, as I've said, and it's important to reiterate, Baltar and Cap Six are ignorant of all of this. They feel that they're caught up in something bigger than themselves, and they have revolutionary (and often HORRIFIC) impacts on their people, but they don't realize they're angels, and they don't realize God's speaking directly to them. They may truly feel that they have a destiny, but the specifics of what's happening are hidden from them, right to the end. They occasionally attribute what's going on to God speaking directly to them, but it's not because they've "figured it out". Ironically, in a sense, they're delusional when they attribute what's happening to them as coming straight from God, even though, and here's the kicker, their delusions are actually correct!

In my theory, Baltar and Six never actually figure out what's been going on with them, even in the finale. I see two possibilities for what happens after they go to (our) Earth. Either they live out their remaining natural life spans on Earth, and then when they die God reveals the truth to them, that they actually "originally" died way back on Caprica, and that they were sent back by Him; or, they come to that realization sometime on (our) Earth, and ascend straight to heaven. This is important because they do EVENTUALLY figure it out, which makes the Baltar and Cap Six we see at the very end self-aware angels. Some might argue they’re still there at the end in modern New York because they're immortal. Some might argue that the Baltar and Cap Six hallucinations are something else entirely, and it's the hallucinations (or whatever presented itself as "hallucinations") that we see in the end, not the “real” Baltar and Cap Six. My theory is that it is the "real" Baltar and Cap Six at the end who've come to realize what they are, and are now "living" as (self aware) angels among us. The reason they look like the voice of God hallucinations is that the VOG hallucinations were idealized visions of Baltar and Cap Six as God sees them, and He meant for the "real" Baltar and Cap Six to see these idealized versions. And, frankly, once you realized you were an Angel, wouldn't you walk around looking like the idealized version of yourself that God sees??? Of course you would.

To me, the big clue that the two at the end in New York are self-aware angels comes when Baltar refers to God, and then jokingly says "I know he doesn't like that name". To me, this suggests that the Cap Six and Baltar at the end "know" God. "Know" in the sense that an angel would "know" God. The, "I’ve had conversations with him on the other side" sense of "know". The, "I know His first name" sense of "know". As I said, I don’t know if they came to this realization on (our) Earth shortly after the battle with the Colony, and then ascended right away, or if they lived out their lives on Earth and then learned the truth when they were reunited with God upon their natural deaths, but I don't think that's particularly important. The point of my theory is that Baltar and Cap Six were both angels from the beginning of the series, but only the two people we see at the very end in New York are actually aware of that fact.

Now, Starbuck.

She's an angel too.

Not from the beginning necessarily (though I suppose that’s possible too) but definitely from the point where she entered the nebula and crashed on the original Earth. That nebula sent her back in time to the original Earth of the thirteenth tribe, where she promptly (presumably almost immediately) crashed and died. The “new Starbuck” who returns in the undamaged Viper is an angel like Baltar and Cap Six, sent back by God to guide the people. This is confirmed for me by the fact that Starbuck is the third person whom God speaks to directly through the “hallucinations” of her father (once again a hallucination of a loved one who has died, and yes, I maintain that that guy was her dad). I presume that Starbuck doesn’t recognize that the piano player she’s seeing is her father because her father left her family so long ago, when she was only young, such that she “remembers” her father, in the sense of knowing she used to play the piano with him, but wouldn’t recognize him if she saw him in the “here and now” out of context. It’s made pretty clear that the piano player is a hallucination, and so this fits with my explanation of the Baltar and Six hallucinations. Now, I don’t think Kara knows she’s an angel either, however in my theory she does figure it out at some point, and is aware of it when they are all on our Earth towards the end of the last episode. It makes sense to me that Kara would actually figure it out (even if Baltar and Cap Six never did while they were alive) since Starbuck has had a lot more, and stranger, hints at her destiny (the eye of Jupiter for instance, and the fact that the song her hallucination wrote is also the song that “activated” four of the final five) and also, of course, the fact that she FOUND HER OWN DEAD BODY on the original Earth. It’s hard to discover your own corpse and not start to think that maybe you died once!

My theory also incorporates something that the show’s producers say was never intentional, but I kinda like it anyway. I say that Kara Thrace’s dad WAS Daniel (the seventh Cylon model). To me, this fits nicely with my little theory, in that it would make Starbuck the first human-cylon hybrid, not Hera. I like this because A) it’s just cool and B) it means that not only were there three angels (three frequently being a significant number) but more importantly, that the three angels represented the three “peoples” of the BG universe. A human angel (Baltar), a Cylon angel (Cap Six), and a cylon-human hybrid angel (Starbuck).

Starbuck being the third angel also explains for me just what the frak happened at the end there, when she disappeared while talking to Lee. This was Starbuck ascending back to “heaven” once her destiny was completed, and she realized what she was. Poof, she’s gone! As I suggested, the same may have happened with Cap Six and Baltar if they realized their destinies had been fulfilled, or, perhaps they weren’t done yet, and lived out their lives on our Earth until they died, and THEN went back to heaven.

Now, obviously there are millions of things my theory doesn’t cover, and a lot of it is caught up in trying to explain some things from the finale (and therefore might not account for certain things from previous episodes) but I’d be interested to know what people think!

Oh… and is it possible that Sam is God?…

Update: For what it's worth, the finale now has a rating of A- from the people visiting TWOP (over 5000 votes so far) which, to me, feels about right. Really really good, maybe great, but not transcendant.

Forget politics!

2008-12-05T14:37:00.002-05:00

O.J. Simpson is going to jail!!!

For 15 years!!!

LOL

That almost makes up for prorogation!

Dump Dion?

2008-12-05T09:53:00.002-05:00

Sure.

Of course.

Definitely.

That video wasn't even the last straw. It was, like, the straw that comes three straws after the last straw (and I love Dion!).

However, who to install, Iggy or Rae? There's a lot of people it seems calling on the Liberals to dump Dion and install Iggy, but I wonder if they've considered one thing (and perhaps they have!):

Iggy="Bye bye Coalition"

It appears that Rae is fired up and ready to fight, and is about to go coast to coast campaigning hard for the coalition, and the notion that Harper MUST be removed at this point, asap, by the coalition.

From Iggy and his supporters I get a distinct "Maybe this coalition wasn't such a great idea and we should leverage what power we still have vs. the Tories, get what we can out of Prime Minister Harper... and then just move on" vibe.

Both are legitimate positions, but it seems to me they're also diametrically opposed.

So, sure, by all means dump Dion.

FAST.

I don't see how that's remotely avoidable now unless you want to pull a Toronto Maple Leafs and suck for a season in order to totally rebuild in order to start a comeback in 2010. (and I say this as someone who loves Dion!).

However it seems to me that it's not just "Rae or Ignatieff" any more. It's "Rae and the Coalition and making every effort to take out Harper in January" or it's "Iggy and probably not the Coalition, and lets cool our jets and be sensible".

I don't know if this changes who'll win the game, but it does change the game, doesn't it?

If you support a Progressive Coalition Government...

2008-12-01T22:22:00.003-05:00

Consider joining the Facebook Group of Canadians for a Progressive Coalition.

Also, go to their website and sign their online petition.

It's change we can believe in (lol).

ETA: And add the Coalition Bloggers Button to your blog!!! (Thanks Erin, Scott and Kelly!!!).

Barack Obama wins the Presidency!

2008-11-04T23:08:00.001-05:00

WOHOO!

U.S. Election Results - Check back here (hopefully) for live updating results...

2008-11-04T14:25:00.001-05:00

Conservatives win another election...

2008-10-15T17:25:00.002-04:00

and the stock markets go down the tube again.

Coincidence?*

(*probably)

Who won the election, "progressives" or "conservatives"...

2008-10-15T16:42:00.002-04:00

This will no doubt cause much controversy as to just who counts as "progressive" and who doesn't (and, should Andrew Coyne stumble upon this post, who counts as "conservative" and who doesn't) but in light of my earlier post on how broken our electoral system is, let's look at last night's election in terms of "conservative" versus "progressive" shall we?

For my first illustration, let's look at "progressive" as being the NDP, the Liberals and the Greens. One could argue that the BQ are much more "progressive" than the Conservatives too (heck, one could argue they're more "progressive" than the Liberals, and maybe even the Greens) but let's leave them aside as the whole separatist thing obviously skews things.

So, using this formulation, how did "progressives" (Lib/NDP/Green) do in last night's election?

Progressives: 7,087,812 votes (51%)
Conservatives: 5,205,334 votes (38%)

Of course, how does our system translate that into seats in the House of Commons?

Progressives: 113 seats
Conservatives: 143 seats

So, sure, arguably "progressive" candidates received more than 1.8 MILLION more votes than "conservatives" last night, they nonetheless end up with 30 fewer seats in the House of Commons.

Just as galling, look what happens if you take out the Greens (and ignore the 940,000 Canadians who voted for them - which, let's face it, is basically what we'll do now):

Progressives (Lib/NDP): 6,147,065 votes
Conservatives: 5,205,334 votes

So, despite having received more than 900,000 more votes than the Tories, the Liberals and NDP are nonetheless outnumbered by the Tories in the House by 30 MPs. 30!

So, in case anyone's wondering, in Canada:

5.2 million votes gets you 143 seats.
6.1 million votes gets you 113 seats, and
0.94 million votes gets you squat.

So much for the "will of the people", eh?

Our electoral system is still totally broken....

2008-10-15T10:17:00.003-04:00

So, first, congrats to the Tories on the big win last night. I maintain that the Tories have now found their ceiling, while the Liberals have found their floor, so I wouldn't bee TOO excited if I were a conservative, but still, a win is a win.

Now, on to a discussion of how messed up our system is. Last night, the Conservatives won 46.4% of the seats in the House with 37.6% of the votes. The Liberals got 26.2 % of the votes, but less than 25% of the seats. The poor NDP got 18% of voters' support, and only 12% of the power.

Look at it another way.

The main federal parties each got a seat for every X votes they received, as follows:

Tories: 1 seat for every 36,400 votes
Liberals: 1 seat for every 47,763 votes
NDP: 1 seat for every 68,029 votes

Bloc (an anomaly obviously): 1 seat for every 27,791 votes.
Green Party: 0 seats for every 940,000 votes

Our electoral system is totally broken:

Our electoral system turns an 11 point spread at the polls into a 21 point spread in Parliament (Liberals to Conservatives) and a 19 point spread at the polls into a 34 point spread in Parliament (NDP to Conservatives).
It results in a party which gets over 940,00 votes lacking any representation in Parliament whatsoever.
Today, the Tories are 12 seats shy of a "majority" government, and could probably get there with the support of about 500,000 more voters - but they're over 1.7 million votes shy of actually getting 50% of the vote.
Worst of all, the Tories outnumber the Liberals and NDP combined by 30 seats in the House of Commons. But the Liberals and NDP combined received over 940,000 more votes than the Tories. It's totally insane.

How can it be considered just or democratic that the representatives of two parties that received 6,147,065 votes can be outnumbered by a large margin in the House of Commons by the representatives of a party that received 5,205,334 votes??? You'll forgive my incredulity, but by my reckoning, "progressive" candidates received over 51% of the votes last night (and I'm not even counting the BQ as "progressive" just the Liberals, NDP, and Greens) yet today, that MAJORITY of Canadians is represented in Parliament by 37% of MPs, and the 38% of Canadians who voted conservative get 46% of the MPs. Again, it's totally insane.

Here's the Parliament our system gives us (minus independents):

Tories: 143 seats
Liberals: 76 seats
NDP: 37 seats
Bloc: 50 seats

Here's the Parliament as determined by the parties' actual share of the vote (arguably, the Parliament Canadians as a whole actually voted for):

Tories: 117 seats
Liberals: 81 seats
NDP: 56 seats
Bloc: 31 seats
Green Party: 21 seats

Not that our politicians will do anything to fix this (though if they were going to do so, now would be the most likely time) but it still bears repeating. Our electoral system is totally messed up. It results in Parliaments that don't represent the will of the people (nor even, really, attempt to) and leaves millions of voters effectively disenfranchised. If we were governed by the will of the people, we'd probably have a coalition government today representing over 50% of Canadians. As it is, we're stuck with another minority government where 38% of the people are just shy of having 50% of the power.

It's totally insane.

My Election Prediction...

2008-10-14T10:23:00.004-04:00

OK, so, I haven't written anything in a while, but I have been paying attention. So, I'm gonna roll the dice and give some actual numbers for an electoral prediction.

Here's how I figure the House of Commons will look tomorrow:

Conservatives: 129
Liberals: 88
Bloc: 52
NDP: 37
Independent: 2

There'll probably be an independent or two nominated, I don't know who, but I threw in two for the sake of argument. However, there'll be no Greens elected, I don't think.

So, basically, VERY little movement from the last election, and once again our cabinet and government generally will be made up by a party that roughly 62-66% of Canadians voted against (and this time, the Tories having been in power for the last 2.5 years, I think we can say that a SIGNIFICANT majority of Canadians will vote AGAINST them).

We'll see how long THIS minority lasts.

Frankly, I just don't know what the Tories can do going forward. I mean, sure, I disagree with almost everything the Conservatives stand for, but even I can acknowledge that two and a half years of Tory government wasn't THAT bad. And the Liberals, politically, were pretty darned inept under Dion. And Layton's pulled about as many votes as possible from the Liberal ranks. And the Greens, while they're not going to win a seat, are polling at HISTORICALLY high levels, and May was actually IN THE FEDERAL LEADERSHIP DEBATES this year, and didn't do badly at all.

What more can the Tories ask for? Reasonably effective experience at governing. A weak, money-tight Liberal party with a good, but many would say ineffective leader. A historically strong NDP. Pressure on the Libs from the Greens and a surprisingly resilient Bloc. Is the Tory strategy going forward basically going to be "just watch, Dion will get even WORSE!"? 'Cause I don't buy that. Or do they think they're going to govern so effectively, and impress Canadians so much that they can turn things more to their advantage through the strength of their governance (and wasn't that the plan in the LAST minority? And didn't it utterly fail?)

I just don't see where the Tories go from here. They've hit their ceiling. In their best dreams they'll get 40% of the vote in some future election, and get a TINY majority. But as far as I can see, things just can't get better for the Tories then they have been. There's just nowhere to go but down. Don't get me wrong, the prediction above would be pretty bad for the Liberals too, but at least they can look at it as having found their basement. They can console themselves with "we've hit rock bottom, what do we do to turn this around?". For the Tories, it seems to me that this is the high. This is it. Maximum altitude achieved. Nowhere to go but down.

It'll be interesting to see how many more minority govenrments we'll have until that downward trend begins in earnest.

81% not willing to vote strategically??? (warning, 105% of polls don't tell you what they say they're telling you)...

2008-10-01T10:13:00.005-04:00

This poll claiming to show that 81% of voters wouldn't change their vote in order to help stop a Harper majority is almost meaningless imho, unless it's been totally misreported (which is possible of course, but it doesn't seems so looking at the poll itself).

So, 81% of voters won't change their vote to stop a Harper majority. SOUNDS like a lot of people aren't really that worried. But let's break this down.

First off, about 39% of that 81% are people who are planning to vote Tory according to the same poll. So, d'uh they're not going to change their votes to stop the Tories... they LIKE the Tories. So that leaves 42% of all voters who say they wouldn't change their vote to stop a Tory majority. If you're going to try to gauge how many voters would switch their vote from their preferred party to another in order to stop the Tories, you really need to factor out the voters who actually want the Tories to win!

Now, of those 42% of all voters who apparently say they wouldn't change their vote to stop the Tories, how many of those people are already voting for the party most likely to stop the Tories in their riding, and therefore changing their vote would be counterproductive? If I plan to vote Liberal, and I live in a solidly Liberal riding (or a riding where the Liberals are most likely to come in second), then I don't plan to change my vote to stop the Tories, but not because I don't want to stop a Tory majority, but because I'm already doing everything I can to stop a Tory majority. If I'm an NDP voter in a solidly NDP riding (or a riding where the NDP are most likely to come in second), same thing. How many of those voters who want to stop the Tories won't change their vote in order to do so because changing their vote would actually help the Tories?

So, the 81% figure is TOTALLY bogus. Hell, even saying "42% of voters won't change their vote to stop the Tories" is bogus. If the intention of this poll is to measure how many people would vote strategically to stop the Tories it ignores one very big question. How many voters are ALREADY planning to vote strategically in order to stop the Tories, plus, how many aren't "voting strategically" but are voting out of pure conviction for the party for whom they would need to vote strategically if they wanted to vote strategically, and therefore don't need to change their vote in order to do what they're already doing?

Long story short: silly question, meaningless figure, doesn't tell us ANYTHING.

If the headline of this poll was "1 in 4 'progressive' voters plan to vote for whichever party they need to in order to stop the Tories" wouldn't that seem like an awful LOT of strategic voting!?!? (16% of all voters is roughly 27% of "progressive" voters). The fact that a Liberal in a safe Liberal riding or a Dipper and a safe NDP riding don't plan to change their votes to stop the Tories is meaningless if their vote is already being used to maximum effect to stop the Tories.

Really pollsters. This isn't rocket science is it?

Strategic voting is the only way to stop the Tories now... (not that I'm holding my breath...)

2008-09-25T12:58:00.005-04:00

Given all the recent polling (which, really, hasn't moved around much at all, despite all the excitement among the "nothing better to do" class - myself included) I still think these are the top 5 most likely outcomes of the current federal election:

1) A Conservative minority (larger than the current)

2) A Conservative minority (about the same as the current)

3) A Conservative majority

4) A (tiny) Liberal minority

5) Armageddon (may, technically, be the same as #3).

To me, the only thing that could stop Harper now is a concerted ABC (anybody but Conservative) effort. Now, it's not gonna happen ('cause both Liberal AND NDP partisans are too interested in taking charge themselves, as opposed to stopping Harper from being PM again) but theoretically it COULD do the trick, and I'm utterly convinced that it's now the only way to stop a second Harper led government from being elected.

As much as Liberals will tell you that the only party other than the Tories that can form a government is them (and that's correct) what they WON'T tell you is that they can't possibly form a government without NDP support. The ONLY non-Tory government possible at this point is a Liberal minority, and I just can't see how the Liberals could POSSIBLY (in my WILDEST imagination) pull even that off without strategic help from NDP voters.

However, if (and it's a huge and HIGHLY improbable if) "progressive" voters really voted strategically, a second Harper term could be avoided. If Dippers in ridings where the Liberals have the best shot at beating the Cons, and Grits in ridings where the NDP has the best shot, were willing to swallow their pride and vote for the other party, Harper could be stopped. We all know that won't happen in the numbers needed to make an impact, but wouldn't it be nice?

Ironically, if it did happen en masse, it would benefit BOTH parties. Both the Liberals AND the NDP would gain more seats than they would if everyone just voted their partisan preference. I HIGHLY recommend you head on over to www.voteforenvironment.ca and check out their tabulations on how the election is most likely to go down if it were held today, and how it COULD change (theoretically) if a true ABC strategy was implemented by voters.

Here's their assessment:

If the election were held today and we ("progressives") split our votes:

Cons 147 Libs 76 NDP 34 Bloc 49

If "we" voted "smart" (i.e. ABC)

Cons 97 Libs 109 NDP 46 Bloc 53

Now, ask yourself which Parliament you'd prefer to see. I fully understand why Dipper partisans don't like the idea of helping Dion become PM, and why Grit partisans don't like the idea of asking for Dipper help to win the election. However it seems to me that in both cases that's all about those partisans deluding themseleves into believing that they can win without the other (or, not caring that they can't, and that their failure will elect the Tories, again). Because alone, neither party can win this time around. Layton will never be PM (sorry). Dion will never be PM without Layton's help.

Harper will almost certainly be PM again.

Thems the facts.

Now, I admit, I say all this from the comfort of a "safe" Toronto riding. I can afford to vote for whomever I please (probably NDP as in the last couple of elections) because my riding is almost certainly going Liberal anyway. However, if you're interested in trying to stop Harper, go to www.voteforenvironment.ca and check out their nifty "Find your Candidate" tool on the right hand side. Just put in your postal code and the system will give you some information to help you try to stop Harper. The system will recommend your best strategy to help stop Harper (either "You choose" if you're in a safe riding, NDP if the Dipper's got the best shot, Liberal if the Grit's the best challenger, etc...).

Again, I highly doubt this will effect anything. Everyone's just going to go merrily along deluding themselves (Tories included, who are deluded in thinking that, after literally years of never REALLY getting into majority territory in any polls, they're suddenly going to win a majority) and Harper's team is gonna win.

But at least some of us could TRY to stop him.

Sarah Palin and the bridge to nowhere...

2008-09-02T13:22:00.003-04:00

As you may be aware, there's been plenty of controversy in Alaska over federal earmarks and the so-called "bridge to nowhere" (though in Alaska, particularly on the islands the bridge was meant to link, at least some of the controversy surrounds having their community called "nowhere"!). Saying no to the "bridge to nowhere" was a huge part of the Sarah Palin unveiling, and I find the whole thing fascinating.

The first thing, not terribly shocking or impactful but humorous given the historical context, is that Palin was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it.

Funny. (though again, probably not terribly important...).

What I find absolutely fascinating though is that while the construction of the bridge was cancelled, the state of Alaska STILL GOT ALL THE EARMARKED MONEY! As Republican (and former Palin campaign coordinator) Mike Elerding put it, "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money." So, Palin standing up to the bridge is not exactly the great crusade against federal earmarks that it appears. She stopped the BRIDGE. Her government still GOT the money.

And what did they do with the money? Well I'm sure a lot of it went to useful infrastructure improvements (still, arguably, a waste of federal dollars... giving federal funds to a state rolling in oil and gas royalties so they can build roads on the federal dime while dolling out rebate cheques to their citizens from the state's bulging coffers... but at least it's not a "bridge to nowhere").

However, what's truly great about the story is that Palin spent tens of millions of the ear mark, wait for it... BUILDING THE ROAD THAT'S MEANT TO LINK UP TO THE BRIDGE. I mean, at least the bridge didn't LITERALLY go nowhere. It was meant to connect two islands. The road on the other hand just stops where the bridge was supposed to be. It LITERALLY goes nowhere. And why are they building it? Well, because unlike the money for the bridge, which Alaska gets to keep even if they don't build the bridge, the money for the access road would have to be returned to the federal government if it wasn't used for the road.

So they built the road.

It's classic, and hardly the vision of a principled stance taken against federal largess. Palin decided to stop the bridge after campaigning for Governor on a "build the bridge" platform. Then, she kept the earmark from the feds to spend on other projects. And the parts of the earmark she wasn't allowed to redirect elsewhere? She kept that too, and spent it on things like the road it was originally earmarked for.

A "road to nowhere".

Fixed Election Dates... From the mouths of the Horses...

2008-08-31T12:05:00.002-04:00

The Globe and Mail has a great picture slide show today of quotes from various Members of Parliament for the Conservative Party of Canada about how terribly important the fixed election dates law they passed is, and how crucial it is to remove from the Prime Minister the power to call an election at a time of his or her choosing (not to mention selfless... don't forget how selfless they were being!!!).

Some of my favourites (all quotes from Hansard):

"We have an opportunity to take one of the primary tools that past prime ministers in the country have used like a club. They have gone to the people before their five years were up and every political party has suffered from that. I think the Parliament of Canada has suffered from it. ... This is the first Prime Minister who is willing to give up that huge tool in his tool chest..."

Gerald Keddy

"I think that common sense is having an election every four years and not on the whim and call of the prime minister."

Carol Skelton

"It improves governance by removing power from the prime minister's office and devolving it to the people, as it should be."

Russ Hiebert

"As I indicated, we have passed Bill C-16 on fixed election dates through the House of Commons. Never again will the government of the day be able to play around with the date of an election for its own crass political motives."

Peter Van Loan

"The increased electoral fairness through Bill C-16 ... will ensure that elections occur once every four years, not when the prime minister chooses to call them..."

Scott Reid

"We have seen, for an example, very important democratic reform initiatives such as fixed election dates which is Bill C-16. It passed and has come into force. It states that the third Monday of October 2009 will be the date for the next general election unless of course by some strange occurrence the combined opposition determines that it wants to have an election before that date. That was the first initiative that we brought in to try to ensure Canadians that there would be some consistency and regularity in the timing of federal elections."

Tom Lukiwski

Yeah... what they said! (and I do mean SAID... it's seems they've all conveniently changed their minds now!).

He's quiting before we have a chance to fire him...

2008-08-28T14:21:00.002-04:00

With Prime Minister Harper set to dissolve Parliament before it even goes back in session (on the specious reasoning that the House of Commons, which isn't even sitting right now, is too dysfunctional to allow it to come back from recess) I think the opposition parties would do well to explain the PM's actions to the people of Canada in a manner suggested by Jack Layton.

Basically, the Prime Minister suspects he's about to be fired by the House of Commons, so he's decided to quit before the House gets the chance. It's the classic case of "You can't fire me, I quit!" and I think the opposition would do well to explain what's going on to the people of Canada in those terms.

Pretty darned good Olympics for Canada in 2008!

2008-08-23T23:00:00.003-04:00

Well, it looks like Canada will probably end the Summer Olympics ranked 19th (ranked by Gold medals) or 13th (ranked by total medals). Pretty much as expected, though a little higher (I believe the COC was shooting for 16th place, and around 16 medals).

18 medals would be our third highest medal total ever (I'm not counting the boycotted L.A. Games for obvious reasons) and it's in a sense tied for second, though in Barcelona we won 7 Gold (and 18 overall) making Beijing our third best effort ever behind Atlanta and Barcelona. Not bad at all, and there are definite signs that London 2012 could end up being our best non boycotted Games ever (it'll probably be a while before we get near the 44 we won in the L.A. Games, but I wouldn't be surprised to see our 22 medal performance from Atlanta be in jeopardy at the next Olympics!).

Very good showing by our athletes, and despite all the hysterics of the first week, there were some really good signs for the team beyond the medals. Our much derided swimmers for instance may have only won a single medal, but in Beijing our swimmers made 10 finals, and broke something like 25 Canadians records... a HUGE improvement over the last Olympics where our swimmers only made two finals, and didn't medal at all (plus, we have an EXTREMELY young and inexperienced team this year... it's a good bet the team will continue to improve and do much better in London). I'll focus on the swimmers for a moment, 'cause they took a lot of what I consider to be undeserved grief last week.

Another point of comparison regarding our swimmers that I think is worth noting concerns our men's 4x100 meter freestyle team. Our team placed 6th, but consider the following:

The winning team (Phelps et al.) set a new world record, DESTROYING the old one.
Every single team in the final (ALL EIGHT, including Canada) swam faster than what had been the Olympic record coming into the Games.
Canada's time (3:12.26) was a new Canadian record.
Canada's time (3:12.26) was faster than the world record that stood coming in to the Olympics (3:12.46).
Three of the eight swimmers of the first leg set new national records for the 100m (one of which was Eamon Sullivan's opening WORLD RECORD time), including Canada's Brent Hayden.
Canada's time was FOUR SECONDS faster than the time that won the gold in 2004, a 2004 final that Canada didn't even qualify for.

So sure, we came in 6th, but when every team ahead of you swims under the world record, and your country didn't even make the final four years ago (and yet you swam a time in 2008 that would have won the gold four years ago) that's a pretty stunning improvement!

Another good swimming story? Julia Wilkinson. She came into the Games ranked somewhere in the mid 20s internationally. She made the final of the 200IM and placed 7th, and she and her teammates finished 8th in the 4x100m freestyle relay (setting a Canadian record), an 7th in the 4x100 medley... not bad considering Canada didn't make any of those finals 4 years ago.

Now, is there room for improvement? ABSOLUTELY. However the point is that here's a young team (I'm talking about the WHOLE swim team here) that's improving by leaps and bounds, and is on track for a great Olympics in London.

Anyway, Congrats to all of our Olympians. Keep working hard, and let's see if we can build on this improvement moving in to London.

New 100m world record, 9.69!!!

2008-08-16T10:56:00.003-04:00

And he didn't even run full out!!!

Usain Bolt of Jamaica won the 100m gold medal in China just now, and he pulled up at about the 80m mark and stopped using his arms (he was well ahead). He crossed the line slapping his chest and STILL broke the world record!

AMAZING performance.

This guy could run below 9.5, and he's still young, so I'd bet he will.

Three medals in a hour...

2008-08-16T09:04:00.002-04:00

Well, some of our Canadian athletes shut up those people acting as though Canada's time in Beijing would end up amounting to our worst Olympics since Rome.

In the span of an hour today, Canada won 3 medals at the Olympic games, one of each colour.

Congratulations to Tonya Verbeek for her bronze in the 55 kg women's wrestling event, and to Dave Calder and Scott Frandsenfor for their silver in the men's pair event in rowing.

And a HUGE congratulations to Hazelton B.C. native Carol Huynh on her GOLD MEDAL in the women's 48-kilogram wrestling event where she beat a very tough opponent in last year's silver medallist!

Great job one and all. Today ought to give some inspiration to the rest of the team!!!

Colin Powell to endorse Barack Obama???

2008-08-15T18:27:00.003-04:00

Now, normally I'd never link to something at Faux News, but do we think this is remotely possible?

And if so, what impact does everyone think it'll have? I usually think endorsements don't really count for much, but COLIN POWELL??? The Iraq/UN debacle was embarrassing, to be sure, but Powell's taken responsibility and called it the low point of his career, and I think people mostly still respect Powell, and feel he was used by the White House.

Would this endorsement (if it came) be a big deal?

Russia to the U.S. "Choose between us or Georgia"...

2008-08-13T21:32:00.002-04:00

Condoleezza Rice: We'll take Georgia thanks.

Her exact words: ""As to choosing, the United States has made very clear that it is standing by the democratically elected government of Georgia"

Well, good.

And LOL.

Olympic funding...

2008-08-13T10:12:00.003-04:00

So, a lot of people are complaining that we haven't won any medals yet at the Olympics.

And a lot of people are complaining that the athletes should shut up already about wanting more funding.

But please, don't do both.

How are our athletes supposed to compete against athletes receiving many times more money in funding from their governments? Let's compare ourselves to Australia, a smaller, but nonetheless similar country.

Canada's funding for Summer and Winter sports combined is $40 million.

Between the Australian Olympic Committee (10.5 million a year) and the Australian Sports Commission ($151 million a year) Australia spends over $160 million a year. (That's ON TOP of their government's $2.1 billion for sports and recreation... don't even get me started).

Now, it's true that Australia's funds are focused mostly on the Summer Olympics (giving them an even GREATER Summer advantage over Canada) but even if Australia divided their money roughly evenly between Summer and Winter Olympics they'd STILL be out spending us 4:1 in the Summer, and 4:1 in the Winter (actually, MORE than 4:1 on a per capita basis, as Australia has only about 2/3 of our population).

And what about the "Own the Podium 2010" program that everyone talks so much about? $110 million spread over 5 years. It's a supposedly "big" investment in doing our best ever at Vancouver, and it basically amounts to spreading less than 1 years worth of Australia's Olympic funding, spread over half a decade.

Way to go Canada.

So, if you want to complain that we're not winning enough medals, fine. If you want to complain that we shouldn't increase funding for Olympic sports, fine (there's an argument to be made there). But for God's sake don't do both.

We spend around $1.20 per person funding our athletes while our comparable competitors spend about $7.50 each (while crazy spenders like the Chinese were well over $25 per person this year!). That's not our athletes fault. They're not "whining" when they point out that they receive less than a quarter of the funding most of their competitors are receiving, they're simply trying to defend themselves. They're reacting to Canadians constantly whining that they're not doing well enough, and they're trying to point out to Canadians that it's not easy to beat the New York Yankees if you only spend $50 million a year on your players. And at least the Washington Nationals only have to worry about beating the Yankees, Red Sox, and maybe a couple other "out of their league" spending teams. Every once in a while you can overcome those odds. Our Canadian Olympic athletes on the other hand are asked to compete against probably a DOZEN or so New York Yankees teams (and a couple of teams like the U.S. and China spending WAY beyond even that).

Forget winning a lot of medals. With that kind of disadvantage, I'm impressed they're not curled up in the fetal position whimpering in a corner somewhere after their events.

Crime statistics matter. Sometimes. Depending on who you ask.

2008-07-25T15:52:00.004-04:00

Dan Gardner had a great article in the Ottawa Citizen today about the recent stats released showing that in most areas crime rates in Canada continue to fall. Mr. Gardner goes through all the ways in which such statistics are trumpeted and lauded or ignored and derided depending upon such variables as the political leanings of the the commentator, the policy objectives of said commentator, and the price of tea in China.

A few highlights (go read the whole article lazy bones!):

"When national crime stats decline, everyone rushes to take credit...

My favourite reaction to last week's news was the line worked up by some spin monkey in the office of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien: "New chief, new mayor, new approach. It works." Of course, this is utter nonsense -- not only did crime decline in cities across the country, the decline in Ottawa was actually less than the national average -- but Mr. O'Brien is a politician and in politics neither logic nor modesty is a virtue."

"The reaction of the justice system's critics to crime statistics depends entirely on the direction in which those statistics are headed.
If statistics show crime is rising, the statistics are a perfectly accurate reflection of the frightening reality.
If they suggest crime is falling, they are so transparently flawed that only fools, Liberals and criminologists would believe them."

"When serious violent crime rose a couple of years ago, Mr. Harper, then the opposition leader, waved the statistics about like a bloody shirt. Homicide is up 12 per cent! Guns, gangs, and drugs are out of control!
But then the stats turned around and Mr. Harper started warning people not to be bamboozled by numbers. 'Some try to pacify Canadians with statistics,' he scoffed in a speech earlier this year."

"'Mind you,' rejoined (Claire) Hoy, 'one in five homicides in Canada occur in Toronto but hey, when you count murders as a percentage of the overall population instead of counting them as dead bodies, it's easy to brag about how "safe" the city is.'
Mind you, by Hoy's logic, a village with a population of 50 in which one person goes on a rampage and kills the other 49 is safer than Toronto because the hamlet's body count is lower. I suspect the population of the village would dispute that interpretation. Or they would if they weren't all dead."

Go read the whole article. It's spot on.

Christian Bale is NOT the best Batman...

2008-07-21T13:26:00.003-04:00

So, I saw "The Dark Knight" last night and let me just start off by saying yes, it's really that good.

Ledger's Joker is spectacular (it's a terrible shame we'll never get him as the Joker again, and also that there can't be a Joker in the next two or three Batman movies... 'cause no one should have to follow THAT!). I won't be at all surprised if he gets an Oscar nomination, and I think he'd be a more than deserving winner.

The movie is dark (for a movie rated 14A), both in tone and in visuals (the former more than the later... there's a great hospital scene in broad sunny daylight). There's lots of action and also nuance and subtlety and I think it's the best Batman movie yet (better than Batman Begins, which was really good!). The performances are all good (EXCELLENT in Ledger's case, very good in the case of Bale and the other main leads (what do you expect with Maggie Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and the excellent Gary Oldman in supporting roles?). I didn't love Aaron Eckhart's performance, but it was fine, and my opinion of it is probably jaded by the phenomenon that was Heath Ledger's Joker. Definitely not to be missed. Go see it in theatres early enough to still be able to see it again if your decide you have to (which you might!).

All that said, I saw at Macleans just now a poll on who was the best Batman. I can't link to it as it was just an embedded poll on the page, but here are the responses.

Who's the best Batman?

Christian Bale 46%
Michael Keaton 30%
Adam West 14%
George Clooney 5%
Val Kilmer 5%

Now, I'm sorry, but no. Michael Keaton is the best Batman.

Period.

Don't get me wrong, Christian Bale is excellent, and I'd even agree perhaps that his two movies are the two best movies of all of them. However, I think the last few pre-"Batman Begins" Batman movies (which were abominations) really soured us all on the franchise, and made us forget how good that original Batman really was. As I said, I might give you that the last two movies are the best two (though I think I'd rank them 1. "The Dark Knight", 2. "Batman", 3. "Batman Begins") but that original Batman was the ORIGINAL, and I don't think you ever get "The Dark Knight" without Keaton and Bassinger and Nicholson setting that bar (nor do your probably get the X-Men films, or a dozen other comic book/ superhero flicks of more recent history).

Michael Keaton was a bit of a surprise casting to be the Dark Knight (Mr. Mom's gonna play BATMAN!?!?) but he was an inspired choice and a truly excellent Batman. Bale's great and all, and the two movies he's been in couldn't have been as great without him (you can't have a great Batman movie if you've got a sucky Batman) but Keaton is the best Batman, and we shouldn't let Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze and Chris O'Donnell in tights wipe from our memories how good the first Batman film was, and how good Keaton was.

Now, who's the best Joker?

Cesar Romero, hands down. (Did you see that coming?)

But for movie Jokers is it Jack or Heath?

Tough call. Very different performances in many ways. Today, I'm leaning towards Ledger.

Thoughts?

When Johnathan Kay wants Khadr freed...

2008-07-15T18:29:00.002-04:00

... just how much of a right wing nut do you have to be to disagree?

Today's headline of note from the National Post: Free Omar Khadr.

And what crazy left-wing moon-bat suggests this?

Johnathan freaking Kay.

Nicely written Mr. Kay.

It's not that what's happening to Omar Khadr is particularly shocking....

2008-07-15T17:32:00.004-04:00

...it's that it's happening to this particular person, for the particular crime he's accused of.

The release of the Khadr interrogation tape isn't particularly shocking to me in what it shows (more on that in a sec) and personally, I don't even think he's been subjected to anything that we should prohibit as a general principle. However (and it's a big however) that this is all happening to Omar Khadr IS pretty damned shocking.

Just to be clear, Khadr is ACCUSED of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. medic. No witness saw him throw the grenade, and the person who, frankly, is more likely to have thrown the grenade is dead (he was shot several times, Khadr's lawyers would say right after he threw the grenade). What's more, every other non-American involved in the fight is dead too (and I don't disagree particularly with those of you who just said "good riddance"). Now, maybe Khadr threw the grenade, maybe he didn't, but to me it seems at least possible that the reason he's the one who's been accused of throwing the grenade is that he's the only one left alive who can be accused of throwing the grenade. I often wonder, if Khadr hadn't survived the two gun shot wounds to the back would anyone have said after the firefight "I bet that kid's the one who threw the grenade that killed our medic". There's really precious little evidence to support the accusation, which is the first point worth noting.

That said, if Khadr threw the grenade he's (arguably) a murderer. Many will say that's not the case; that you don't need to be in uniform to fight back at armed foreign soldiers attacking your village, but I'll gladly concede that point for the sake of argument. He's a murderer (allegedly) and should be held accountable for that crime. However, there's a system of justice for these types of things, and on the crime itself, there's no reason, imho, to set aside due process and natural justice just for that.

But what about "intelligence"?

The problem, as I see it, is that we're (the U.S., but by extension, us) not keeping him locked up without due process because he has valuable intelligence either. Even if he did, don't tell me they haven't broken him in 6 years, or that after 6 years locked up in Cuba, this guy who was 15 years old when he was captured still has intelligence to give up that is of any use half a decade later.

And, for the record, I don't have a general problem with sleep deprivation either, nor do I think it's torture (Abuse? Maybe.) But to be clear, I wouldn't particularly object to such a technique being used on a bin Laden, or an al-Zhawahiri, or a Saddam Hussein. I certainly object to torture, but in the right circumstances, I think what;s allegedly been done to Khadr could get a pass from me. There was nothing in that video, or in the description of Khadr's treatment, that shocked my conscience, or that I would consider particularly reprehensible. However, the point is, why are we using such techniques on a kid like Khadr? I don't think a 15 year old like Khadr is worth using sleep deprivation on. After a couple of years, just what the Hell was he still going to give up? The kid may be a criminal; he may even be a terrorist; but he ain't bin Laden. What exactly is it alleged we’re going to get out of this kid interrogation-wise? More to the point, what actionable intelligence can we get from someone (anyone) whose been locked up in Cuba for 6 years? Even if he knew something worthwhile (which I kinda doubt), how could the first few years of interrogation not have broken him, and what could he possibly know that’s still useful 6 years later?

It seems pretty clear to me that they're keeping him in Gitmo because even a military tribunal couldn't actually convict him of anything if they wanted to. They're keeping him in Gitmo because the only other alternative is to let him go entirely. Now, many will argue that he deserves to stay locked up forever without ever needing to be convicted of anything whatsoever. Fine. But let's at least be honest that that's the argument that's being made. We're keeping him locked up without a trial because we can't convict him of anything if we hold a trial. It's really as simple as that.

What is happening to Omar Khadr wouldn’t be shocking, imho, if it were happening to someone else. But as it’s happening to Khadr, it is pretty damned shocking. He's a fifteen year old kid (or, he was the last time he was outside of a cell) accused of throwing a grenade at a soldier. For this we give up due process and the rule of law? This kid's such a threat that we need to keep him locked up forever without a trial? (and that's what it's gonna take... not even a legally dubious, Supreme Court defying, military tribunal is going to be able to ever convict him of anything).

If Omar Khadr needs to be kept locked up forever without a trial, and it was necessary for us to use sleep deprivation to squeeze as much intelligence out of him as we possibly can, then we're screwed. If we set aside due process and use dubious interrogation techniques on some 15 year old kid accused of throwing a grenade at an attacking military unit, no matter how bad he is, it's already over. If a little punk like Khadr is really worth all that; if we're really that desperate - we're never going to win.

A week under our (proposed) new copyright regime: Day Three....

2008-06-18T16:35:00.003-04:00

Professor Michael Geist (Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa) continues his series explaining all the things you probably think you ought to be allowed to do that will suddenly be illegal if the Tories new Copyright Bill passes.

Here's Day three of a planned five day week. (Day 1, Day 2)

Start saving now, this could end up costing you a LOT of money!

Another day under our new (proposed) copyright regime...

2008-06-17T15:58:00.002-04:00

Michael Geist continues his series on a week in the life of the Canadian DMCA with Day Two where ten year old Rona's love of American Idol leads to her family becoming unwitting criminals by doing the sorts of things thousands of Canadians do every day.

A day in the life of the new copyright law....

2008-06-17T13:24:00.002-04:00

So Michael Geist is doing a series on his blog taking us through various days in the life of our (proposed) new copyright legislation. Professor Geist takes us through a typical day of a suburban Canadian family and then breaks down all the things that family did that day that would be illegal under the proposed law.

Here's DAY ONE.

Suffice it to say almost everyone I know would be liable to be fined under this law for something they've done that no one would have thought would ever be illegal.

If you're upset by this turn of events, take action! At the very least join the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook Group (64,407 members and growing fast with the introduction of the legislation). Also, write to your MP to complain! Don't let the government turn you into a criminal for exercising your rights as a citizen and a consumer.

Hockey Night in Canada? It's Wednesday.

2008-06-09T16:10:00.003-04:00

Well this is GREAT! I'll miss hearing the Hockey Night In Canada theme song on Saturday nights, but I think it's AWESOME that CTV (read: TSN) just bought the rights to the song. BRILLIANT. And, HILARIOUS.

TSN will apparently use it for its hockey broadcasts (pretty much every Wednesday night starting this season) and CTV will use it for its Olympic hockey coverage too.

This is just too funny.

Update: TSN (of course) has more.

The Weather from Mars...

2008-06-04T21:17:00.003-04:00

Here's the latest weather report from Mars.

Why am I posting it?

Because I can.

It's from Sol 7, and we're actually up to Sol 10 now in the Phoenix Mission.

Maybe the people updating the website are busy watching the lander dig a hole on Mars. Hopefully, we'll get more reports posted soon.

Additional cool piece of this story (what? that's not cool enough for you?) include the fact that when Odyssey goes into safe mode and stops transmitting, it barely matters. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter just takes over.

Why is that cool?

C'mon. We've got spy satellites (plural) constantly spying on Mars.

What's NOT cool about that?

Hillary Clinton to Suspend campaign on Friday...

2008-06-04T21:11:00.003-04:00

Senator Hillary Clinton will apparently hold an event in Washington D.C. on Saturday to express her support of Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's nominee for President.

Well, not that it wasn't true Tuesday, but congratulations to Senator Obama on securing the nomination (officially).

Obama/Whoever '08!

Clinton really, really, REALLY can't win...

2008-06-01T14:46:00.007-04:00

OK, time to play with delegate numbers again!

Thanks to CNN's handy dandy delegate counter, it's once again time to play with the numbers and see what Hillary Clinton needs to do to win the Democratic nomination.

As of yesterday's DNC ruling, the new threshold for the win is 2118 delegates. How can Clinton still win? Well there are several scenarios (all equally fantastic and impossible mind you, but there are several). Here's my personal favourite.

Maybe Senator Clinton will win 100% of the vote in the three remaining primaries. 100% of the vote in Puerto Rico, 100% of the vote in Montana, and 100% of the vote in South Dakota.

Now, that alone is not enough for Senator Clinton to win. She's well past the point where something as mundane as winning all the remaining votes can get her the nomination. No, she'll still need to rely on the superdelegates even if not a single eligible voter votes for Obama in the next three contests.

The good news for Senator Clinton is that if Obama doesn't receive a single vote between now and next Tuesday, she'll only need to attract 75% of the remaining super delegates to (barely) win the nomination.

So, all she needs to do is win 100% of the primary votes remaining and the support of 75% of the remaining super delegates.

Good luck with that Senator.

A new weather report from Mars thanks to Canadian Technology!

2008-05-27T14:21:00.005-04:00

So, I was just watching the daily news briefing on the Phoenix mission from NASATV and it turns out that our Canadian built meteorological station is up and running. The CSA site doesn't have Martian weather reports up live on their site yet, (though there's a space for it on the page!) however at the press conference they did have data from the station, which is up and running now, and the scientists did give the first weather report from Mars.

Very cool.

Also very cool is that we now have basically real-time satellite surveillance of the surface of Mars. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took a picture of the Phoenix lander parachuting to Mars, the first time a picture has been taken of a human vehicle actually landing on another planet.

Again, very cool.

I love that we're back on Mars, but I also love that we're now at the point where we have satellites orbiting Mars that can take pictures of us landing on Mars!

Did I mention how very cool this all is?

UPDATE: The CSA's site now has the weather report on their homepage (left hand side, about half way down the page). Today's forecast calls for a maximum of -30 degrees (C) and a minimum of -80 degrees (C) (put on a sweater!). Currently, it's sunny and clear, the pressure is 8.5 millibars, and the wind is coming out of the NE at 20 km/h.

Very cool.

Playing with Primary numbers again...

2008-05-22T11:01:00.004-04:00

Well, Kentucky and Oregon are done, and now the Democratic nomination race comes down to Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota (and a bunch of Democratic Party big wigs). So, as has been my tradition lately, let's go to CNN's handy delegate counter and play with some numbers.

Today, I've decided to give Senator Clinton a landslide. Large victories in all three remaining races, and a veritable STAMPEDE of super delegates to the Clinton camp. I have her winning the last three races 70-30 and taking the remaining super delegates by a mind-boggling 80-20. What's that add up to?

Obama wins by 25 delegates.

So, if Hillary wins every race left by a larger margin than she's won any single race to this point (OK, besides Arkansas, which she won 70-26) and takes the remaining superdelegates 4 to 1, she STILL LOSES.

Now what about Florida and Michigan you ask (because you're a Clinton supporter and you now have an ENTIRELY different opinion about the Florida and Michigan races than you did back in February).

Well, yes, counting Florida and Michigan as they voted would be a substantial benefit to Clinton, though only if you count ALL of the Michigan votes for her. If you give Clinton 55% of the Michigan votes (her share of the votes cast) and Obama none (since he WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT) and give Clinton 50% of the Florida delegates to Obama's 33% (again, based on the ballots cast in a state where no one campaigned) then Senator Clinton is... STILL LOSING. That's right. Give her Michigan and Florida straight up as voted and the race STILL has Obama in the lead (2031-1968). It's a much closer race then, but she's STILL 63 delegates behind, and it'd be more if Obama's name had been on the ballot in Michigan (where 40% of voters chose "uncommitted" rather than vote for Hillary in an unopposed race).

Senator Clinton pulls into the delegate lead if, and ONLY if, you give her all 157 Michigan delegates (utterly ignoring the fact that Clinton only got 55% of the vote, that 40% of voters voted "uncommitted" on the ballot, and that the ballot didn't include Senator Obama's name at all). I'm willing to concede though that if you give Senator Clinton 100% of the Michigan delegates and 50% of the Florida delegates you get a race that shows Clinton at 2039 and Obama at 2031. So there you have it, an 8 delegate lead and all one has to do is give 100% of Michigan's delegates to a candidate who only got 55% of the vote in a vote where her main rival was not even listed on the ballot.

However, we all know there's just no way that the party seats Florida and Michigan delegates based upon vote totals in races where there was no campaign, or worse yet where leading candidates didn't even appear on the ballot. Even if they do though, Obama's STILL WINNING. He's got an over 60 delegate lead WITH Florida and Michigan counted. That means Clinton would need to win 73% of the remaining 86 delegates (with no movement from the supers) to come out of the campaign tied, IF you include Florida and Michigan and give Obama zero Michigan delegates. Well, she's not getting 70-30 splits in the last 3 races, so I don't see how a candidate can be losing after all of the races have been decided (EVEN INCLUDING FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN) and still argue that they should be given the nomination. Not that Clinton supporters won't try.

"Vote for me, I'm more electable" is a great slogan, but it loses some punch when the person you argue is "less electable" than you has won more states, more delegates and more votes than you. If Obama shouldn't be the nominee because he supposedly can't beat McCain in November, what sense does it make to give the nomination to Clinton, who can't beat Obama now? Well, no sense whatsoever, which is why I hope this tedium is over soon.

So, has anybody else linked to a CNN story lately...

2008-05-15T00:00:00.005-04:00

... and found a bunch of American commenters suddenly appear to talk about your post?

Well, my last post on the Edwards endorsement of Obama is up to 12 comments (OK, 14, but two of those are mine) which I realize for most of you is peanuts, but for me that's a lot of comments for a post that's only up to 9 votes at Progressive Bloggers. Plus, none of them were from people I usually see commenting on my blog, most seemed to be from Americans, and a large number of them were anonymous. It was all very strange to me at first. What gives? Where did all these people come from? Did someone somewhere link to me? Is there a big story about Progressive Bloggers on CTV or something?

Then, I went back to the CNN story that I had linked to about the endorsement. And low and behold, right there on CNN (the most trusted name in news) was a link to the post "Nail, meet coffin" right here at good old "Lord Kitchener's Own". I've somehow hit the (automated) big time. CNN is linking to me.

Am I unique that my reaction was at least partly, WTF?

As I said in the comments to that post when I realized what had happened, it is simultaneously amusing, strange, and mildly worrying. I know many people would be thrilled with increased traffic (especially those making money off ads on their blogs) but I wonder if CNN has ever considered that a casual little blogger like me might not absolutely love the idea of being linked to from a huge international news network.

Of course, it's CNN's prerogative to link to anyone they please, no question, but still. Do the majority of bloggers realize that the new "From the Blogs" feature of CNN means that by simply linking to a CNN story suddenly a link to their blog may very well appear on the CNN site? It certainly took me by surprise.

Again, not that it's not their prerogative, but isn't there a tangible difference between me linking to CNN and CNN linking right back to me? Is there not an inherent power imbalance that's a bit off-putting? Of course, by posting on the internet I'm throwing my thoughts out to the world, technically, but posting my thoughts on my blog is a bit different from posting them on CNN's site isn't it? (and if it isn't, should it be?). And does anyone else find it to be a bit strange that CNN has taken me from Point A to Point B without me even being cognizant of it until a bunch of Americans started commenting about a post they'd otherwise never have seen.

Not that I particularly object to being linked too, but I can't say it was a pleasant surprise either.

Frankly, it's a bit creepy.

One things for sure, I'll think twice before linking to a CNN story again. Do I want my story to appear to readers of CNN.com? If not, I guess I'll send anyone who reads the post to the Globe and Mail for more information. I don't think they've started linking right back to their readers.

Yet...

Nail, meet coffin.

2008-05-14T18:28:00.004-04:00

John Edwards to endorse Obama.

You fought a good campaign Senator Clinton, and I for one think you're going to be Senate majority leader in the very near future. Best of luck in all your future endeavours.

Update:

The story I'm linking to hasn't been updated yet, but it's official. I've got John Edwards playing at the Obama rally from CNN's live online feed right now in the background. "The reason I am here tonight is that the Democratic voters in America have made their choice, and so have I... There is one man who knows in his heart that it's time to create one America, and not two, and that man is Barack Obama" (crowd goes nuts...)

Hillary Clinton wins West Virginia, and it couldn't matter less...

2008-05-14T09:34:00.002-04:00

So, Hillary had a "big win" last night in West Virginia. She beat Obama, as expected, 67% to 26%.

Let's take a stroll through the other big wins this primary season shall we.

Races Obama won by 60% or more:
Mississippi
Maryland
Illinois
Georgia
the District of Columbia
Virginia

Races Clinton won by 60% or more:
West Virginia
Arkansas

Total net delegates gained by Clinton in her huge win in WV last night: 10
Delegate lead for Barak Obama this morning (CNN): 165

So, I guess all Hillary needs now is 17 more West Virginias, or for more than 77% of the 214 remaining super delegates to move to her camp (or some combination thereof).

In other words...

Nothing to see here.

Move along.

Clinton simply can't win. Period.

2008-05-12T15:05:00.004-04:00

I think Hillary Clinton's really got to start thinking seriously about how she wants this all to end, because she can't win the Democratic nomination for President. Not convinced? Look at the graphic below from CNN's handy dandy delegate counter. In the hypothetical scenario below, I've given Clinton 70-30 wins in West Virginia and Kentucky, and 60-40 wins in Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico. A clean sweep with huge to sizable wins for Clinton. I've also given her the lead in super delegates 60-40 (even though Obama has recently pulled ahead in super delegate support). The results of this fantastic hypothetical for Clinton? She loses the race to Obama 2046 to 1983.

A 63 delegate loss from arguably the best, most spectacular scenario one could possibly fathom for Hillary Clinton. Anyone want to argue she can still win?

Clinton is DONE...

2008-05-07T15:37:00.002-04:00

Not to be overly harsh, but the former first lady is toast.

I just went to CNN's handy little delegate counter to confirm my suspicions.

Go the the counter and give Hillary 60-40 victories in EVERY REMAINING RACE. Then, put in that the super delegates ALSO go for Hillary 60-40. You'll agree, I think, that this scenario is IMPOSSIBLE for Clinton to achieve, but take a look at the results.

60-40 Clinton in all the remaining races, AND among the super delegates gives you:

Obama 2039 delegates

Clinton 1980 delegates.

So, if Clinton does the impossible, she'll only lose by 59 delegates.

Good luck with that Hillary.

OK, now this is just getting ridiculous....

2008-05-01T11:33:00.004-04:00

The Tories are now threatening to make Bill C-10, the freakin' movie tax credit Bill, a matter of confidence!!! Now, leave aside the merits of the Bill (which proposes to deny tax credits to films that are "offensive" where the government gets to determine what constitutes "offensive") what really grinds my gears here is how obvious it's become that the Tories are using "confidence" motions as a sledge hammer.

Any time the Tories feel there's the smallest chance that a bill might not get passed (or in this case, not even that, just the chance that the Bill might be AMENDED has them foaming at the mouth) the Tories will proclaim the Bill to be a matter of confidence and dare the Liberals to do something.

And they won't.

Canadians elected a minority government so that the parties would be forced to compromise, and come up with better and more balanced legislation for all Canadians. Well, "screw that" say the Tories. We'll do what we want, and if you even think about amending the bills we propose we'll make you force an election over it.

And it's working.

At this point it occurs to me that the Liberals are keeping the Tories from being elected to a majority position in the House by simply GIVING THEM majority power in the House, without the need for anything so awkward as an election. The strategy, so far as I can tell, is to save the village by burning it down. We can't risk an election, because then maybe the Tories would win majority power, so we'll give the Tories majority power to prevent an election from happening.

So, this is me getting on the bandwagon with those who want to quit this inanity and just rip off the band-aid. Sure, maybe Harper and the Tories would win an ensuing election. I'd be mildly surprised, but not shocked. But SO WHAT??? At least then all the things they're doing would have some democratic legitimacy. At this point they have all the power, and none of the veneer of legitimacy. How is that BETTER than allowing the people of Canada to decide whether they WANT the Tories to have a majority or not??? Why is giving it to them by default better than letting the people decide???

Knock it off already.

This is just a farce.

Elections Canada fun...

2008-04-29T13:25:00.002-04:00

Hmmm, according to Wells, the Bloc has introduced a motion in the House of Commons:

"That this House express its complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Federal Elections Commissioner" (Wells' translation).

This ought to be fun!

"Essential Service"??? Maybe it is that, but we'd be better off not to acknowledge it....

2008-04-29T13:11:00.003-04:00

So, there are calls afoot throughout Toronto to have the TTC declared an "essential service" and limit the workers right to strike.

"Hell no", says I. "HELL NO!"

However, I disagree with the idea of making them an "essential service" for very different reasons from so many bloggers who are opposed.

I don't think we can afford it.

History shows that in most arbitrated settlements the union ends up getting MORE than they would have received through regular negotiations. Often, even more than they'd get if they'd gone on strike.

I'm with Andrew Coyne and the National Post on this one.

Some of my favourite quotes:

Coyne: "It won’t put an end to strikes, for starters: making strikes illegal, at least in this country, only brings on illegal strikes. The transit workers’ last walkout was illegal, as was the last teachers’ strike".

NP: "When Toronto's largest union went on strike in the summer of 2002, the city was trying to roll back concessions made in 1999 that promised a job for life to city staff who had more than 10 years on the job -- a majority of the work force. That provision made it impossible to save money by contracting out services and laying off high-priced union workers. Soon after the province sent workers back to the job and appointed an arbitrator, the arbitrator called a press conference, scolded Toronto officials for not "buying into improved [labour] relations," and by November had awarded the union almost everything it was demanding".

Coyne: "But even if [making the TTC an "essential service"] did achieve the goal of ending service disruptions, all that would ensure was uninterrupted TTC service: slow, infrequent, obstructive and unpleasant".

I've got to say, I've thought about it and I now firmly oppose making the TTC an "essential service". We can't afford it, and if we ever do it we'll be giving up hope until the end of time of ever fixing public transit in the big smoke.

Nope. Keep the status quo. It's the only way we'll ever change things.

The problem's not between the Union and the TTC, it's between the Union, and the Union

2008-04-29T11:48:00.007-04:00

As many suspected it seems there's nothing but trouble within the executive of ATU Local 113. Apparently, there's an internal battle going on within the Union (an attempted "coup" the Globe and Mail calls it) and the Toronto Star reports extensively on the battle. That Star mentions the "venomous atmosphere" and several pamphlets floating amongst the membership (apparently distributed by the Union executive's dissidents) which misstated the nature of several provisions of the proposed contract, such as language on contracting out and benefits.

It really seems as though the rank and file has been HORRIBLY served by the leadership of their union.

The result?

Well, City Council can't "ignore" the TTC anymore which might sound good, but post-strike, union-friendly Mayor Miller and TTC Chair Adam Giambrone aren't nearly as opposed to making the TTC an "essential service" as they once were.

Finally, in case you're wondering just what exactly the union voted no to, the G&M provides a handy chart, with comparisons to the top wage rates for unionized transit workers in North America:

And if you wonder why I'm focusing on wages, and not "contracting-out" issues, it's because it's pretty clear to me this morning that the "contracting out" stuff was a mirage meant to attack Bob Kinnear. As one of the G&M's union sources says "We've got the best contracting-out language anywhere. And they've been told that by our lawyers and everything." Leave aside the GTA. The contract they rejected would have made the TTC's drivers among the best paid in North America, and it's mechanics the second best paid, all with some of the best job security anywhere.

Seems to me as though the Union was doing pretty good until the executive (apparently) turned on each other.

I'm afraid perhaps TTC drivers are having a bad day today...

2008-04-28T10:43:00.002-04:00

As promised, I tried to be extra nice to my driver this morning when I got on the bus. Sadly, although it was still early(ish) in the morning (8:30) I have to conclude from his response that he was already having a horrible day. I basically got a look somewhat akin to the look Darth Vader gave Obi Wan Kenobi right before he chopped him in half.

The ride was a bit of a slice too (fast, fast, fast, BREAK AT THE LAST MINUTE, fast, fast, fast, KNOCK PASSENGERS OVER WITH THE BREAKING) but that could be totally unrelated. Sometimes you just get a driver who drives like that, and you have to hold on tight.

Anyway, maybe it was the weather, maybe my driver was getting towards the end of the shift, maybe it was totally unrelated to the strike. But my driver was not at all a happy camper this morning. I'll be extra nice again tomorrow though. And hopefully my driver will have a better day tomorrow.

Toronto Transit workers ordered back to work...

2008-04-27T15:23:00.002-04:00

Well, the legislature just unanimously passed legislation ordering TTC workers back to work, and the TTC has announced that some service will be back up and running within hours.

I've been quite critical of the strike, but allow me to take this opportunity to encourage those of you who take the TTC every day (like me) to be extra nice to your drivers, operators and collectors tomorrow. Even if you feel the need to express your displeasure, please keep in mind that PLENTY of people in the GTA are going to be giving these workers a hard time tomorrow, so there's no need for you to add to their bad day.

I certainly intend to be extra nice to my driver tomorrow morning (not that I'm not always nice!), and give an extra smile, and an extra cheerful good morning, and I encourage you to do the same. They're bound to take a lot of crap tomorrow no matter what you say or do, so you might as well be the bright spot in their day.

This is assuming of course that they'll all return to work, but I imagine that's a no-brainer. Refusing to return would be the labour negotiation equivalent of shooting yourself in the face, so I'm quite certain the buses will be running tomorrow.

Hopefully it won't be too horrible a day for the drivers.

Ask me who I have sympathy for...

2008-04-27T02:05:00.002-04:00

the generally well-paid, benefit-rich workers of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, or the mostly poor, powerless people they're screwing with, and I'd say my answer is pretty clear.

I plan to be extra nice to my bus driver on Monday morning, and I'll bet he or she will need it, 'cause I'm in a TINY minority.

Most people I know are truly incensed.

As with most things public transit related, I've got to agree with Steve Munro...

2008-04-27T02:00:00.001-04:00

I think Local 113 may well be out of their minds!!!

TTC on strike...

2008-04-26T00:11:00.002-04:00

Can you freakin' BELIEVE THIS????

They just went on strike effective midnight.

MIDNIGHT!!!

Imagine for a moment that you're waiting for a bus in the middle of the night all alone.

And waiting.

And waiting...

The safety implications alone are STAGGERING!!!!

It's like they're BEGGING the province to declare the TTC an essential service and take away their right to strike forever. And I can't imagine many people would argue against it.

I'm a big time union supporter, generally, but after this?

VERY ANGRY.

The Conservatives were NOT "doing what everyone else does"...

2008-04-25T12:10:00.002-04:00

People, really.

The in-and-out scandal is not that complicated.

What you CAN do: Transfer money from the national party to local candidiates so that the local candidates can spend that money on local advertising.

What you CAN'T do: Buy a national ad campaign, and then temporarily (and I mean for mere hours here in some cases) transfer money from the national party to the local candidates and RIGHT BACK AGAIN to make it SEEM as though the candidates had paid for local advertising within their local spending limits, when we all know what happened was that the national party exceeded the national spending limits and then tried (incompetently to boot) to cover their tracks.

It's not rocket science people.

Local candidates can't have been "buying local advertising" with the money when most of the candidates only knew that money was going to appear and then disappear from their accounts at the behest of the national party for Pete's sake. If you never saw and ad, never approved an ad, never got an invoice, and have never heard of the advertising company that produced the ad then you didn't buy the advertising!

It's totally transparent for God's sake!!!

The "In and Out" scandal....

2008-04-22T17:22:00.005-04:00

First, let me ask if we could rename this scandal slightly to the "Inside and Out" scandal, so that it can have it's own theme song! And, with all due respect to the Bee Gees, I mean the Feist version:

OK, that task completed, let's get to the scandal. There are any number of places you can go to learn more, but allow me to point to a few of particular interest.

First, from the G&M, there's: "Spending scheme raised eyebrows within Tory ranks". This is a great 3 page article on the scandal, including lots of information about how uncomfortable many TORIES were with the financial maneuvering, how little local Tory campaign officials knew about a supposed "local" ad buy, and how at least two Tory candidates outright refused to go along (good for them, I say!).

Second, there's this articles from the Globe and Mail: "Search Warrant suggests Tories overspent by $1 million". Here's my favourite passage:

As the probe expanded, Elections Canada reviewed other questionable invoices that were provided by Conservative candidates and related to Retail Media, the Toronto-based firm that made the ad buys for the national party. Of these invoices, 15 allegedly included the names of individual candidates on Retail Media letterhead, even though Retail Media told Elections Canada it dealt only with the party and “did not generate invoices to candidates or electoral districts.”
For instance, one invoice in the amount of $39,999.91, filed on behalf of Steve Halicki, candidate for the Ontario riding of York South-Weston, was on Retail Media letterhead, the affidavit states.

When executives with the company were shown the invoice, one said “the invoice must have been altered or created by someone, because it did not conform to the appearance of invoices sent by Retail Media to the Conservative Party of Canada with respect to the media buy,” the affidavit states.

Barbro Soderberg, Mr. Halicki's official agent, told investigators she did not provide written authorization to anyone to incur expenses on behalf of the campaign and that she had no knowledge whatsoever of Retail Media, the affidavit states.

Ms. Soderberg said she was approached by Conservative Party campaign manager Rom Cimaroli, who proposed a deposit of about $40,000 into Mr. Halicki's campaign account. The funds would be immediately transferred back to the party and recorded as an advertising expense, the affidavit states. Despite some misgivings, Ms. Soderberg said she was reassured by party officials that the transaction was legal.

“I had contacted the Conservative Party in Ottawa and was reassured that this was okay,” Ms. Soderberg told investigators, according to the affidavit.

“As a bookkeeper I know that sometimes you have to use creative accounting between two small companies, but I found this move was being a little too creative.”
- emphasis added -

Paul Wells finds the (allegedly) faked invoices particularly funny. He also gets credit for this post, titled "Books the Tories will wish again and again had never been written" and his post on how this isn't the first time the Tories have been caught in "election-time fancy footwork". He also hilariously suggests that if this is their form of chess, perhaps the Tories should switch back to checkers.

Then, Mr. Wells' commentary lead me to Mr. Aaron Wherry's blog at Macleans, where he's diligently reading through the warrant for interesting quotes. I was going to post the most interesting (read "damning") quotes, but this post is already horrendously long, and there are a lot of them. So, beyond "Reading the Warrant: Part One" may I also suggest checking out:

and Part Nineteen.

All of that in the first 56 pages of an apparently 700 page document.

This is gonna take a while.

Thank God for Feist.

Jon Stewart on Wednesday's Democratic "debate" (sic) on ABC...

2008-04-18T12:58:00.004-04:00

As promised, here's a clip of Jon Stewart's reaction to Wednesday's Democratic "debate" (sic) on ABC (H/T to Daily Kos which also has clips of Colbert mocking the debate, and Colbert's three big guests last night, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barak Obama!!!).

The best part of Jon's analysis was this bit:

"The first hour of last nights debate was a 60 minute master class in questions that elevate out of context remarks and trivial insipid miscues into subjects of national discourse; WHICH IS MY JOB!

STOP DOING MY JOB.

That's what I'm here for!

I'm the silly man!"

ABC's Wednesday night Democratic "debate"...

2008-04-18T00:11:00.002-04:00

Well, for those of you who didn't suffer through ABC's Democratic "debate" last night between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, man, did you dodge a bullet!

Here are some articles that should give you an idea of what it was like:

Keep debate focused on the serious, not the trivial - "in a word it was awful".

Debates moderators face stinging questions - "Nearly 17,000 comments flooded ABC News' Web site, many of them pouring scorn on the moderators, who were booed by the auditorium crowd near the end of the debate".

The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years".

Andrew Sullivan's live blogging of the debate - "I have to say I am actually shocked at the appallingly poor quality of the questions: the worst of the campaign so far. Pure MSM process bullshit. Again: it's now halfway through and there has not been a single question on the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, terrorism, Iraq or any other actual policy issue in this campaign. How much longer can ABC News avoid the actual policy issues in this election?

and there's much more here: Blogosphere buzzing with criticism of ABC news debate

So, if someone talks to you about how "on the defensive" Obama supposedly was in this "debate" (sic), ask them if perhaps that is a reflection on Obama, or on Gibson and Stephanopoulos's "shoddy, despicable performances".

As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers writes, "Has Obama's message of a new vision of politics ever looked more attractive than after this display?".

I'll try to post the video of tonight's Indecision 2008 from the Daily Show as soon as it goes up too, as Jon Stewart was as shocked as anyone else. Making a mockery of the political process in the U.S. is supposed to be HIS job after all, not the job of ABC "News" (sic).

The call for someone to fight for Net Neutrality is answered?

2008-04-04T13:18:00.005-04:00

Well, here we go.

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers have officially called on Bell Canada to Cease and Desist it's throttling activities. By filing a Part VII application with the CRTC asking it to direct Bell Canada to cease and desist from throttling its wholesale Internet service, the CAIP have launched the first salvo of the net neutrality battle.

Now, initially, this is just about Bell's throttling of their third party competitors who get their ADSL access from Bell. As CAIP explains: "Bell's traffic shaping measures have impaired the speed and performance of the wholesale ADSL access services that it provides to independent ISPs and other competitors, to the point where the quality of the service has been degraded beyond recognition." However, it also threatens to bring to light just how Bell has been "managing their bandwidth" as some euphemistically like to call it.

Read this:

"In order to throttle the Internet traffic originating from/or destined for end-user customers of independent ISPs, Bell is using measures to first, open each data packet, examine the packet data and header information, and then apply certain rules to the content in question. This aspect of Bell’s wholesale throttling activities give rise to concerns that Bell’s actions violate the privacy of the communications of its wholesale customers (as well as that of their own end-user customers). It also gives rise to concerns that Bell has violated its duty under section 36 of the Act not to control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public."

Now, I may not be a total techy, but that says to me that Bell is looking at the content people are sending across the internet, and then determining what content goes fast, and what content goes slow.

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!

CAIP continues:

"by examining the packet data and packet header information of GAS customer traffic, Bell can identify, inter alia, the type of data being transferred, the ISP upon whose network the data is being transferred, an end-user’s intention to acquire certain types of Internet content and the IP address and, hence, the identity of the end-user customer who is sending/receiving the data. The collection and use of such information by Bell, which in this case would have clearly been done without the prior consent of the end-user customers so affected, violates the privacy of such individuals."

Uh, yeah, it sure as Hell does!

If you haven't been paying attention to the Net Neutrality debate to this point, it's time to start.

Here's a good primer on Net Neutrality from the CBC (who found that people were having trouble downloading CBC videos from their website because the internet had bee throttled by their ISPs thanks to Bell). And drop by Neutrality.ca to learn more about the issues surrounding Net Neutrality in Canada. If you're on Facebook, consider joining the Canadians for Net Neutrality group to show your support for Net Neutrality in Canada. Maybe if it gets 40,000 members like the Fair Copyright for Canada group did, then Minister Prentice will decide that letting private corporations exert a form of control over the internet, and the information that flows on it, that we would NEVER allow a government to exert is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

H/T to A Limerick Ox.

A primer on Net Neutrality in Canada....

2008-04-03T11:59:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, NDP MP Charlie Angus rose in Question Period to ask the Minister of Industry about Net Neutrality, and the latest moves by Rogers and Bell to throttle the internet (thereby taking it upon themselves to determine what internet traffic gets priority, and what doesn't):

Of course, Minister Prentice's response is A) to be expected, and B) moronic.

The Minister is quite correct that the internet is not regulated in Canada. And that can be viewed as a good thing. However, if the government has decided that it would be wrong to interfere in the free and unbiased flow of information across the internet, why would they then let PRIVATE COMPANIES determine what information goes in the "fast lane" and what information goes in the "slow lane". If Rogers and Bell are allowed to continue throttling the internet, then it will no longer be true that we have "unregulated" internet in Canada. It'll be regulated all right, just not by the government. We're essentially allowing Rogers and Bell to restrict access to bandwidth in a way that we would NEVER allow our government to do. Is the Minister really saying that Rogers and Bell (who have a virtual monopoly over communications infrastructure in Canada) should be able to take on the role of shaping the nature of internet traffic in a way that they feel the SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT OF CANADA could never jusitfy. If we wouldn't sanction GOVERNMENT control of the flow of information (and we don't... hello China) why should we be expected to put up with PRIVATE control of the flow of information? "The government can't infringe on your freedoms this way, but if a corporation wants to, that's just an issue between the consumer and the company"??? What's next? Private food companies that don't need to sell safe foods? Private police forces that don't need to respect your rights under the constitution?

Here's a good primer on Net Neutrality from the CBC (who found that people were having trouble downloading CBC videos from their website because the internet had bee throttled by their ISPs). And drop by Neutrality.ca to learn more about the issues surrounding net Neutrality in Canada. Hopefully Professor Michael Geist (who's on this, and was a big pusher behind stopping the Copyright fiasco from going to Parliament in December) will be able to similarly help rally support for true net neutrality in Canada.

If you're on Facebook, consider joining the Canadians for Net Neutrality group to show your support for Net Neutrality in Canada. Maybe if it gets 40,000 members like the Fair Copyright for Canada group did, then Mr. Prentice will decide that while having private groups regulating the flow of information on the internet may be different from having the government regulate the flow of information on the internet, that doesn't make it better.

Or remotely acceptable.

Ontario's Sunshine list part 2....

2008-04-01T18:04:00.004-04:00

So, I railed earlier on my blog against some people's annual reaction to the publishing of Ontario's "sunshine list" of public sector workers making over $100,000 (keep in mind that "public sector" isn't just bureaucrats, it's surgeons, judges, professors, University Presidents, hospital CEOs etc...) and as I work in a university, I wanted to add the following context with regards to the leaders of our universities in Ontario.

Of interest, for comparison to Ontario's sunshine list, is this article from Bloomberg. It’s on some of the top paid university leaders in the U.S.

Now, the highest paid University President in Ontario is apparently McMaster President Peter George ($494,807.14). The highest paid University President in the U.S. is Lynn University’s Donald Ross at $5.04 million.

Ross is followed by the heads of Willmington and Vanderbilt at (MUCH further down) $1.37 million and $1.33 million respectively. There are nine University President’s in the U.S. making over $900,000 a year. Now, I’ll admit many of these are anomalies, and not useful for comparison (they're also all private institutions but patience, we'll get to that in a moment...).

In the Ivy League (and while I’m not sure about Mac, I’d like to think U of T deserves a President who commands an Ivy League salary) the President’s salary ranges from $460,000 (Dartmouth) to just over $900,000 (University of Pennsylvania). U of T’s David Naylor makes $380,100.00 (though with almost 50,000 in taxable benefits, one could argue he's at least close to the absolute bottom of his Ivy League colleagues, at $429,682). So the President of Ontario's largest (and arguably best) university makes ALMOST what the lowest paid Ivy League President does. Almost.

But if you don’t think U of T is “Ivy League” (or deserves to strive to be) and/or you're hung up on the private versus public distinction, then let’s just look at the public universities in the U.S. The highest paid public university President in the U.S. is Michigan’s Mary Sue Coleman at $724,604. Just $300,000 more per year than U of T President David Naylor. What's more, there are 23 public University Presidents in the U.S. making over $500,000. TWENTY-THREE.

So, no University President in Ontario would crack the top 20 in compensation when compared to U.S. public universities. Not Karen Hitchcock at Queen’s ($340,000.02), nor David Johnston at Waterloo ($458,571.58), nor Paul Davenport at Western ($355,890.00). Not one University President in Ontario is being compensated at the level of the leader of a top 20 public university in the States.

None of which is to say that absolutely every person on the sunshine list deserves what they’re making, but I’m always sickened by some people’s reaction to the sunshine list every year.

You get what you pay for people, and if you’re not willing to pay for it, someone else will.

Amazing new BBC documentary....

2008-04-01T15:01:00.002-04:00

The BBC has a fabulous new nature documentary on one of the most rare bird species on the planet:

H/T to mans laughter
via The Galloping Beaver.

Ontario's Sunshine list...

2008-04-01T13:41:00.003-04:00

So, Ontario just published it's annual sunshine list of people making over $100,000 in the public sector. (this includes colleges and universities as well, plus the judiciary, big hydro, etc...)

This year there are 42,527 people on the list, up from about 34,000 last year. The article in the Toronto Star has some interesting features.

One, it refers to these people as "well-paid mandarins". Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think of an experienced university professor, or the head of a major metropolitan hospital as a "mandarin". Some might argue that we should be slashing these salaries, to which I say, if you want all of our best professors to move to the U.S., and all of our crown corporations to be led by people who couldn't get a job in the private sector, go ahead. Most of these people could make a lot more money if they left the public sector for a private company, or left U of T or Queen's to go teach at Harvard or Yale. If that's what you want, fine. Start saving to send your kids abroad for their education, and don't complain when the power goes out because all the power executives who know what their doing have left to work for private companies.

Second, the article points out that the $100,000 cut off is not indexed to inflation. So, even if these people's salaries are just keeping pace with inflation, the number of people on the list is virtually GUARANTEED to go up every year. If you wanted to make a fair comparison to 1996 (the year the list was introduced by the Harris government) then this year's cut-off should be $125,000, not $100,000 ($100,000 in 1996 dollars = $125,000 in 2008 dollars). This makes the list kinda meaningless (and direct comparisons to past years TOTALLY meaningless) as ignoring the effect of inflation is like trying to buy a candy bar for a penny because a candy bar used to cost a penny.

Third, and most humourously, both of the people quoted attacking the list (Bob "oh MY, the DRAMATIC increases" Runcimen and Howard "think of what a minimum wage earner makes" Hampton) are ON THE LIST. Howard Hampton - $153,571.20, Bob Runcimen $143,303.03. Now, I don't begrudge our elected officials making good money. God knows I don't want Queen's Park to be filled with people too under-educated, and under-qualified to get a private sector job, but still, it's funny. Some politicians will rail against what some professor with seven years worth of graduate education makes, but never mention that they're making more.

Good thing we have a Sunshine list, I guess.

Still, this has to be the one day a year when all the "outrage" over these "high" salaries makes a lot of these people re-consider staying in Canada, or staying in the public sector. I'd imagine a lot of Ontarians are wishing today that they were sitting pretty at Harvard or GE, or working at some high powered corporate law firm instead of getting attacked for making less money at U of T or Ontario Power Corp, or sitting on the bench.

It's not often one can sympathize with people making over $100,000. But the day after the sunshine list is published is always, for me, one of those days.

Liberal-Tory same old story???

2008-03-28T12:32:00.003-04:00

Paul Wells has an excellent column in Macleans (perhaps to celebrate his return to Canada?) on the Grand Coalition that Stephen Harper and Stephan Dion have forged to govern the country. As Wells writes:

Liberal-Conservative coalitions are so alien to Canadian tradition that even today, everyone concerned pretends this one doesn't exist. Liberals continue to criticize Tories, although Dion's pathetic Question Period performances make it clear his heart isn't in the game. Only Conservatives sit in the federal cabinet, but this is just part of the charade: to pacify his Liberal coalition partners, Harper does not permit his Conservative "ministers" to talk or do anything. The Liberals make a great show of blaming the NDP for the current government's existence, but the lie is transparent. The NDP keeps showing up to vote against the government. The Liberals don't. Of course not: it's their government too....

...And indeed, the current Harper-Dion government is presiding over astonishing changes to the shape of Canada's government...

...This massively revisionist overhaul of Canadian federalism flies in the face of everything the Liberals worked to achieve during Jean Chrétien's decade in power. If the Liberals were not absolutely dedicated to implementing this revolution, they would have voted to stop it long before now. Stéphane Dion and Stephen Harper are accomplishing great things together. It is a measure of their discipline and modesty that they continue to deny everything.

Now, I'm hardly a Dion basher (and most Liberals would probably say I'm too conservative, not too socialist) and Wells has always been a champion/defender of Dion, but damn!

That column really makes one want to vote NDP doesn't it?

It turns out John Tory is still alive...

2008-03-27T14:58:00.005-04:00

Who knew?

I was sure he'd been killed and eaten by Flaherty.

Not only is he still alive, but it appears as though he still works for the provincial Tories (the article even refers to him as their leader... that can't be true though, can it???).

And not only that, it appears that he has figures at hand telling him that Ontario is in a recession. Figures the Chief Economist of TD Bank knows nothing about. Figures from... the future!!!

And not only that (yes, there's more) apparently his figures from the future show that Ontario's economy is NOT being dragged down by $100 oil, a Canadian dollar at partiy, and an American economy on the verge of it's worst economic downturn in decades (possibly since the Great Depression). No, no, no sillies, it's all Dalton McGuinty's fault. Him and his bloated civil service. Ignore the record oil prices. Ignore the parity of the dollar. Ignore the sub-prime mortgage debacle. What kind of idiot would think that these are the causes of our difficulties (I'm looking at you Don Drummond, you big nerd).

Ironically though, the revelation that John Tory has a time machine, and that he has proof that pretty much every economic expert in the country is wrong about what's behind Ontario's current economic woes are not the biggest shockers in this article.

I'm really surprised to find out that John Tory is still alive.

(H/T to POGGE).

Latest Democratic Presidential poll...

2008-03-27T12:29:00.003-04:00

Well, this is interesting.

"The increasingly charged Democratic race for the White House appears to be hurting Hillary Clinton significantly more than Barack Obama, a just-released poll suggests."

Positive View of Clinton: 37%
Positive view of Obama: 49%

Negative View of Clinton: 48%
Negative View of Obama: 32%

McCain Versus Clinton: Clinton down by 2% (statistical tie)
McCain Versus Obama: Obama up by 2% (statistical tie)

Good thing Obama's had a couple of really horrible weeks eh? If he'd had a GOOD March it might be totally over by now!

Tories still insist on messing with Ontario...

2008-03-27T10:06:00.003-04:00

Well, despite the efforts of Dwight Duncan and Dalton McGuinty to turn down the temperature, the jackasses in our federal government have decided to keep attacking their Ontario counterparts.

I swear, if the federal government were treating Quebec or Alberta this way, those provincial governments would have made an appeal to the UN by now. Or at the very least started a campaign to have a referendum on separation.

I'm telling you, if the feds keep treating us this way, I'll start to contemplate advocating that we take our $20 billion a year in funding for the other provinces and go it on our own. You want us to make $5 billion in corporate tax cuts? Fine. Give us back just 25% of the money you take away from us every year to spread around the rest of the country, and we'll do it tomorrow. Sure, maybe that will mean Quebeckers will no longer get ridiculously low tuition rates, and Manitobans may no longer get subsidized electricity rates, but tell me again why those provinces get those great perks AND our money? Tell me again why provinces get transfers from us to fund programs that are BETTER than we can afford in Ontario with what's left over. You know why I think Ontario is less competitive than the other provinces? It's because we pay $20 billion a year to them to help them stay more competitive than us (except for Alberta, who have $100/barrel oil to thank). The theory behind equalization is to make sure provinces don't fall too far behind successful provinces like Ontario and Alberta, so that people in less well to do provinces have comparable levels of service to those in prospering provinces. The reality in many cases is that Ontario and Alberta are funding services in other provinces that are BETTER than the services in Ontario (more per-capita spending on health care, subsidized university tuition, subsidized electricity rates...). It feels like it's not so much any more about keeping other provinces up, as it is about keeping Ontario down. If you can afford to spend more per capita on services for your citizens than the province of Ontario does on our citizens, why should we have to subsidize that higher spending?

I'm getting really mad with all this b.s. from the feds, and the main thing that has me worried is that Harper WANTS me really mad.

Maybe he really wants to break up the country.

Given the antics of his ministers, I wouldn't put it past him.

A shout out to some people in Saskatchewan...

2008-03-25T16:38:00.002-04:00

Who don't like the federal Tories bad-mouthing the country's industrial heartland, or demonizing their duly elected officials either!

Sean in Saskatchewan makes note of the scathing blog post today from Paul Wells on this whole debacle, and this editorial in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix likewise laments Flaherty's actions.

An Ontarian might worry that the rest of the country loves the idea of picking on or mocking big, bad Ontario, but I think my fellow Canadians deserve more credit. As the Saskatoon paper points out, no Alberta government or Quebec government (or Newfoundland government, or...) would ever put up with this kind of crap, nor would their citizens, and I don't think other provinces expect us to put up with it either. If I were the McGuinty government I'd pretty much ignore all the bluster from Ottawa these days, and spend a lot of time on the phone with Charest, and Stelmch, and Williams et al...

Surely they can't be pleased at all of this either.

Poking the bear continued...

2008-03-25T14:01:00.001-04:00

Paul Wells seems to understand why Flaherty and the Tories are picking on Ontario...

Ontario: The patsy of Confederation Volume 2...

2008-03-25T12:39:00.003-04:00

I'm on a bit of a rant lately, but it's been really ticking me off how the feds are treating Ontario (and our duly elected leaders) these days.

These three articles are a must read for all the people of Ontario, who need to wake up to the fact that Ontario is going to be hit harder by the coming economic woes than any other province, and that the federal Tories (in the words of TD Bank Chief Economist Don Drummond) : "seem to be bent on making Ontario's situation worse at the moment".

Jim Flaherty would like you to forget the $5 billion deficit he and his provincial Tory cohorts left Ontarians with.

He'd like you to ignore the $20 billion a year that Ontario tax payers give to Ottawa each year so that it can be redistributed to the rest of the country and help fund subsidized electricity rates in Manitoba, and subsidized tuition rates in Quebec.

He'd like you to believe that the coming economic downturn in Ontario caused by Canadian dollar parity, $100 oil and the subprime mortgage debacle in the U.S. is actually all the fault of Premier McGunity.

He'd like you to forget that Ontario has reduced corporate taxes by $3 billion under Premier McGuinty by cutting business property taxes and moving to eliminate the capital tax (both of which are more harmful to business than the marginal business income tax rate).

He'd also like you to forget that the federal corporate tax rate is higher than Ontario's, and that if the Tories had eliminated the same amount off of pretty much ANY OTHER TAX that they took off the GST it would have been better for the economy. He'd like you to be very forgetful that Mr. Flaherty.

And it makes me SO MAD.

Poke, poke, poke....

2008-03-25T09:46:00.003-04:00

It's as though the federal Tories think the sleeping Ontario bear will never wake up:

Political analysts and historians were baffled at Flaherty's bold interference in provincial politics.

"I can't remember a previous precedent. It's so unusual I'm tempted to say it's unseemly," said historian Michael Bliss of the University of Toronto.

The only similar feud he could recall were frequent barbs exchanged between former prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and Ontario premier Mitch Hepburn in the 1930s.

Political scientist Nelson Wiseman, also of the University of Toronto, speculated that Flaherty's Conservative government must be hoping to escape blame for future economic woes.
"They see the darkening economic clouds on the horizon and they want to deflect attention from the federal government stewardship of the economy onto Ontario."

We all know what's REALLY GOING ON. Those of us who don't remember will soon be reminded of what happened the last time Ontario became a "have not province" and became eligible to RECEIVE federal equalization payments (during the energy crisis of the 70s). Don't remember? The Feds CHANGED THE RULES RETROACTIVELY to prevent the province from ever receiving payments. That's right. Ontario isn't the only province to have never received equalization because we were never entitled to equalization. We're the only province that's never received payments because when we became eligible for payments, the feds changed the rules to cut us off. You see, Ontario funding everyone else's spending is fair, but everyone else helping Ontario in their time of need? We can't have that.

And what do the federal Tories TODAY plan to do to help Ontario during this global economic downturn that effects Ontario disproportionately? Well, according to TD Bank's Chief Economist "they seem to be bent on making Ontario's situation worse at the moment."

Great.

You know, when Quebec and Alberta feel hard done by the feds, they threaten to secede. Ontarians have always considered themselves Canadians first and Ontarians second, but how long are we expected to stomach a federal government that is more than happy to take our money and redistribute it to the rest of the country (to the tune of $20 billion a year) but feels that we should also be attacked and undermined for the privilege? Sooner or later, Ontarians are going to realize what their government could do with an extra $20 billion a year in their coffers. Maybe we could afford subsidized electricity rates like Manitoba. Or ultra low tuition for Ontario students like Quebec has (you're both welcome by the way). Whatever happens, I know one thing.

The federal Tories would be well advised to STOP POKING THE BEAR.

(H/T to Catelli at Not Quite Unhinged for the insight into the last time Ontario faced such worrying economic times. If you've forgotten already, allow me to remind you... the feds screwed us over).

Maybe it's not just Flaherty, maybe it's the entire Conservative Government...

2008-03-24T20:08:00.002-04:00

So, Adam Radwanski points out that it might not be JUST Jim Flaherty's naked ambition to take over the provincial Tories that is behind his stubborn insistence on poking the sleeping bear that is Ontario. It may just be federal Tory policy to bite at the hand that feeds.

Well gentlemen, by all means continue to point out that there are provinces in Canada where taxes are lower and spending is higher. Sooner or later, Ontarians are bound to realize that this is largely because they are being played for suckers. When things are quiet on the federal-provincial front between Ottawa and Queen's Park, we Ontarians are more than happy to swallow our underrepresentation in Parliament and continue to fund provincial spending from coast to coast (even when people in other provinces get subsidized electricity rates, or ultra low tuition rates on our dime). However, there is a point when even Ontarians (good federalists that we are notwithstanding) will get fed up.

The Tories have decided that it's not enough that Ontario is the Confederation's patsy, they've decided to actively rub our noses in it. They call our provincial leaders "small men" for suggesting we deserve representation by population. They say that they wouldn't invest in our province because our taxes are too high (never mind that we could lower taxes in Ontario significantly if we weren't sending $20 billion a year to Ottawa that is then redistributed to the rest of the country). And they broadcast to the world that we're on our way to becoming a "have not province" (to which, ironically, many Ontarians say "it's about time" - having become tired of being the only province in the nation to have never received equalization payments - we'd LOVE to know how it feels to have someone else pay the bills for a while).

So by all means, praise Quebec and B.C. for lowering taxes (partially with our money). Mock our dually elected leaders, and point out every day how the problems in the U.S. are dragging our economy down, and all you want to do is complain that we're not lowering taxes fast enough as a response. The people of Ontario aren't stupid. They know that 40% of the money the feds transfer to the provinces comes from Ontario, and that we only get 25% of those transfers back. They know that we send $20 billion a year to Ottawa that then disappears into the coffers of our neighbours (who, by and large, use it to pay for wonderful services we could never dream of funding in Ontario with what we have left over). They know that we have amongst the lowest per capita spending of any province in the nation, yet are still expected to subsidize our high spending neighbours. What's more, they know all of this and are quite happy for it to continue, so long as you don't piss them off. We're generally Canadians first and Ontarians second, and we're more than happy to do more than our bit.

But you'd best stop poking us.

Well, the Tories continue to poke the bear...

2008-03-24T16:12:00.002-04:00

Now, one might not have expected Flaherty to take my advice and STOP POKING THE BEAR, but this is getting ridiculous. Flaherty might as well be walking around with a sign hung around his neck saying "I'm going after John Tory's job, and I don't care who I have to hurt, or how I have to abuse my position as a Federal Minister to do it".

I'll tell the Harper Tories one more time. We may have put up with being the patsy of Confederation for a long time, (because we in Ontario consider ourselves passionate Canadians first, and "Ontarians" a distant second) but if you insist on rubbing our noses in it (and for blatantly partisan reasons to boot) I'm not sure how much longer we'll take it. I mean, think about why other jurisdictions in Canada can afford lower corporate tax rates while maintaining generally higher levels in per capita spending. In Alberta, the answer is two words: oil and gas. Everywhere else it's a one word answer: EQUALIZATION. Everybody else in Canada gets high spending and low taxes because ALBERTA AND ONTARIO PAY FOR IT. Now, Alberta doesn't mind right now, 'cause they're sitting pretty with oil revenues, and have a government in Ottawa at their beck and call (plus, they remember when they used to RECEIVE equalization, so I'm sure they're happy to return the favour). Ontario on the other hand is the only province in the nation that's never received equalization payments from the rest of the country. NEVER. All we ever do is PAY.

Historically, we've always been more than pleased to do so. The good of the many over the good of the few and all that (though it does appear as though Ontario is counted as "the few" when it's time to pay, and "the many" when it's time to receive) but even our generosity only stretches so far. The people of Ontario have always been willing to be underrepresented in Parliament while shouldering more than their share of the costs of our country's well being. But I'll tell you one thing.

The Feds had best stop poking the bear. That play never ends well for the poker.

Ontario: The patsy of Confederation...

2008-03-19T15:22:00.006-04:00

So, for a long, LONG time Ontario has been the quiet grizzly bear of confederation. We "Ontarians" don't think of ourselves as "Ontarians" at all, but as Canadians who live in Ontario. We accept equalization, in fact we're proud of our role in it. We accept that urban populations (of which Ontario is largely composed) will be underrepresented in Parliament, and that most of us will have less MP's voicing our concerns on the Hill per capita than people in most other provinces. We're federalists to the core.

However, we're not (in recent years) really all that conservative. And so, it appears, having given up on winning our support, the Harper Tories have decided to start poking at the sleeping bear.

We all remember when Premier McGuinty had the audacity to suggest that perhaps Ontario deserved representation by population in the House of Commons, instead of being underrepresented to the tune of over 20 MPs as we are now, and federal Conservative MP (and "Minister for Democratic Reform"!) called him the "small man of confederation" for even suggesting Ontario deserved fair representation in Ottawa (just keep your mouths shut and keep paying the bills, seemed to be the message). The latest poke is from (of course) Jim Flaherty, whose gone from running around telling people that my province is the "last place he'd invest in" if he were a businessman, to proclaiming that we're on our way to becoming a "have-not province". The last is particularly galling, given that he seems totally unconcerned as to why that might happen (Although, humorously enough, most Ontarians would probably LOVE to become a "have-not" province. As the only province to have never received equalization payments in the history of the program, a lot of folks around here would LOVE to start getting money from the rest of the country for a change!).

Ontario has long been the patsy of Confederation, and frankly, we were all quite happy to do our bit. But the Tories need to begin to realize that one can only poke a sleeping bear for so long.

Think about why Ontario might be struggling now, during this downturn in the economy, and how our citizens might feel about it. Murray Campbell summarizes things nicely in his column in today's Globe, "Is Ontario the patsy because of equalization?". Here's a snippet:

Consider just one fact: Ontario's growth rate in 2008 is estimated to be 1.8 per cent, but the equalization program that is largely funded by Ontario taxpayers will grow at a mandated 3.5 per cent. The scheme, which is directed by Ottawa, has grown from $10.7-billion in 2004-5 to $12.9-billion this year and will continue to grow at 3.5 per cent no matter how well Ontario's economy performs.

How smart is that? Not very, according to David MacKinnon, who believes that Canada's most-populous province is the patsy of Confederation. He believes that the country's "crazy quilt" of regional subsidies (not just equalization) is doing serious harm to Ontario and is also limiting the economic potential of the rest of the country. He believes many provinces have become addicted to Ontario's money and that this addiction has allowed them to build up a level of services they can ill afford. Why, he asks, can Manitoba spend $1.2-billion to subsidize electricity prices while it collects $1.8-billion this year in equalization payments? How can Atlantic Canada, with a population of just two million, afford 15 universities? The answer, he says, is the "tidal wave" of funding it gets from Alberta and from Ontario, whose taxpayers provide 44 per cent of federal revenues.

As MacKinnon points out, Alberta has a bit of a legitimate beef too (though, at least Alberta is paying in to an equalization system they once benefited from, Ontario's never done anything BUT pay) but these days, Alberta gets tax breaks for their wildly successful tar sands, nobody in the federal government would ever DREAM of doing something Alberta looks askance at, while struggling Ontario manufacturers get lectures from the Minister of Finance.

Ontarians have always been proud Canadians, and we've rarely complained that our money is being used to support programs in other provinces that we could never dream of affording here in Ontario (because we're paying for the other provinces' services - electricity rates subsidizing in Manitoba, ridiculously low tuition rates in Quebec, etc... etc... you're welcome by the way).

We in Ontario have always felt that such efforts were appreciated by the rest of the country, and that they knew we were doing our bit, and more (and I'm sure they do). At a certain point though, we're bound to get sick of this recent trend of getting nothing but contempt from the feds.

My advice to the federal Conservatives?

Stop poking the bear.

Obama treating Americans as adults...

2008-03-19T10:07:00.003-04:00

As Jon Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show last night, Barack Obama's speech on race in America yesterday was refreshing in that it showed an American politician speaking to the nation as though they were adults, not petulant children. He talked about race in all it's complexities, including not only the resentment and bitterness still evident in the African American community, but also about the resentment present in the white community. He talked about how these feelings are real, and must be confronted, rather than denied and ignored. He talked about finally having a dialogue and working together to address real feelings, and real inequities. He condemned some of the words of his pastor, without stooping to condemning the man who married him and baptized his children.

Obama (rightly I think) draws a line between condemning a man, and disassociating himself from a man, and condemning a man's words, and disassociating himself from that man's words. Partly, this is because this man has been like family to him over 20 years, and partly (we must admit) it's because condemning Reverend Wright would amount to sticking his finger in the eye of a large swath of the African American population (who, by and large, were not at all shocked to hear a black preacher speak that way). As Obama said, the most segregated hour in America is on Sunday morning. So, it is in that spirit of honest debate (rather than a partisan "tit for tat" or counter attack) that I ask how we all think John McCain should react to quotes like these:

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers ... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." - Jerry Falwell

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." –Pat Robertson

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this (the 9/11 attacks) because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this (the 9/11 attacks) happen.'" Jerry Falwell

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department

How do we feel about these quotes as opposed to the quotes by Barack Obama's pastor? How would we expect John McCain to react to these quotes? Would we expect McCain's reaction to be any different if he had a twenty year relationship with Robertson? If Jerry Falwell had presided over his wedding, or baptized his children? If his supporters pointed out that many white people hear this sort of thing in churches across America all the time?

For equal treatment, here's the worst of Reverend Wright's comments, imho. I think most of his comments, taken in context, aren't nearly as bad as the sound bites make one think, but this one's pretty bad:

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color".

Thoughts?

Let's have a discussion.

(UPDATE: Sorry, forgot to add the links for where I got the quotes. Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson Jeremiah Wright).

On Obama's speech and the right's hypocricy...

2008-03-19T08:29:00.004-04:00

Here's and excellent article by Frank Schaeffer on the words of Obama's minister and the hypocrisy of right wing white America's reaction to them.

Here's a snippet:

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.
Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (LINK )

Quick Quiz...

2008-03-13T16:56:00.004-04:00

Which of the following articles and columns makes Harper and the Tories look good?

Gomery Blasts Tory Government

"Witch Hunt" comment reduces parliamentary committee to chaos

Harper launches suit over Cadman affair

Jittery MPs fleeing from a ghost

If you answered "None of the above", congratulations!

You're totally right.

Free Brenda Martin.

2008-03-12T22:50:00.004-04:00

I hope all bloggers on all sides of the political spectrum will put aside our petty navel gaxing and do something, anything, to help a fellow Canadian in need.

Free Brenda Martin

Free Brenda Martin...

2008-03-12T22:33:00.001-04:00

I mean, honestly, what the Hell is up with Mexico these days???

I'd sooner vacation in Iran for God's sake.

Free Brenda Martin.

Canadian Brenda Martin still languishing in a Mexican jail...

2008-03-12T22:28:00.002-04:00

If you haven't heard the story of Brenda Martin yet you need to read about it. And get mad. Mad at Mexico, yes. Almost more importantly, mad at the Canadian government, and our apparently useless Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Helena Guergis.

I'd recommend you all stay the Hell out of Mexico, but with people like Guergis advocating for mistreated Canadians abroad I wouldn't leave the country to go ANYWHERE if I were you.

Obama wins Mississippi and Texas...

2008-03-12T10:17:00.004-04:00

So, it's not at all surprising that Barak Obama won Mississippi last night. However, it's also important to point out that the caucus race in Texas has now been called by CNN, and Obama will win Texas outright as well.

That's right. For all you've heard since last Tuesday about Senator Clinton's "big win" in Texas, when all is said and done there will be 99 Texas delegates at the convention for Obama, and only 94 for Clinton.

One wonders who's really the eternal "pie in the sky" optimist in this campaign - the person in the lead, or the person who claims a 5 delegate deficit as a major victory.

Controversy over Madonna's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame....

2008-03-10T14:21:00.006-04:00

So, Madonna is set to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and I am of two minds on this. First, let's set aside the obvious "Madonna isn't 'rock and roll'" argument. This is a straw man now given the Hall's history. If this is your argument against Madonna I won't say it isn't valid, it does have validity, but that battle was lost a long, LONG time ago.

First of all, there are some "purists" who would argue that REM (2007), Blondie (2006) or Michael Jackson (2001) aren't "rock and roll". Even for "purists" it would surely be difficult in the modern era to draw the line between "rock" and other genres. However, it's quite clear that the Hall of Fame is using a very loose definition of "Rock and Roll" and has been for some time. I don't think anyone could convincingly argue that Grandmaster Flash or Miles Davis are "rock and roll" but both of them are in the Hall. You can't say Madonna shouldn't be let in because her music "isn't rock" once you've already let in Miles Davis and Grandmaster Flash (well, you can of course, and more power to you, but that battle's long since lost).

So then, I think of Madonna's impact on popular music, and popular culture, and I figure, sure, of course she should get in. No brainer (given the elimination of argument #1 above). Totally deserved, and I have no problem with it (don't get me started on John Mellencamp though...)

HOWEVER, then I read the list of some of the people still waiting to get in to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:

Deep Purple, Steve Miller, Alice Cooper...

I mean, ALICE FREAKING COOPER for God's sake!!!

So, all told, my instinct is to say that Madonna is more than deserving of being in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, especially given their broad definition of "rock and roll", and considering that I'd put Madonna up there with a Michael Jackson, who's influence is such that even if they're not "rock" they probably deserve admission. Furthermore, given past precedent, it's not at all shocking that she's getting in. Not remotely. There's an argument for keeping Madonna out of the ROCK AND ROLL Hall of Fame. Surely that line was crossed back in 2000 though when Bonnie Raitt was inducted, wasn't it? (and, arguably earlier). That bridge is crossed, so I choose to live in the now.

What IS shocking though is that Deep Purple and Alice Cooper (ALICE FREAKING COOPER!!!) are not in yet. Steve Miller not being in shocks me too, and there are more still that probably would shock me as well. However, I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over an (in my mind) eminently qualified performer like Madonna getting in. It's not undeserved, imho, and I won't hold Madonna responsible for the sins of the induction committee.

Still...

ALICE FREAKING COOPER!!!!!

If you're having fun watching the Democratic nomination process down south....

2008-03-07T12:19:00.003-05:00

... you simply MUST check out Slate.com's Delegate Counter.

It let's you put in whatever hypothetical vote percentages for Clinton and Obama in the States between now and June, and shows you how the pledged delegates in those states would likely come out if those vote totals were real.

The bad news for Clinton supporters? According to the counter, if Mrs. Clinton wins EVERY SINGLE state (and Puerto Rico) between now and June 7th by an improbable margin of 60-40 (that's wins EVERY contest 60% to 40%) the pledged delegate count will be:

1613 for Obama
1596 for Clinton

Now there's NO WAY Mrs. Clinton will do that well. No way!!! So her only hope in Hell, it seems to me, is for the superdelegates to decide to give the nomination to the candidate who won fewer pledged delegates in the actual voting.

I just don't see that happening.

Bill Gates no longer the world's richest person...

2008-03-05T21:34:00.001-05:00

The King is dead.

Long live the King.

As the (apparently futile) attempt to impose libel chill on the Official Opposition continues...

2008-03-05T11:20:00.004-05:00

Some of Canada's media would like Mr. Harper to answer a few questions.

Both the Globe and Mail and CTV have a list of six questions that Harper and the Tories stubbornly refuse to answer about this whole incident (maybe they're too busy consulting with lawyers to find out if they can sue the G&M and CTV for daring to ask such questions!). The papers have two different sets of 6 questions, for a total of 9 unanswered questions.

The questions are:

1. Did anyone from the Conservative Party, or connected to the Tories, at any time offer Mr. Cadman financial remuneration if he would vote against the Liberal budget in 2005?

2. What did Stephen Harper mean when he said in a 2005 interview that "an offer" that included "financial considerations" was made to Cadman?

3. Why did the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservatives first deny an offer had been made to Cadman, only to later say a repayable loan was offered?

4. If Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley offered Mr. Cadman a repayable loan to help with his election expenses, what was the amount and what were the terms of repayment?

5. Why would the Conservatives have been offering Mr. Cadman the chance to run as a Conservative in Surrey North when a candidate had already been nominated in that riding and Mr. Cadman was dying of cancer?

6. Why, when asked about the offer of a $1-million insurance policy for Dona Cadman during a 2005 interview with a B.C. journalist, did Stephen Harper reply that he did not know the details but that "it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election?"

7. What did Mr. Harper mean when he said in that same interview: "I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind he was going to vote with the Liberals." Does that not mean that the offer was in exchange for a vote?

8. Why didn't Harper reveal last week that he told Dona Cadman more than two years ago that he didn't know about the alleged life-insurance offer?

9. What motivation would Dona Cadman, now a Tory candidate in her husband's former riding, have to fabricate a story about a life insurance offer?

I imagine if the Tories choose to continue to ignore these questions they'll come up eventually in a place where they can't avoid answering them. Such as, for example, that court room Mr. Harper seems so intent on meeting Mr. Dion et al in. Mr. Harper does know that if this goes to court he's not the only one who gets to ask questions, doesn't he?

Don't call it a comeback...

2008-03-05T08:06:00.003-05:00

(With apologies to LL Cool J).

Hillary Clinton's Primary wins in Texas and Ohio yesterday were (I suppose) impressive, but I'm not sure they deserve quite the accolades that all the "comeback" news would suggest. It tells me just how badly Mrs. Clinton was doing in this race that these wins are being touted so highly.

It wasn't long ago that Mrs. Clinton had a 20 point lead over Obama in Texas. The primary last night was so close that they hadn't called it yet before I went to bed. And the caucuses are closer still, with every possibility that Obama could end up winning them (67 Texas delegates are apportioned by the caucuses). Not long ago, Texas and Ohio were absolute locks for Clinton, and even her husband said she needed to win both to win the nomination. This morning, it's as though this is some unexpected miracle.

Most importantly, just where does the delegate race stand after Mrs. Clinton's remarkable "comeback"?

Obama: 1541
Clinton: 1438

And that's without the Texas caucus delegates.

Now, clearly these are big wins for Mrs. Clinton. After losing 12 primaries in a row, she could hardly afford to lose either Texas or Ohio. But she's still losing, and the margin between her and Obama in the delegate count is still skewed in her favour due to the number of "super delegates" who are supporting her despite their constituents voting to support Obama. If all we were counting was the voters, Obama's lead would be more substantial.

This is how I see this comeback (if you'll forgive the baseball analogy). Mrs. Clinton's home team was losing 12-0 in the bottom of the 7th inning. They staged a rally that some even called "a comeback" and now, it's the top of the 8th inning, and her team is losing 12-11.

Don't call it a comeback, until she comes back.

Will the Tories and Harper go 0 for 2 on libel suits...

2008-03-04T14:02:00.003-05:00

The last time the Tories were involved in a libel suit they were forced to settle out of court. It involved Allan Riddel to whom the Tories had promised $50,000 to step aside as the nominated candidate in his riding in favour of their preferred candidate Allan Cutler.

Of course, this $50,000 payment to Riddel wasn't a "bribe", it was simply financial considerations to make up for loses he incurred in securing the nomination in the first place. The $50,000 payment therefore being completely legitimate... (sorry for the delay... I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...) the problem really came when Stephen Harper, not once, but twice proclaimed that "in fact, there is no agreement and he hasn't been paid anything". This was news to Mr. Riddel, who knew he DID have an agreement for a $50,000 payment to step aside. Later, the courts found that he absolutely DID have such an agreement, and ordered the CPC to pay him his $50,000 (Mr. Ridell also sued Mr. Harper and others for libel for claiming that they never agreed to any payment, when they clearly had, and that suit was eventually settled out of court).

I don't know if this is an asset or a liability for Mr. Harper, but it does seem as though some Tory operatives are out there offering various people "financial considerations" for this, that or the other thing, and no one seems to be telling Mr. Harper that it's going on (that is if we ignore taped conversations in which Mr. Harper comes right out and SAYS he knows that is). If you're the leader of a political party, and members of your party are offering "financial considerations" to people without your knowledge (again, we'll humour the Tories and IGNORE THE TAPE) is this an advantage or a disadvantage? What's worse? That money's being tossed around without you knowing, or that money's being tossed around without you knowing? And what happens if an audio tape surfaces that shows that, even if you didn't know the details, you certainly knew that financial offers were being discussed by people "legitimately representing the party"?

I could perhaps be convinced that on two separate occasions members of the Tory party made financial offers to prominent people and that Mr. Harper had no idea it was going on (I'll play along with Mr. Harper's Oz-like pay no attention to the tape hypnosis). Does it make me feel better, convincing myself that Mr. Harper had no idea this all was going on? Not really.

Great article on the current state of the Cadman controversy...

2008-03-04T13:00:00.002-05:00

Don Martin writes a great piece in the National Post today on the Cadman Controversy, and how it's the Prime Minister himself who is doing the most damage to his own reputation by basically ignoring the fact that there is an audio tape of him saying some very uncomfortable things.

If you haven't read one of the fuller transcripts of Mr. Harper's taped interview, you definitely should!

Here are the bits (of his own words) that Mr. Harper really needs to explain:

"No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don't press him. I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it."

and

"the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election"

emphasis added

How do either of these statements square with Mr. Harper's current contention that he had no idea such an offer was made? Maybe he didn't know the precise details of what "financial considerations" were going to be offered, and in what form but he has stated in his own words that he knew there was a theory that Mr. Cadman's reluctance to force an election was based upon his "financial insecurity" and (again, in his own words) he has said, on tape, that he told members of his party who were "legitimately representing the party" to "make the case, but don't press it". So, what's the worse scenario? That the PM knew there was a financial offer being made to Mr. Cadman and is being disingenuous about his supposed ignorance after the fact, or this notion that he knew that people "legitimately representing the party" were going to make a financial offer to Mr. Cadman, but what he didn't know (or care?) waswhat form that offer would take?

To me, the tape sounds not at all like a man concerned that perhaps offering a sitting MP "financial considerations" in regard to his vote is unethical (or illegal) but of a man concerned that someone like Chuck Cadman might just drop kick someone out of his office for making such an offer. He doesn't, it's true, appear concerned that this is effectively an offer of a bribe. He DOES seem concerned that Mr. Cadman will perceive it as a bribe. In Harper's words "make the case, but don't press it". In other words, "see if he'll accept "financial considerations" to compensate him for the effect of his vote on his own financial situation, but don't let him get mad about our attempt to give him these "considerations". Well, everything we've read suggests that perhaps those men who were "legitimately representing the party" did press Mr. Cadman too hard, because no less than three members of his family have recounted three separate occasions in which Mr. Cadman expressed how angry the offer made him.

Also, as Jim Bobby points out, even if Harper didn't know about the offer when it was made (which seems to contradict his own recorded words above, but we'll leave that aside for the moment) he CERTAINLY knew about it 2 1/2 years ago, when Dona Cadman asked him about it. She looked him right in the eye and asked him about it. Now, Mrs. Cadman apparently believed the PM when he told her he didn't know about a financial offer being made (this contradicts his own words on tape, but we'll leave that aside, again) So, as before, let's take Mrs. Cadman at her word, and also assume that she's an astute judge of character and really did "see in his eyes" that Mr. Harper was telling the truth when he said this allegation was all news to him (again, this all works best if you pretend that pesky audio tape doesn't exist). So, the PM didn't know at the time that members of his party made offers of "financial considerations" to try to convince Mr. Cadman to vote with the Tories (remember, we're ignoring the taped conversation where he says he did know). Fine. Now, what did Mr. Harper do when he found out from Mrs. Cadman that this had indeed happened??? When she told him it had happened, Mrs. Cadman was satisfied that it was all news to Mr. Harper. I wonder, was she equally satisfied with his response to the news?

Did he even have a response?

Again, there are a lot of questions here, and as Don Martin points out, the PM isn't help by the tendency thus far of "Mr. Harper and his scripted sidekicks [to] keep up their Oz-like pay-no-attention-to-that-tape behaviour". Pretending the tape doesn't exist might SEEM like a good idea, but the Tories seem to have forgotten one thing.

Eventually, Dorothy looked behind the curtain.

On the Cadman controversy...

2008-02-29T17:55:00.002-05:00

No editorial comment yet, just these posts from Kady Omalley who's all over the story today:

Conservatives behaving caddishly.

Just to be perfectly clear ...

And that is why it's all the Liberals' fault...

Clan Cadman: Family of Oddly Specific and Internally Consistent Pathological Liars?

Thank God for men like Chuck Cadman. If it weren't for folks like him, I swear a story like this would make me want to burn Ottawa to the ground. (OK, that was an editorial comment. So sue me.).

Here's a great article on the Chalk River fiasco...

2008-02-23T15:02:00.002-05:00

... and the Tory's work to take down a nuclear safety regulator primarily concerned with nuclear safety, and replace her with a regulator primarily concerned with doing what the industry tells him to do: Canada's Nuclear Fallout.

The most interesting bit of the article is this:

Ms. Keen's suggestion that her overstretched commission would no longer prioritize prelicensing was seen as obstructionist.

AECL's private-sector partners, including SNC-Lavalin, GE Canada and Hitachi Canada, hired some of the best-connected lobbyists in Ottawa to carry that message forward; other industry members complained directly to the Prime Minister's Office, sources said.

"We've tried to communicate however we could to whomever we could, to make this point," said Patrick Lamarre, president of SNC-Lavalin's nuclear division.

Michael Burns, the B.C.-based wind power executive who Mr. Lunn appointed as chairman of AECL, began to lobby the minister, whom he said he spoke with once a week during his chairmanship, about addressing the problems with Ms. Keen and her commission.

"I told [Mr. Lunn] then the dysfunctional relationship was going to cause serious trouble for commercial operations at the company. I told him we were going to have a train wreck. And I gave him a plan to fix it," Mr. Burns said.

The goal, he said, was to induce the government to legislate an overhaul at the CNSC, including Ms. Keen's position. (emphasis added)

I mean, wow. Just WOW.

I once again apologize for doubting those who said at the time that this whole fiasco was a "manufactured crisis" cooked up by the Tories in collusion with AECL to take down a nuclear safety regulator who stubbornly refused to compromise nuclear safety for the sake of corporate profitability (or, put another way, INSISTED ON DOING HER JOB AS ESTABLISHED IN CANADIAN LAW).

Clearly, this WAS the plan all along. Create an apparent "crisis" and use this manufactured crisis as an excuse to neuter Canada's nuclear safety regulator. I didn't believe the Tories could be so crass, but today, I stand corrected.

What the whole Chalk River fiasco was really all about...

2008-02-22T14:15:00.005-05:00

I admit, I originally thought that the idea that the Chalk River "emergency" was actually a "manufactured crisis" was too far of a leap. Surely the government and AECL wouldn't conspire to create a false crisis just so that they could replace a nuclear regulator who's primary concern was nuclear safety, with a nuclear regulator who's primary concern was "doing whatever big business wants you to do". Then again...

Today, I realize that I'm just not cynical enough, and that I shouldn't just assume that our government would be more concerned about nuclear safety than kowtowing to big business just because they're "honourable" or "public-minded". Turns out, before Linda Keen's body is even cold, and while her federal court challenge to her firing is still pending the new Tory-appointed (turnabout is fair play) head of CNSC is bending over backwards to do EXACTLY WHAT AECL WANTS HIM TO.

Clearly the Tory plan all along was to gut a nuclear safety regulator with a spine in order to replace her with the more traditional "Anything you want Mr. Nuclear industrialist, Sir" regulator. I apologize to everyone who tried to tell me that the Tories were this crass.

Clearly, they are.

At this point, I don't see why the Tories don't just dismantle the CNSC and make the nuclear industry self-regulating. I'd rather have NO nuclear safety regulator than one with its collective heads so far...

Grrrrr.

JUST. SO. MAD.

Where the world stands on Kosovo's independence...

2008-02-21T19:06:00.002-05:00

This will obviously be in the news for a while, so I thought I'd let people interested in the story of Kosovo's declaration of independence know about this Wikipedia page which is tracking international reaction and has handy tables of who's pro-independence and who's anti.

As of right now, leaving out the all of the essentially "neutral" and "wait and see" countries (including our own, for now) here's where things stand:

States recognizing Kosovo's independence or planning to (those that have already done so are in bold) :

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Finland, Sweden, Afghanistan, Austria, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Pakistan, Turkey, Japan, Hungary, Senegal, Germany, Latvia, Norway, Malaysia, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the U.A.E.

States that have declared that they will not recognize Kosovo and States that have voiced concern (those that have merely expressed concern are not in bold):

Russia, Serbia, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka , Venezuela, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, China, Mexico, Phillipines, South Africa, Ukraine, New Zealand*

So there you have it. The pulse of the planet in a nutshell!

* Does not recognize unilateral moves. "It's never been the New Zealand Government's position to recognize in such circumstances. We will neither recognize nor not recognize". according to PM Helen Clark.

Wow, covering up allegations of torture by the Governor of Khandahar!

2008-02-01T08:20:00.000-05:00

So, our wonderful government had credible evidence that the Governor of Kandahar has been personally involved in torture ("involved" as in "personally beat prisoners").

Even worse, "Despite sharing the allegations with the Afghan government and outside agencies, Ottawa kept them from a Canadian Federal Court judge hearing a case brought by Canadian rights groups".

So, the good - when we learned of the allegations we (apparently) quickly (though, secretly) told the Karzai government (yeah, I'm sure they had no idea what their hand-picked Governor was up to!) the Red Cross, and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

The bad (and ludicrous) - Despite telling a foreign government (admittedly, the directly involved foreign government) the ICRC AND the AIHRC, documents mentioning the torture were HEAVILY redacted (the words "the governor" repeatedly purged from documents (and much more)) and the government cited "security concerns" for not sharing the evidence with a federal court judge? Security concerns??? We told not one, but TWO independent human rights organizations, but we had to withhold it from a Canadian federal judge for "security concerns"??? Our government considers a federal judge a higher security risk than the Red Cross and the Karzai government???

Ridiculous.

Two interesting and important facts about the detainee transfer issue:

2008-01-25T19:15:00.001-05:00

#1: NATO was kept in the dark.

"Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has asked Canada to explain its Nov. 6 decision to quietly suspend handing over detainees captured by the Canadian Forces to the Afghan government.

That detainee policy shift -- publicly disclosed this week in a Justice Department letter -- appears to contravene NATO's guidelines that Afghan detainees must be transferred within 96 hours, Canwest News was told Friday.

'This came as something of a surprise to us,' NATO spokesman James Appathurai said from Brussels.

'The policy that we have was developed with a very clear idea in mind and that is: this is a sovereign country in which we are invited guests. Therefore, it is not for us as NATO to create a separate parallel detention system.'"

#2. Dion thought you should know.

"In reply to a specific question by a reporter on what the military told him and deputy leader Michael Ignatieff on their recent trip to Afghanistan, Mr. Dion revealed that they certainly knew that the military had stopped transferring detainees.

'This is the other reason why I never believed their story that they were not aware,' Mr. Dion told reporters Friday.

He said he and Mr. Ignatieff 'forcefully disagreed' with Canadian Ambassador Arif Lalani's decision to keep the matter under wraps for reasons of operational security.

'We said this is information that Canadians should have and that they shouldn't get it from us, they should get it from the government since we don't have the right to repeat it,' Mr. Dion said, explaining that they agreed to the confidential briefing as a condition of their Afghanistan trip."

Interesting times.

A legend passes away....

2008-01-10T18:56:00.000-05:00

RIP Sir Edmund Hillary.

Lynn Spears to be named mother of the year...

2007-12-18T21:51:00.000-05:00

So, 16-year old younger sister of Britney, Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The father is her 19 year old boyfriend WHO SHE'S BEEN LIVING WITH.

You've got to give it to the Spears family. They stick together. When one implodes, they ALL implode!

There's a small part of me that feels bad about this.

Unfortunately, the rest of me is laughing too loudly to hear that part of me.

The Chalk River fiasco's REALLY starting to fall apart now for the Tories...

2007-12-18T09:37:00.000-05:00

So, not only did they appoint a party loyalist to head up AECL, they hired him against the advice of not one, but TWO independent hiring panels!!!

Apparently, under Paul Martin, an independent panel recommended that the AECL's acting Chair (Jean-Pierre Soublière) be given the position permanently (well, not PERMANENTLY, but on a non-interim basis... you know what I mean). However, it never went through because of the 2006 election. Now, once the Tories were in power they didn't want to take the advice of Martin's independent panel (and for the sake of full disclosure Soublière does have connections to the Liberals, and worked on John Manley's leadership campaign). So, fair enough, the Tories launched a SECOND independent head-hunting process (which, again, is TOTALLY their perogative, so I don't have a big problem with that). The SECOND independent panel (set up by the Tories) recommended the position be given to... acting Chair Jean-Pierre Soublière.

So, who did the Tories give the appointment to?

Former Canadian Alliance fundraiser Michael Burns.

At this point, I choose to believe that the Tories appointed Burns to head up AECL simply because they thought it would be a hoot for AECL to be headed up by "Mr. Burns". I know by doing so I'm ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of the Tories' move (given their baseless attacks on CNSC Chair Linda Keen for no sin greater than being "Liberal-appointed", and doing her job) and I'm turning a blind eye to reality.

But frankly, reality makes me throw up in my mouth a little, so I'll stick with the Simpsons angle.

Update: Accidental Deliberations points out Tony Clement's sudden reversal in his explanation of the reasons for Burns' resignation. On Sunday, Clement claimed it was just coincidence that Burns quit right in the middle of a major scandal in which a 50 year old AECL reactor was found to be operating for 17 months without all of the safety features required by their license (and which they had told nuclear regulators that they had installed). "Some times coincidences happen in politics," Clement said. "There was some indication that this might be coming up down the road." On Monday (a whole day later!) Clement claimed in a T.V. interview that the resignation was related to the Chalk River shutdown. “I think it's fair to say it confirmed our impression that there has to be new management, there has to be better management, at AECL.”

So,

Day one: "Nothing to see here, total coincidence!"
Day Two: "Look at us, fixing these terrible mistakes!" (of the guy we appointed against the advise of two independent panels).

I understand why he needed to change his tune, as the "it's totally a coincidence that he resigned in the middle of a well-publicized crisis" line was so laughable one could barely be moved to laugh! That he changed his tune so quickly though, on such an important issue, needs to get a lot more attention, imho. 'Cause to me, it's an important question. Are they incompetent, or just stupid?

Quick... which is the first head to roll as a result of the Chalk River fiasco???

2007-12-14T21:09:00.000-05:00

If you guessed "Liberal-appointed" CNSC head Linda Keen, you guessed WRONG.

Turns out, it's CONSERVATIVE-appointed (something I might not have emphasized had the PM not spent the last week trying to smear Keen with the "Liberal-appointed" tag!) AECL Chair Michael Burns.

I've got to say, more and more this looks like an AECL-orchestrated "crisis" (and dare I ask if the Tory government was in on it?) to try to tarnish the CNSC and shunt Keen to the side (given her annoying tenancy to not put nuclear safety aside to allow AECL's market value to increase so the government can get a good price when they sell large portions of AECL to GE) and it looks like it may have blown up in AECL (and possibly the Tories') face.

I think maybe there's a reason the Liberals have been relatively quiet on this issue up 'til now. Maybe they knew another shoe had yet to drop!

I have to say, I thought the idea that AECL manufactured this crisis to get rid of a pesky nuclear regulator who was finally standing up to the industry was a little sketchy at first. Now? Not so much!

I'm sure the Tories are going to try to still blame this all on Keen, but I have a feeling passing that buck just got a LOT harder!

The credibility gap...

2007-12-14T14:11:00.000-05:00

OK, so right now the Globe and Mail's online poll is "Whose testimony to the Commons ethics committee do you find more credible? Karlheinz Schreiber's or Brian Mulroney's.

At the moment, 81% find Schreiber to be more credible, and 19% find our former Prime Minister to be more credible.

Why such a huge gap (given that Schreiber is OBVIOUSLY so credibility challenged)?

I think it's this.

Schreiber's testimony is basically:

"I'm a slimy rich guy who spreads around money (other people's and my own) in order to maintain influence with my many "friends" in positions of power and influence around the world. I take pains not to create paper trails of these payments (which could be "misinterpreted") and, frankly, I give out so much money to so many influential politicians without ever keeping good track of it (deliberately) that my stories sometime fluctuate a bit.

Mulroney's testimony is basically:

"Scehreiber is a slimy rich guy who spreads around money (other people's and his own) in order to maintain influence with his many 'friends'. He's a well-established briber of public officials who is under indictment for influence peddling, and he's a shady character with no real credibility at all who's stories are constantly shifting...

...Oh, and that $225,000 he gave to me, in cash, and which I hid away in private safes and safety deposit boxes (studiously avoiding creating my OWN paper trail) and which I didn't disclose to anyone until right after Schreiber was arrested? That was, like, TOTALLY for legitimate work."

Yeah. OK.

Wow!

2007-12-14T13:35:00.000-05:00

As an addition to the Galloping Beaver's great post on Chalk River and the isotope fiasco, check out this article from the Toronto Star from yesterday!!!

What surprised me was the end of the article, which points out that the safety deficiency at Chalk River wasn't found by the nuclear watch dog group CNSC, but by AECL themselves!

"This supply was cut off when AECL shut down Chalk River three weeks ago, after suddenly "discovering" during a four-day maintenance shutdown it had been running the reactor for almost two years without safety upgrades required under the operating licence issued by the nuclear safety commission.

At a hearing last week before the nuclear safety commission, AECL vice-president Brian McGee said the company had voluntarily shut down the reactor because safety was the highest priority, despite disruption to world isotope supply."

I have to admit, the idea of this being a manufactured crisis designed to make life hard on CNSC (who have been holding up plans by AECL to open two NEW reators - which don't meet safety regulations yet - and therefore jeopardizing the sale of major parts of AECL to GE) did seem too horrible to believe.

Until, that is, I realized that AECL shut down the reactor THEMSELVES, and then blamed CNSC for not letting them restart it without actually doing any of the safety upgrades (one week, "safety was the highest priority" the next, CNSC was endangering the world's isotope supply, and THAT was the highest priority).

Fascinating!

The Prime Minister's right, someone DOES need to be held accountable for this mess. But I don't think it's CNSC that should be worried!!!

Wow! So, the Tories want to sell off AECL after shutting down Chalk River, and CNSC is making that harder?!?!?

2007-12-14T13:10:00.000-05:00

Well, good thing the nuclear safety regulator is under fire day after day! How fortuitous for the government that this crisis has arisen! Things couldn't have worked out better if they'd have PLANNED this!

Galloping Beaver has a great story on the Chalk River/Isotope fiasco which detalis information, and raises questions that I haven't heard about before!

Here are the top three paragraphs, imho (though, by all means go read the whole post!!!):

The Chalk River reactor and AECL have been getting a long, hard look from the Harper regime. Natural Resources minister, Gary Lunn has been in negotiations with General Electric in an effort to sell off a large chunk of AECL. The sudden and unexpected shut-down of Chalk River, not to mention the fact that two MAPLE reactors, (owned by medical isotope supplier MDS Nordion), are not yet commissioned, would give GE a moment of pause when considering a purchase.

Until AECL can get the MAPLE reactors running safely (they appear to have a problem with that), the only medical radioisotope supplier is the NRU facility at Chalk River. Once (if?) the MAPLE reactors are commissioned, AECL has every intention of shutting down the NRU Chalk River reactor permanently. When the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission demanded a safety upgrade it probably ran afoul of AECL's plans - and the plans of the Harper government to sell off AECL. The CNSC was calling for a fairly expensive upgrade to a reactor AECL would rather not be operating. The same regulator will not issue licenses for the MAPLE reactors until safety concerns with them are rectified.

How do you reassure a prospective buyer that the regulator will not be a problem? Push the regulator out of the way.

There is every possibility this is a manufactured crisis. If it isn't the Harperites don't have their eye on the ball and have tried to cover their own incompetence at not knowing what's going on in their own departments.

(emphasis added)

Andrew Coyne asks...

2007-12-14T10:12:00.000-05:00

Does Mulroney take us for fools???

Excellent question. As far as I can tell, it's either that, or the former PM himself is a fool.

Neither is a particularly savoury option.

Mulroney's Testimony...

2007-12-14T10:05:00.000-05:00

Either Mulroney is the dumbest and most naive former Prime Minister in the history of history, or we still need to keep digging...

You decide.

Polls, polls and more polls...

2007-12-14T09:41:00.000-05:00

I wonder how many polls the Tories will commission to find out if this will hurt them.

10?

20?

As Impolitical ponders just how bad are things for the CPC when they can't even count on a hand-picked former separatist to help them smear the Liberals!!! (Also, H/T to Impolitical for providing H/T's to all the other bloggers blogging about this. Check them out too!)

Man. People in glass houses should really buy curtains, eh?

Monstrous Canadian Copyright Bill not dead yet....

2007-12-13T10:30:00.000-05:00

Apparently, the American-entertainment-industry-driven / Canadian-citizen-blasting Canadian DMCA is about to rear it's ugly head again after it wasn't tabled in the House on Tuesday!!!

Online Rights Canada has a SUPER SIMPLE tool for you to write to your MP, and the Ministers of Industry and Heritage to express your displeasure! Use their suggested text or, better yet, personalize it and then send it off!

Also, consider printing out the email, and sending it via snail mail (you can write to your MP or any Ministers for free if you write to their Ottawa parliamentary office).

Furthermore, if you're on Facebook, join the over 21,000 of us in Professor Michael Geist's "Fair Copyright for Canada" Facebook Group. Also, consider adding the Fair Copyright for Canada Newsfeed application and display up-to-date recent news on the fight to stop the Canadian DMCA prominantly on your Facebook Profile.

You CAN make a difference. Speak up, and voice your opposition to a copyright law that favours industries over educators and lobbyists over librarians. Make sure the Tories are standing ALONE (and try to get sane Tory MPs to abandon ship!) if they try to pass this potentially damaging legislation through a minority parliament.

Crazy Canadian Copyright Bill stopped, for now....

2007-12-11T12:44:00.000-05:00

Apparently, the Tories won't table their industry-loving / citizen-attacking Copyright Bill today after all. The fight's probably not nearly over (and it's still at least possible the bill will be tabled later in the week) but I don't think that's likely!

Hat tips all around to:

Canadian Cynic
and
TheVanity Press.

Also, keep informed about efforts to infringe on your rights to use content you've legally paid for. Cliff at Rusty Idols points out that the Recording Industry Association of America (or, "NAMBLA") is arguing that "it is illegal for someone to copy CDs they've paid for to their computers or mp3 players".

Also, a once-removed H/T to "Recording Industry vs. the People" from whom Cliff gets the RIAA story.