Saturday, March 21, 2009

What the frak???

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.

Recommend this Post

Friday, December 05, 2008

Forget politics!

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

For 15 years!!!

LOL

That almost makes up for prorogation!

Recommend this Post

Dump Dion?

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?

Recommend this Post

Monday, December 01, 2008

If you support a Progressive Coalition Government...

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!!!).

Recommend this Post

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Conservatives win another election...

and the stock markets go down the tube again.

Coincidence?*





























(*probably)

Recommend this Post

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

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?

Recommend this Post

Our electoral system is still totally broken....

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.

Recommend this Post

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

My Election Prediction...

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.

Recommend this Post

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

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

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?

Recommend this Post

Thursday, September 25, 2008

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

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.

Recommend this Post

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Sarah Palin and the bridge to nowhere...

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".

Recommend this Post

Sunday, August 31, 2008

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

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!).

Recommend this Post

Thursday, August 28, 2008

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

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.

Recommend this Post

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Pretty darned good Olympics for Canada in 2008!

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.

Recommend this Post

Saturday, August 16, 2008

New 100m world record, 9.69!!!

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.

Recommend this Post

Three medals in a hour...

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!!!

Recommend this Post

Friday, August 15, 2008

Colin Powell to endorse Barack Obama???

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?

Recommend this Post

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

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

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.

Recommend this Post