Wednesday QP, short form

Liberal MP: Passports, what you guys gonna do?
Conservatives: Liberals did nothing, Liberals bad.

Liberal MP: Kyoto, what you guys gonna do?
Conservatives: Liberals did nothing, Liberals bad.

Liberal MP: Trade, what you guys gonna do?
Conservatives: Liberals did nothing, Liberals bad.

Liberal MP: Can we all join in wishing the Oilers good luck in the Stanley Cup finals?
Conservatives: Liberals did nothing, Liberals bad.

OK, I made that last one up. But you get the idea. :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hypocrisy watch

Jason Kenney just chided the Liberals in QP this afternoon, saying you don’t make progress for Canada by attacking the leaders of foreign countries.

I wonder if he offered this same advice to his buddy and fellow Conservative MP Rob Anders, when Rob said this:

"[Honouring Nelson Mendela is a] total political-correctness poster-boy thing... He was a Communist. He was a terrorist... The Liberals always deprive us unanimous consent on all sorts of provisions. They wouldn't allow us to honour the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen with regard to their wedding anniversary..."

- Conservative MP Rob Anders, explaining why he voted against a resolution to make former South African president Nelson Mendela an honourary Canadian citizen, June 6th, 2001.

Or this:

"I don't think that, you know, anybody would argue that if Nelson Mandela was saying, you know, 30 years ago, that you should go around with matches and necklaces and strangle people or burn them out of their homes, that is not terrorism."

- Conservative MP Rob Anders after blocking a resolution to declare former South African president Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, June 11, 2001. Anders also implied that South Africa was better off during Apartheid than it is today

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Remember the heartlands

After moving to the centre of the universe, aka Toronto, a year ago I’ve been back in B.C. this week, visiting family in a rural riding in British Columbia. And it reminds me of the urban/rural divide, and of an opportunity the leadership candidates are missing.

Speaking to my Liberal friends here about the leadership, nearly every one at this point is still sitting on the fence. There just isn’t a lot of interest of excitement about the leadership race out here, even among the party diehards.

I think many are waiting for a little attention from some of the candidates, or any of the candidates. And I don’t mean a phone call, but an actual visit to the riding. There’s a reason door knocking in a general election campaign is so important: many people will still vote for the candidate that came to their door and talked to them, that personal contact means a lot.

Each riding elects the same number of delegates to the leadership convention, and you can bet it’s a hell of a lot harder to get a delegate spot in a major city than it is in a rural riding. In the same way, it’s also way easier for a campaign to get a delegate elected in a rural riding. It takes a lot fewer votes to elect your slate in a riding with a few hundred members than it does in a riding with thousands.

And strategy aside, I think the leadership candidates and the party would benefit from getting out of the cities and into the heartlands, and being exposed to the issues and concerns of rural Canadians, and rural Liberals.

I hope that, certainly once the House adjourns for the summer, the leadership candidates will venture out of the cities and start to visit more rural ridings across Canada, and meet with rural Liberals and rural Canadians.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question Period

Being on vacation this week, I’ve had a chance to catch a bit of question period (yes, I'm cool, I know). But it’s the first chance I’ve had to really get a look at the new dynamics since the election.

*The more things change, the more they stay the same: The two main parties may have flipped sides but the script for each side seems to have remained the same. The opposition earnestly asks pointed questions, the government deflects and doesn’t come close to answering them.

*What are you wearing? I’m no fashion expert, as anyone who has met me in person will surely attest, but tan suits just don’t work on anyone, except maybe in the Southern United States in the 1800s. MPs do get a clothing allowance, don’t they?

*It’s Bill Clinton’s fault: I lost track of the number of times the government answered a question from any of the opposition parties by simply blaming the previous Liberal government. I think Paul Martin might even have been accused of being responsible for the Maple Leafs poor season. This is a standard defence for new governments, I just wonder how long they plan to (or think they can) get away with it.

*NDP=Holier than thou: I’m no Volpe fan, and this whole fundraising thing looks to be stupid and fishy to me, but within the rules. Investigate? Fine, I don’t care. I find it amusing though that Pat Martin also wants the investigation to go back to 2004, but only to look at Liberals. Why not include all parties Pat, and go back to, say, the mid 1990s if you really, truly are all about fairness and all that? I’m sure Jack has nothing to hide, and Stephen and Peter wouldn’t mind. Speaking of which, did we ever find out why paid-off Peter’s leadership debts?

*Kiddie bench: And is it just me, or does Peter McKay just look too young to be a minister of the crown? Maybe a goatee would help. The glasses help a bit.

*Separated at birth? Serge Menard (BQ) and David Emerson (check today’s scorecard for latest party affiliation), long lost brothers?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Correcting the Globe and Mail

From today's piece in the Globe on Harper's so-called Senate reform plan (which I don't see how he'll do without opening-up the constitution):

Mr. Harper has already said he would never appoint a senator, meaning that, as senators leave the Red Chamber, numbers would shrink and vacancies would remain open.

What you meant, Brian Laghi, is he would never appoint a senator AGAIN. I invite you to search your archives for "Michael Fortier." You may also want to add the search term "flip flop" to your search to further narrow down the results.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Our religion is better than your religion, says Stock

Our good friend Stockwell Day took a break from keeping the public safe last week to speak to a prayer breakfast in Edmonton, and over the sticky buns (Danishes, perhaps?) the subject of the Da Vinci Code came up.

It seems from the news account that most of his comments made a lot of sense. He basically said the book is good because it is raising people’s interest in religion and the church, and that Christianity is up to the challenge of a little critical questioning. I agree. People are talking about religion and examining their own faith, that’s a good thing and it’s an opportunity for the church to enter into a dialogue with the public.

Now let’s move on down to the end of the story, to what we folks in journalism like to call the kicker. Here Stock seems to go over the line, and I think it’s readily obvious why.

In an apparent reference to the violence sparked by recently published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, Day noted Christians have been restrained in their opposition to Brown's debunking of Christianity.

"I haven't seen the clerics order that the movie studios be destroyed or that the newspaper places be burned down," he said. "Isn't it great that the message of Jesus Christ is one of love and tolerance?"

Sigh. And you were doing so well, Stockwell!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The 6th priority: Let’ kill all the judges!

The first thing we'll do: let's kill all the lawyers. For the Conservatives, apparently after all the lawyers are dead they plan to move on to the judges. You know the ones, those lily-livered, soft on crime, Liberal friendly, pot smoking, gay-marryin, property rights not protectin' judges.

The evidence is mounting. Our illustrious Justice Minister (who is no stranger to judges and the justice system himself), Vic Toews, followed his leader to Vancouver this week. I’m not sure how long Vic was in town, but it was long enough to warn the good people of Van-city that they are under siege…from lenient judges. According to Vic, the criminals are flocking to Vancouver, not only for the warm weather but also because the sentences are so low.

"People like to come here because the weather is fine and the sentences are low," Vic Toews joked during a warmly received luncheon speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade. The former Manitoba attorney-general also suggested that individuals who rob a bank in his home province would likely flee to this region to "get house arrest" in British Columbia.

I know I plan to knock off a liquor store before I go back to the T-Dot.

I also enjoyed the rest of the story, after a defence lawyer rightly called Toews’ tough talk crass vote buying and noted that while the Cons would reap political credit for getting tough it would mean increased costs to be borne by the provinces, when the piece mentioned that, you know, actual statistics show the crime rate in Canada is actually declining. Statistics be dammed, Vic Knows better!

He also disputed statistical data that the crime rate is steadily declining in Canada. He said the violent-crime rate is comparable with U.S. cities, and told the Board of Trade audience that Vancouver has the highest property-crime rate in North America, followed by Winnipeg.

In fact, Regina has the highest property-crime rate in Canada, followed by Abbotsford and then Vancouver. Winnipeg is fifth, according to Statistics Canada. While property-crime rates in Vancouver are above those of many U.S. cities, the murder rate is significantly lower and half that of New York, for example.

Statistics released by the Vancouver Police Department, which has had a nearly 15-per-cent budget increase in the past three years, indicate that violent crime is not rising.

Mr. Fowler described the government's insistence that communities in Canada are increasingly unsafe as "intellectually dishonest," yet effective politically. "It is a debate based on a fiction. Politics is about dealing with public perception, not the reality. The realities don't lead to votes."

So, we’ve established that judges are the real problem with our criminal justice system, what do we do now? Cut their pay, of course! What about that independent body created to set judicial salaries free of political interference? Screw that, political interference and cutting judges salaries will make for safer streets, right?

With the way they’re talking about journalists these days, I just hope there’s no way he can cut my pay. Warning Stephen: if you try I'll opt out of equalization!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Quick random thoughts

After leaving Seattle I’ve traveled up the coast to the lovely Comox Valley on Vancouver Island for a quick vacation with the family. So the BCer is back in BC, if only for a week. Still, the birds are chirping, and it’s nice to see the mountains and the ocean again.

And it’s tough to think about politics at all, but here’s a few random thoughts on some of the pieces of news that have come my way in the last few days.

Harper and the media: As a journalist I’m generally inclined to side with the media in these disputes, and Harper is behaving like a dumbass here. But with their walkout last week, so are the media. No one looks good here, the public dislikes them both. Now neither has much claim to the high ground. But rather than go on at length, I’d like to this week’s Touchdowns and Fumbles (scroll to PM to Shun Journalists), which I thought put it well.

PM backs down on policy for the fallen: Harper says that he has changed his mind and now the families if fallen soldiers will decide whether the media can be present for the repatriation ceremonies at CFB Trenton. Given the grief he has gotten from some of the families, it makes sense for him to revisit this. But, when this policy was first announced, didn’t he say then that it was up to the families? Tough thing to be caught fibbing on.

Fixed election dates: I’ve already blogged on why I’m opposed to fixed election dates, and they’re meaningless in a minority anyway. I find the Harperspeak on this issue amusing though: this will stop leaders from manipulating the election calendar for political purposes, but he’ll call an election anyway if the opposition don’t follow his political agenda, if and when it suits his purposes. Alrighty then.

The power of Christ compels him: When God isn’t sending hurricanes to New Orleans to punish the sinners for gay marriage and abortion, He/She is giving Pat Robertson the strength to leg-press 900 kilos. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Seattle urinals: What’s the deal mate?

As my handful of regular readers will know I’m currently in the Emerald City, Seattle, on a business trip covering a Microsoft conference.

For those interested, they still insist Vista will be available for the enterprise in November and consumers in January. I also have a beta of Office 12 I'm going to play with next week and may post some thoughts on.

Been having much fun outside of work though. It's a lovely city. Today, a few of us went down to the Space Needle. It’s no CN Tower, but it’s really cool, and a nice view. Unfortunently we didn't realize that was the Sci-Fi museum next door, when we checked it out it was closed.

I’ve been here since Sunday , heading up to British Columbia tomorrow to visit the family, but last night over drinks someone finally brought up a question I’ve been wondering, and it turns out all the other (guys) in the group have too: what’s the freakin deal with the urinals in this city?

Take a look at this pic (which I did not take, and won’t reveal who did) and you’ll see what I mean. It’s freakin huge, it comes three feet out from the wall!

I’ve used the facilities at four different public places in Seattle: the Westin Hotel, the W Hotel, the convention centre and Safeco Field. Same urinals at all of them. I mean, how do you use these things?

Do you spread your legs and straddle them? Do you hang back and have no privacy at all? I feel like Paul Hogan in that first Crocodile Dundee movie.

Craziness I say, craziness!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dion on electoral reform

Along with a number of other bloggers, I participated in a conference call yesterday with Stephane Dion. This call was for supportive bloggers (calls with other bloggers will come soon) and I thought it was a great call, with a lot of good questions on a range of topics and thoughtful, insightful answers from Mr. Dion.

As mentioned I have declared my support for Mr. Dion, so my bias there is clear. Still, given my day job I approached the call as a journalist. My day job is also why I’m a bit late with this post, being in Seattle right now for a Microsoft conference. If you want to read all about Microsoft’s shift to 64-bit computing, click here.

But seriously, back to the call. I’ll let the other bloggers on the call post on their questions to Mr. Dion. I asked two questions: one on the recent polling numbers and one on electoral reform.

Polling

Briefly, on the recent Ipsos numbers showing the Cons widening the gap, he said polls can change very quickly, pointing out where the Conservatives were in the polls last year. If we stick to our message, once we have a new leader in place he expects us to take the lead again. He added though that we need to present a vision to Canadians, not just attack Harper and wait for him to fall on his face.

My take: I agree with him on the vision part and on the volatility of polls, but I fear many in our party continue to underestimate Harper. I think the gap evidenced by the recent Ipsos poll can’t be attributed to a Conservative honeymoon or the Liberals being leaderless any longer. His attractive but empty policies are resonating with Canadians, and I think we need a better communications strategy to expose their shortcomings.

Electoral Reform

My second question dealt with electoral reform. I mentioned that many Canadians, particularly youth, are disenchanted with politics and feel disenfranchised by our current first past the post system. With electoral reform well underway in B.C, and now beginning in Ontario, I asked if he would be supportive of a similar exercise at the Federal level. Here’s his answer:

“There is one strength of our electoral system, and that’s giving clear accountability lines. You know who is in power and who’s the opposition. There’s no in between. If the Liberals are in government you know who to fight or who to blame, and the same for the Conservatives when they are the government. In the PR system everybody is in the government and in the opposition at the same time and you don’t know who is responsible for what. There are moving coalitions all the time. Each electoral system has its shortcomings and its strengths, and we need to keep that in mind.

What I dislike in (the current system) though is the over-exaggeration of regional concentrations of the vote. With 50 per cent of the vote in Ontario we have been able in the past to have almost 100 per cent of the seats, and with 1/3 of the votes in the West we were unable to have a significant number of seats. It gives the sense we’re a party for Ontario and a party unable to have support in the West, when it’s not really the case.

One day, assume that you have a government elected where it is Quebec that is out of the government because of this electoral system, with 25 per cent of the vote, and the government has no or few seats on Quebec, and you have a separatist leader trying to have a referendum at the same time. This would be very dangerous for the country.

Because of that, I’m open to consider (electoral reform), and to be frank with all of you I wrote a piece…that will be published soon advocating for consideration for a system that would be very close to the German one, that means you would have a threshold of five per cent to receive compensatory seats, and the compensatory seats would be given on a PR system. I don’t have time to explain it (all) today on the phone, but I’m open…to consider a change in the electoral system.

I don’t think a (leadership race) is a good opportunity to (have that debate), but the one who will be in power will be in a position to study the results of the current consultations about that, and to have an open debate about ways to keep the strength of the current system while having some corrections for the exaggeration of the regional vote that we have now.”

My take: I get the sense he isn’t too keen on the single transferable vote model that the citizen’s assembly in B.C. settled on, but I was glad to hear he is supportive of some significant action toward electoral reform. I’d mainly considered the question an the provincial level so the question of regional over-representation wasn’t one that I’d thought of before, and I thought he made a very good point there. Overall, I’m glad to learn of his willingness to explore this topic and to hear that he has already taken some steps down that road, and I look forward to reading his paper on that topic when it is published.

Certainty his insightful, thorough and well considered answers to all the questions posed by the bloggers served to give me a better sense of the man and where he’s coming from, and reinforced my belief that I was right to support him and that he is the man to lead our party, and hopefully soon the country. I thank Rob, Jason and Denise for organizing the call and I look forward to future opportunities.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A night at Safeco

As mentioned I'm in Seattle for Microsoft's Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WINHec). The conference officially gets underway Tuesday with a keynote with chairman Bill. Today was spend in a daylong look at some of the new features coming up in the new Windows Vista Operating system, which is still slated for enterprise availability toward the end of November and consumer availability in January.

Tonight, though, the good folks at Microsoft took the media to a Seattle Mariners game against Baltimore at Safeco Field. The overcast, drizzly Seattle weather cleared long enough to make for a perfect sunny night for baseball, with the roof open. It's just a beautiful ballpark, very much in the style of the new old style parks in San Francisco, Cleavland and Baltimore, among others. For sure a cut above Toronto, Oakland and the late Big Owe in Montreal, the other major league parks I've visited.

A few pics from my night at the ballpark follow.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Polling on the gun registry

Having escaped from gun happy Florida unscathed, after a day back in the T-Dot I'm back on the road, this time in rainy overcast Seattle. Add in the mountains and it feels just like home.

Interesting polling results from Ipsos today on support for the gun registry, in the wake of the AG’s report last week and Constable Stock's plan to scrap it if necessary but not necessarily scrap it.

In a nutshell, most of the country says scrap the long gun registry, but keep the handguns registered. The exceptions: Ontario and Quebec. When you factor those two population heavy provinces, overall, country is split.

Unsurprising, really, as I suspect if the results were to be broken down even further it would again be shown to be an urban/rural divide.

There’s some interesting figures. For example, some 48 per cent want to maintain a handgun registry but support killing the long gun registry, while 47 per cent said keep them both. An earlier Ipsos study that didn’t separate handguns from long guns showed 67 per cent didn’t want the gun registry scrapped; that really underscores the difference in opinion on handguns vs. long guns.

I don’t think there’s any way you can call 48 per cent of Canadians gun nuts. They’re not. They support the handgun registry; they just don’t see why long guns should be included. The gun nuts are those that say kill the handgun registry too (I didn’t see any stats on that). There won’t be any pleasing them, it’s like religion for them. From my cold dead hands, and what not.

Ont., Que. out of sync on gun registry, new poll finds
Carly Weeks, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, May 22, 2006

OTTAWA -- More than half of Canadians in Western and Atlantic provinces support the Conservative government's intention to scrap the long-gun registry, while more than 50 per cent of people in Ontario and Quebec want the registry to remain intact, a new poll shows.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Spinning Afghan poll: Nat Post: Support firm. Otw Cit: Canada divided.

Yesterday, polling firm Ipsos Reid released the results of a poll it had conducted (for Global and the National Post) on the support of Canadians for our presence in Afghanistan, and the Harper government’s recent two-year extension/exercise in wedge politics.

The top line results: “Canadians Support Afghanistan Mission (57%) But Not Keen On Two Year Mission Extension (44%).”

Ok, interesting. There’s the basic facts, now how will the different media outlets with their different biases and prejudices, report these facts?

Here’s a sampling of how two newspapers, owned by the same company, covered the same poll this morning. Yes, the same poll. And more astoundingly, both stories are written by the same guy! Yes, the same guy wrote two articles on the same poll, both taking wildly different views.

Now, in fairness, it’s entirely possible that the editors at the National Post took the Citizen’s story off the internal wire and re-wrote it to fit their propaganda aims without the writer’s consent. I don’t know. But still, WTF?

The Ottawa Citizen
Headline: Mission divides Canadians
Excerpt: Canadians are deeply divided over the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan, a new poll shows, a division made worse by the decision to extend the deployment another two years.

The National Post
Headline: Support for afgan (sic) mission remains firm
Excerpt: Support for Canada's troops in Afghanistan remains relatively high, according to a new poll, which shows 57% of respondents backing the mission despite an increase in casualties.

It was an exclusive poll for Canwest Global so their media empire at first crack at it, but given the range of coverage within just their stable of publications (actually, only the Post tourqed it, the others are in line with the Citizen's, running their version of the story) I look forward to seeing how it’s covered elsewhere.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is Constable Stock still tackling crime or not?

Scrolling through my e-mails yesterday and saw a press release from the Feds titled "Government of Canada launches "Tackling Crime" website", and just over an hour later the release was retracted with a Kill Bulletin, indicating the release had been sent in error. Perhaps they're not tackling crime after all?

Seemed a little unusual, so I clicked on the site just to see if it was live yet or not. It was. According to the killed press release, its purpose is to “give Canadians information on measures the federal government is putting into place to help ensure public safety and security.”

Click on the site and you see that translates as “taxpayer-funded advertising for the Conservative Party of Canada.” Expect such a site might have resources and tips for Canadians to keep themselves safe, or help them get information and access to law enforcement services? Yeah, not so much.

But, continuing the government’s new Conservative-blue Web site design (blue: Canada’s other other official colour) we get the infamous five priorities, a big picture of Stockwell Day, and press releases about all the good stuff the Conservatives are doing to tackle crime, like killing the “costly and ineffective” gun registry.

Well, with Stock on the job, I feel safer already. But isn’t the use of taxpayer dollars to regurgitate party talking points the sort of thing he used to tut tut? I’m just saying.

Transmitted by CNW Group on : May 19, 2006 13:53
/K I L L B U L L E T I N - Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada/

OTTAWA, May 19 /CNW Telbec/ - We are advised by Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada that editors should disregard c9975, "Government of Canada launches "Tackling Crime" website", transmitted at 12:38e today. The item was sent in error and should not be used.
-30-

Transmitted by CNW Group on : May 19, 2006 12:38
Government of Canada launches "Tackling Crime" website

OTTAWA, May 19 /CNW Telbec/ - Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has launched a new website highlighting one of the Government of Canada's five key priorities - tackling crime. This one-stop source of information will give Canadians access to information on the government's efforts to keep Canada's communities safe from gun, gang and drug violence.

The website www.tacklingcrime.ca brings together information from the key departments of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) and the Department of Justice Canada as well as PSEPC portfolio partners the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency.

"Safe streets and safe communities are the foundation of happy, secure families and a strong economy," said Minister Day. "We have promised to work hard to get tough on crime and we are doing it."

The website is designed to give Canadians information on measures the federal government is putting into place to help ensure public safety and security. These initiatives include enhanced law enforcement resources, efforts to educate at-risk youth in order to prevent crime and criminal justice reforms.

"Canadians want action to reduce the threat that our streets and communities face as a result of gun and gang violence," said Minister of Justice Vic Toews. "This website will provide details on our justice reforms and initiatives, which will mean real results for Canadian communities."

"The launch of the website during Police Week is also symbolic of the contribution law enforcement officers and prosecutors make to safe streets and neighbourhoods," said Minister Day. "By working together we can make law-abiding citizens and their families more secure."

-30-

/For further information:

Media Relations: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, (613) 991-0657; Mélisa Leclerc, Director of Communications, Office of the Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, (613) 991-2863/

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Airline potpourri

I find myself again in the departure lounge of the Orlando airport on my way back to Toronto, this time via Charlotte. I won’t be in Toronto long though. On Sunday I’m on the road again, off to Seattle for Microsoft’s WinHEC conference.

I’ve been doing a lot of traveling of late, and with all the bad things you hear about air travel I thought I’d share a few of the things I like that the different airlines do.

Air Canada
I’ve flown on their new Embraer regional jets a few times in the last little while. Since I covered the Bombardier/Embraer feud in the late 1990s I was prepared not to like them, but I much prefer it to Bombardier’s regional jets, which I found compact and confining. The E-75 is quite spacious and comfortable. And I really like the in-seat video on demand for us plebes on coach class. It’s a bit finicky and they don’t have the news on it yet, but a movie or an episode of The Office really helps pass the time.

United Airlines
Their snack pack offerings are my favorite so far. And I really like the “in the cockpit” feature on the audio system. It lets you listen in to the cockpit’s communications with air traffic control and the tower. It’s fun to hear what’s going on.

US Airways
Flew US Air down here for one leg and I’m waiting to board them now for the flight back. Was an older Airbus coming down and minimalist service, including no movie or inflight entertainment, but they did cycle through questions from the board game Cranium on the TV screens. Was a fun way to pass the time as I listened to MP3s.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cry baby Harper, part 33: Where can I go now for John McCallum impressions!?

After doing his best to piss on the Parliamentary Press Gallery since his election, despite what seemed like a Conservative love-in during the election campaign, Stephen Harper, shocked that the media don’t like being smacked around, reportedly plans to register his displeasure at what he hath sown by refusing to attend the next Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner, Nov. 25 at the Museum of Civilization in Hull, aka Gatineau.

According to CTV it’s “a move he's considering in order to register his displeasure with an ongoing disagreement his office has with Parliament Hill journalists over the way his press conferences ought to be conducted.”

CTV adds “He will not insist that other caucus members boycott the Press Gallery dinner but many Conservative MPs and nearly all cabinet ministers are expected not to attend the dinner to show solidarity with their boss.”

My god he’s a whiny little sissy, isn’t he? Say what you will about Dubaya, and I’ve said plenty (although not more while I’m still in Florida, God bless President Bush, and his brother Jeb, the next El Presidente) but at least he had the gonads to go to the Washington press dinner and take his lumps from Stephen Colbert (speaking of someone with gonads.)

I mean, how petulant is this? You go out of your way to pick a fight with the media, you then express shock when they get annoyed, and then skip you the dinner in protest? Forget taking a punch, he can’t take a word of constructive criticism.

As CTV noted, Pierre Trudeau was the last PM to skip the dinner. Is this his role model? Most Conservatives I’ve talked too think Pierre was a dick. (Me, I think Pierre kicked ass.)

And besides, what does he hope to gain here? I’ve always thought Stephen has come off well at these dinners. They’ve served to humanize him, to show that he has a human side and has a sense of humour. I’m not sure how much mileage one can get out of an impression of John McCallum (maybe if John had run for the Liberal leadership Stephen would have gone) but still, it was a darned fine impression.

Anyway, since Stephen seems to be following Pierre’s lead, I wonder how long it will be before he gets off a train in North Bay and gives Ontarioins the finger? Oh, fuddle duddle!

Harper may snub annual press gallery dinner
Updated Thu. May. 18 2006 11:33 PM ET
David Akin, CTV News

Ottawa -- The prime minister may snub the annual Parliamentary Press Gallery dinner this fall, a move he's considering in order to register his displeasure with an ongoing disagreement his office has with Parliament Hill journalists over the way his press conferences ought to be conducted.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A sad spectacle

It's hot and humid outside and freezing cold inside the conference centre, but that’s Orlando. Between trying to learn the difference between enterprise services architecture and service oriented architecture I've been trying to keep in touch with news on the Afghanistan debate back in Canada. And it sounds like it was a pretty sad spectacle.

As I posted the other day I believe we should be in Afghanistan. I’ve believed that from the start, and I’d been meaning to post about it for some time. I felt and feel that slipping public support was because the public hasn’t been engaged in a proper debate on the mission. That farce we had in Parliament was not that debate, and will do nothing to raise public support for the dangerous but essential work the men and women of our armed forces are doing there.

This was about politics, pure and simple. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are playing political games with the deployment of our troops in a war zone, seeking to drive wedges into the Liberal Party in the middle of a leadership race. Smart politics? Sure. Good governing? Not so much. Disgusting? You betcha.

Why the rush to a vote? Why not have a proper debate, committee hearings where we hear from learned experts on the work we’re actually doing over there and where ordinary Canadians have a chance to make their voices heard? If Harper had really wanted to raise public support for the mission and show support for our troops, that’s what he would have done.

I was disappointed to see the number of Liberals that voted against the mission. I was disappointed, and I think they should still have voted yes, but I understand. Some of them are probably just against the mission on principle, but I believe many voted no because they couldn’t stomach the cynical political games that Harper was playing with a hurried, uninformed process. People should make no mistake: most Liberals support this mission. We launched this mission in the first place. What we don’t support is using troop deployments as political wedges for partisan reasons.

As to those who think we should just pack-up and go home, I respect your opinion but I disagree. Sometimes the mission needs to be peacemaking, not peacekeeping. It’s easy to say we’re for human rights everywhere; it’s harder to do something about it. Sometimes it means getting your hands dirty. I think, and I think our soldiers do too, that it's worth it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cry babies on the right

It seems Gwyn Morgan’s feelings were hurt because the opposition parties had issues with his public statements, and didn’t bow and scrape and kiss his feet when he deigned to come before them on his way to heading Harper’s public appointments commission.

Look at the guy’s record; I can’t imagine why the opposition might have had a few questions. Boo hoo, Gwyn. From their conduct in this affair one thing is clear, and another Harper flip-flop is revealed: he can’t take a punch, and neither can Morgan.

The ironic thing is that it’s the Conservatives that supposedly want us to move more toward an American system, which has Congress review many of the major appointments by the executive branch. You think this committee hearing was political? Not by a long shot. Harper appointed a dud. The system worked.

Perhaps Gwyn Morgan and David Emerson can get together somewhere and have a big pity party. Those two are perfect for each other.

PM's rejected nominee deplores treatment
Opposition attacked personal character, Gwyn Morgan says
BILL CURRY
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — There is no individual in Canada who would take an appointment that involves a public grilling by a Commons committee after the "vicious" treatment he received on Tuesday, Gwyn Morgan said yesterday.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Long guns aren’t handguns

This may surprise some of my Liberal friends but I don’t have a problem taking rifles and shotguns (the so-called long guns) out of the gun registry, although I do strongly support the gun registry as a concept and believe it should remain with handguns registered and restricted.

There’s really a cultural divide on this issue, and it falls along urban and rural lines. In the cities, concerned about crime committed with (mainly hand) guns, the impulse was to ban all guns. In reaction to Ecole Polytechnique it was a worthy impulse.

In developing the policy though, the Liberal Party’s predominately urban makeup prevented it from seeing the rural perspective. In rural areas long guns are a part of life for many, and I don’t mean in the cultural sense. I’ve never been a hunting fan but hey, knock yourselves out. Just don’t shoot me in the face. But they are a part of life in a more practical way, such as farmers and ranchers protecting their property/livestock from predatory animals.

Our gun registry didn’t make allowances for the legitimate needs of rural Canadians for long guns, because the rural voice wasn’t heard at the policy making table. As a former Western rural Liberal, I used to get a bellyful about gun control. The Reform Party exploited the issue well. It ignites strong passions in rural Canada.

Let me say that the mismanagement that occurred in the past is regrettable and wrong, that has amply been covered elsewhere so I won’t go over it again. But mismanagement aside, I think there would be a lot more support for the registry with long guns excluded.

Let me emphasize hand guns should and must remain registered. Here, The Right has no legitimate counterpoints in my view. The whole “criminals don’t follow the law” thing is a silly argument; you could say the same for any law. You don’t hunt deer with Berettas. And the self defence argument? I’m sorry, but the example in the U.S. shows more guns means more violence. And most shootings are accidental, with guns owned by a family member.

The registry must not be scrapped all together. The mismanagement is in the past; we can’t let the Conservatives use past mismanagement as cover to cancel a program they just fundamentally don’t agree with, but most Canadians do. A recent Ipsos poll showed that was the case across the country.

It’s paid for. It’s being used by police more than 5000 times a day. Let’s keep it. There is a lot of support for the concept of gun control in Canada. It is making a difference. Let’s recognize the legitimate concerns of rural Canadians by get the long guns out, and let police continue to have access to what they’ve found to be an effective law enforcement tool.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We should be in Afghanistan

While it’s important that we debate these things in an open and civil way, I believe unequivocally that Canada should be in Afghanistan, and that we should stay as long as we are needed and, more importantly, our military is able to sustain the mission.

I’ve been reading that support for the mission has begun to slip, perhaps inevitable given the recent casualties sustained. But I don’t think that support needs to be slipping, I think it’s our (the Liberals and the Conservatives) fault that it’s slipping, and I think we can change that.

The former Liberal government launched this mission, and it was the right thing to do. But I think many people feel that, especially as the mission transitioned to more of a dangerous combat role, we didn’t properly engage the Canadian public in a debate about the mission. We didn’t educate the Canadian people on the risks, and why they need to be taken. That kind of open debate is essential when a country sends its troops into harm’s way.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. I didn’t support the unilateral intervention in Iraq, but I did and do support our presence in Afghanistan. The former Afghani regime oppressed its people, especially women, and it harbored and aided Al Qadea and the 9/11 attackers. We are there now at the request of the democratically elected Afghani government as part of a NATO mission with worldwide support. It’s dangerous, but vital work and it’s in our best interests to see it through, in addition to being the right thing to do.

Afghanistan is not Iraq, and it’s important that the current government and the Liberals and Conservatives make that clear to Canadians. I think that line is becoming blurred for some, and that is hurting support.

It would be helpful though, in making that difference clear, if our current government avoided loaded phrases like “cut and run.” Unintended or not, that draws a linkage in many Canadians’ eyes, and it’s not a helpful one.

I think if we have an open and honest debate and discussion with Canadians about why we’re there and what we’re doing most of them will be on board. However, there does need to be a clear timeline for withdrawal (I’d say exit strategy, but there’s another loaded term) and it would be helpful if this mission was not at the expense of helping Darfur. Quite possibly we can’t do both, I’ve heard conflicting reports there, but if we can do something there too we should.

Lastly, a note to all politicians. You can’t make this political. This needs to be a bipartisan exercise. It is not advantageous for the Conservatives to try to paint the Liberals as anti-war, that won’t build support for the mission and it will turn the majority of Canadians against the war, and against you, because it will force everyone to pick sides and polarize the debate.

And Liberals, particularly leadership candidates. Joe Volpe, I’m looking at you bud. This is not your wedge issue, you’re not going to become the anti-war candidate and sweep to glorious victory on the wings of angels. Particularly, Joseph, if you were a member of the Liberal cabinet that authorized this mission in the first place.

Not to pick on Joe, but his comments in that CP piece really piss me off. These two in particular:

He's also calling for a reorientation of Canadian Forces to pursue a more traditional peacekeeping mission while helping to restore "civil society" to the war-ravaged country.
"That's what we're equipped to do, that's what we're capable of doing and that's where our expertise lies," Volpe said in an interview.

That’s a load of crap, Joe. Canadian troops are among the best trained in the world, and are more that capable of handing their mission. If not, YOUR government wouldn’t have sent them, would YOU? Besides, we are helping to restore civil society, as long as there’s still Taliban around blowing stuff up it’s hard to be civil.

Volpe suggested this was no coincidence. He believes there was a change in the mission at the behest of U.S. President George W. Bush.
"We can't switch from peacekeeper to peacemaker on the fly just because a Republican government in the United States asks us to. We can't be an extension of American foreign policy," Volpe said.

Ah, the beloved Bush bogeyman. I love to bash Bush too, but I’m not a (semi-serious) leadership candidate discussing the deployment of Canadian troops in a war zone. Is that your argument why we shouldn’t be there, Joe? Because Bushy wanted us to? It is possible to make an actual argument about why we shouldn’t be there, but that sure isn’t’ it. Again, don’t play politics with the deployment of troops. Enough said.

I can respect people that feel we shouldn’t be there, and they are fully entitled to their opinions. But let’s have that debate, and let’s do it on a bipartisan, open way, without any cut and run talk from the right or Dubya bashing from the left. We have soldiers in harm’s way, so let’s respect them by keeping this debate respectful please.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hello from rainy Orlando

Left rainy Toronto this morning and I’m now in rainy Orlando. At least it’s a bit warmer here though, at 30 degrees Celsius.

I’m down here attending SAP’s SAPphire conference through Friday morning. I hope to continue blogging while I’m here but it may not be too regular if things get busy. Or if the sun comes out and I ended up lounging by the pool all day instead. We’ll see.

On a semi-related note, man the security when connecting through Washington-Reagan is crazy, and for all that I didn’t even see the Capitol or anything out my window. Hella lame.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We all know what speed dating leads to...

So, Sandra Buckler and Stephen Harper say the Conservative government's rocky relationship with the media is because they're speed dating. Said Sandra:

"We really haven't figured everybody out yet, but we're starting to get a good idea of what we like and what we don't like," Sandra Buckler told the Canadian Association of Journalists on Sunday.

Well, to keep using Sandra and Stephen's analogy, I can only see their evolving relationship with the media heading one place: polygamy. Because once you start letting the press and the media date, it's inevitable.

Coming to the CBC this fall is the hit new drama you won't want to miss...

Big Love: Stephen Harper and the Press Gallery

But on a semi-serious note for a moment, kudos to Sandra for having the courage to go and face a grilling by a room full of journalists. Perhaps, having seen we're not so bad after all (to know us is to love us), she'll encourage her boss and his cabinet friends to say hello every once and a while...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Speaking of lawsuits, Oh David…

As long as we're talking about launching lawsuits against political opponents, remember the little matter of Conservative turncoat and professional cabinet minister David Emerson, and the $97,000 his old riding association would like back?

To refresh your memory, a few days after winning election as a Liberal by promising to be Stephen Harper's "worst enemy," Emerson crossed the floor in to the warm, comfy fur of the Harper cabinet (and has continued to make good on his promise).

Shortly after the move, his old Liberal riding association raised the question of the nearly $97,000 that had been raised to elect a Liberal, not a Conservative.

Since suing your political opponents on rather flimsy grounds for politically opportunistic reasons seems to be the all the rage these days, and since the Conservatives were the improper beneficiaries of that $97,000 as it elected a person now sitting in their caucus and voting for their budget and other legislation, instead of the Liberal the donors intended, here's an idea: let's sue the Conservative Party of Canada to get it back.

Sure, we wouldn't win. But it's about politics, not justice. Only one downside: unlike the Conservatives, we couldn't get the taxpayers of Canada to pay for our doomed and politically motivated partisan lawsuit.

As for David…

Yeah, he's not going anywhere folks. And stop calling him names, you're hurting his feelings. :(

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Anti-Canadianism sweeping the United States?

It seems any time someone boos the American anthem at a hockey game in Canada; The Right is up in arms about a wave of anti-Americanism sweeping the True North Strong and Free. And of course, the Liberals are always somehow to blame.

I wonder, then, if righty bloggers will be up in arms over the news that last night the fans in San Jose, where their Sharks were facing Canada's last Stanley Cup hope, the Edmonton Oilers, booed O'Canada so loudly it nearly drowned-out the anthem singer?

I'm sure there is still some way to blame this on the Liberals though. Perhaps they're unhappy at the Liberal's criticism of the softwood lumber sellout?

Or, maybe, they're just hockey fans that got a little bit overzealous, just as happens in Canada from time to time? Yeah, I'd go with that one too. Anthem booing by anyone, though, isn't cool.

Go Oilers Go (for lack of any other Canadian team)!

No Canada: Sharks' fans boo anthem
May 14, 2006

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CP) -- San Jose Sharks fans were in a nasty mood Sunday night, loudly booing the Canadian national anthem before the start of Game 5 of the Western Conference semifinal.

The Sharks are playing the Edmonton Oilers.

Annemarie Martin had barely began singing O Canada when many in the sellout crowd of 17,496 began booing. The sound was so loud it nearly drowned out Martin.

As the song progressed the booing decreased and some Shark fans joined in singing the Canadian national anthem.

There was no apparent motive for the booing _ just a questionable expression of the fans' dislike of the Oilers, who won the last two games in Edmonton to tie the best-of-seven series 2-2.

Fans in both arenas didn't boo the opposing national anthem prior to Sunday's game.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If you get beat, join them

I’d been wondering what my former Conservative MP (John Duncan, Vancouver Island North) had been up to since the voters showed him the door in January. I needn’t have worried though, as, while they may like to chastise the Liberals for it, the Conservatives also take care of their own.

In John’s case, that means a nice, cushy job with the Federal government. After all, isn’t he entitled to his entitlements too? For John, that means a position as “special assistant for Pacific” to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

But wait, it gets better. Mr. Duncan didn’t actually accomplish much during his time as a Reform, Canadian Alliance, Conservative Party (I think that’s all of them) MP. Well, to be fair, by flip-flopping and opting back into the MP pension plan not long after campaigning against it and saying those that opted in “didn't deserve to sit in the House of Commons" he did provide one of the earlier examples of how his party’s supposed commitment to ethics and integrity is an entirely fluid concept. Ah, but campaigns are campaigns though, right John?

But one thing John could regularly be counted on was to rail against those ivory tower DFO bureaucrats in Ottawa, making decisions from thousands of miles away that impacted B.C. fishermen. “How many salmon are in the Ottawa River?” he would demand piously from the podium. And, you know, I agree. The DFO does need more people on the ground in fishing communities on the coasts and less bureaucrats in Ottawa.

So, now that he has joined the DFO, where is our friend John working?

Fisheries and Oceans Canada
MINISTER'S OFFICE,
CENTENNIAL TOWER
200 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
K1A 0E6

If he’s on a high enough floor he might be able to see the Ottawa River from his new office. How many salmon do you see there Johnny?

(H/T Cowboys for Social Responsibility)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Enough is enough

I’ve been reading today in many blogs, Liberal and Conservative, about Stephen Harper’s promise to sue the Liberal Party for what his Conservative brethren have divined to be still missing money from the sponsorship scandal that they believe ended-up in Liberal coffers. And it’s pissing me off.

I’ve been of mixed thoughts about the issue throughout the day.

On the one hand, it’s obvious and shameless political opportunism. The Conservatives are using public money to further their political interests (ironically, what they say the Liberals did with sponsorship) and damage their political opponent.

But on the other hand, I thought, well, a crime was committed, and how can we be seen to impede the investigation and resolution of that crime? I’m mad as hell too.

I am also mad, though, at the continual smearing of the Liberal Party as a whole for the actions of a few bad apples. Enough is enough. We don’t have to put up with it, and we shouldn’t put up with it.

We’ve cowered in the corner for too long and said I’m sorry, please, don’t hurt me. In fact, it was the Liberal government that called in the Auditor General to investigate. It was the Liberal government that called in the RCMP to investigate. It was the Liberal government that called the Gomery Commission to investigate the affair, an investigation that cost more than was alleged to be misspent. It was the Liberal Party that paid back every dollar that independent judicial investigation, whose chief counsel was a staunch Conservative, determined improperly ended-up in Liberal coffers.

That’s the record. Those are the facts. And yet still we let the opposition smear all Liberals with this brush. And instead of saying bullshit, we let them. And we helped them. We went across the country and made sure everyone knew just how mad we were too.

Enough is enough. I did nothing wrong. Most Liberals did nothing wrong. A very few did. Those that did have been identified by the auditor general, the Gomery Commission, and the RCMP. They have and are facing justice. The system is working.

The Liberal Party has paid its penance. The Conservatives are desperate to keep this in the news. Looking at their record, I can see why. They know such a lawsuit isn’t legally feasible, but they don’t care. It’s about keeping an old story in the news for political advantage, and they’re willing to use taxpayer dollars to do so. But we need to stop rolling over. Enough is enough. It’s time to stop being pussies and fight them on this.

One of my favourite shows, The West Wing, is ending Sunday and thinking of this issue I was reminded of a scene from the third season episode “Gone Quiet”. It’s the presidential campaign, and consultant Bruno blows up at Sam for his refusal to stand-up to the Republicans.

"We all need some therapy because somebody came along and said liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense. And we're going to tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s'. We cowered in the corner and say, 'Please don't hurt me'. . . .

That’s been us for too long. Well, enough is enough. I’m honest and hardworking, I pay my taxes and I love my country. I’m also a proud Liberal. It’s time we reclaim our brand. You want to call me corrupt? Not without a fight.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal MPs attend anti-abortion rally: What do we stand for?

I'm all for the idea of the Liberal Party being a big tent party welcoming of people from the left and the right with different views on different policy issues, but on some issues of fundamental importance I believe we should draw the line and say THIS is what we believe in, and if you're a Liberal so do you. Abortion is one of those issues for me.

Yes, we need to be a big tent, and we can have different views on any number of issues, from tax reform and military funding (I wasn't happy with the cuts we made in the 1990s) to foreign affairs. But despite minor differences, what should bind us together are certain core beliefs and principles. On the Liberal web site there's a page on philosophy that spells it out well. Here's an excerpt:

The prime principles remain a belief in:
* individual freedom, responsibility and human dignity in the framework of a just society;
* political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all interested persons;
and
* the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the framework for both Canada's democratic society and the interaction of members within the Liberal party.

The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to:
* the pursuit of equality of opportunity for all persons;
* the enhancement of our unique and diverse multicultural community;
* the recognition that English and French are the official languages of Canada;
and
* the promotion of the Canadian identity in a global society.

I believe there are certain fundamental policy issues that flow from these principles that are so core to what it means to be a Liberal that if you want to sit in the Liberal caucus, you need to vote with the party and defend them. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but while I respect your opinion and your right to it, the Liberal Party probably isn't the party for you.

Abortion is very much one of those issues for me, and so is same-sex marriage. That's why I was quite saddened to see Liberal MPs Paul Steckle, Paul Szabo and Tom Wappel attended the recent anti-abortion rally on Parliament Hill. To do so goes against everything I believe the Liberal Party stands for.

Not to mention make us look completely moronic when we try to demonize the Conservatives on this issue, as Paul Martin did in the last election. While there are obviously more anti-abortion MPs in the Conservative camp and something is more likely (not any time soon, certainly not until a majority) to happen on the abortion front under a Conservative government, still, it was laughable.

I recognize these are divisive issues, and public opinion is split. I recognize some Liberal MPs may hold strong personal beliefs, or feel the need to bend to what they perceive as the will of their constituents if they want to keep their jobs. I recognize seats may/will be lost. I understand that.

Nonetheless, being a Liberal should mean believing in certain things. If you don't, as I said, maybe you're in the wrong party. I'd encourage those MPs to think about that between now and the next election, and I'd encourage our next leader to think about it before he signs their nomination papers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More lighter side: Colbert nails gun control and the Nazi card

Just watching last night’s episode of The Colbert Report, and there’s some great stuff that’s particularly timely for us up here in Canada as is touches on two issues that have seen some discussion lately: gun control, and the Nazi card in political debate.

It comes during Colbert’s interview with Republican Congressman Lee Terry of Nebraska’s 2^nd District (The Fightin’ Second!), and there’s video available here. This first excerpt below touches on gun control, and Terry’s statements are nearly word for word the standard talking points I hear from gun registry advocates in Canada as well.

Colbert: The NRA gave you an A on your voting. Why not an A+ sir?
Terry: I don’t know.
Colbert: What is the most absurd thing about gun registration gun registry, the 72-hour waiting period, trigger locks…what part of that is most laughable?
Terry: The people that are compliant to those laws are the ones that are not the problem. You’re just focusing laws on the good people and philosophically I don’t think that’s appropriate.
Colbert: I agree. Good people shouldn’t have (pause) laws.
Terry: Let’s focus on the crime, and the use of the gun in that crime.
Colbert: Exactly. Too many people forget that passing laws doesn’t stop crime.
Terry: No.
Colbert: Right. So stop having laws. I mean you might get a little less crime, because it wouldn’t be illegal then.
Terry: No but, you know…
Colbert (interrupts): Let’s move on…

With satire Colbert does a great job of debunking the standard Conservative line about gun control laws: only the law abiding citizens follow the law, criminals ignore them. Ummm...that's why we call them criminals. By this logic why have any laws?

A little later, while discussing Terry’s support of alternative fuels, and in particular hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, Colbert shows a clip of the hydrogen-powered Hindenburg. I’ll let the rest speak for itself.

Colbert: That was the Hindenburg, Congressman. Congressman, you are aware that the zeppelins were made by Nazis?
Terry: I knew they had some, yeah.
Colbert: I’m not suggesting you are a Nazi. I’m just saying you support some of the Nazis’ aims
Terry: Of alternative fuels?
Colbert: I’m just saying you might want to hitch your wagon to a different person than Hitler…<snip, Colbert shows a picture of burning mini-zeppelins in downtown New York>
Terry: I see fuel-efficient vehicles.
Colbert: On fire.
Terry: While you see flames and carnage I see power and energy.
Colbert: That’s what the Nazis wanted. Will to power.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On the lighter side: What does Belinda’s face reveal?

I ripped this item out of the Metro subway mag last Friday but misplaced it in the midst of last weekend’s convention fun. I found it today though, and it deserves a mention.

It’s a short piece in the fashion section I’d normally gloss over if Belinda Stronach’s picture hadn’t of caught my eye.

Luckily, I don’t have to explain the piece, which was an advertorial for an upcoming issue of Elle Canada, because Man vs. Clown has posted an image of the article online.

I think the part I found humorous, and why, is pretty obvious. Like MvC, I also burst out laughing a little bit on the subway. And I was on my way to the Liberal leadership forum, no less. Priceless!

P.S. I spotted Ms. Stronach at the luncheon on Saturday and she was quite popular, posing for pictures and signing autographs.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Let there be political peace in our time, or at least intelligent debate

Given that two lines in a post I made four days ago seem to be part of a mini-kerfuffle in the blogsphere today, I should probably comment a little further on the Bob Rae Munich Pact story.

For the record, here’s the exact transcript of his remarks. CTV’s Mike Duffy Live ran the video today in this clip, where three party strategists discuss the remarks. Also, in this clip Duffy’s media panel weighs in.

“…it’s true for softwood lumber which is an issue that I’ve been working on for the last little while. Now Mr. Harper might like to say that’s a wonderful deal. Don’t forget, Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich, and held up a piece of paper, and said he had peace in our time. He was wrong. So is Mr. Harper. Really wrong.”

Sitting in the back of the hall and hearing that my eyebrow rose and I jotted down a note on my notepad. I didn’t think of if as an earth shattering faux pas; I thought of it as a cheap and lazy political smear. Frankly, I was surprised someone of Bob Rae’s intelligence and intellect couldn’t come up with something better.

Yes, I know he didn’t say Bush was Hitler or that Harper was Chamberlain. I get the point he was trying to make. I was a history major. I see the analogy. But why even go there? The insinuation, even if unintended, was obvious. He didn’t need to connect the dots for anyone.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say the only illusion he wanted to draw was simply to an agreement that seemed like a good deal at first glance but later proved disastrous and didn't settle the dispute it was intended to settle. Bob Rae is a veteran politician, and a very smart guy. He knows better than to touch the Nazi card with a 10-foot pole.

And whether he wanted to play it or not, playing the Nazi card has become an all too common political crutch for people of all political persuasions. It’s a quick and easy way to demonize your opponents, and it’s usually reserved for those too dumb or too lazy to come-up with something more intelligent.

I’ve been smeared with the Nazi card myself, in my then community paper by a director of the local Conservative riding association. He was also, more astoundingly, a social studies teacher at the local high school. Luckily for me, I wasn’t in his class when I was a student there.

At the time, I was communications director of the local Liberal riding association, and having brought some media experience to our rural riding we were in the midst of an aggressive communications campaign to challenge our incumbent Conservative MP in the lead-up to the 2004 campaign.

Used to having their MP get a free pass and not be challenged on his statements and record, the regular letters to the editor and media comments seemed to rankle local Conservatives and this fellow, not identifying himself as a Conservative director, wrote a letter to the editor accusing us of following the example of Adolf Hitler’s “Big Lie” and compared me (he didn’t say my name but we knew who he meant) to Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels. Yes, he did actually say Nazi, Hitler and Goebbels.

Besides being a bit tickled by the fact we’d gotten to them that much I frankly found the whole thing sad and pathetic, and wrote a letter back soundly condemning his remarks. Really though, his own remarks made him look dumb enough without my help.

I realize people are going to disagree with me on policy and the best direction for Canada, but I'd like to think we can disagree while still respecting each other’s opinions and believing we both want what we believe is best for the country.

My point being the intellectually lazy of all political stripes play the Nazi card too often, and it should stop. It just makes you look like a dumbass.

And it’s not just the Nazi card. It’s calling your opponents evil, or saying they’re with the terrorists, or that you want to wipe them off the map, and so on. Name-calling seems to have replaced intelligent argument in our political debate. That’s goes doubly in the blogsphere. Call me idealistic, but I think we should strive for a higher level of political discourse in this country.

Bob should apologize, and then we should move on. It was a stupid comment, but it wasn’t malicious. It was just lazy. I know he can do better. I know we all can.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Interesting conference in Toronto next week

Really cool conference in Toronto next week called Mesh. It's all about Web 2.0 and touches on blogging and politics as well.

The U of O's Internet law guru, Professor Michael Giest, is giving a keynote. There are also two really interesting sounding panels that are unfortunately running concurrently. One asks "Are Bloggers Journalists?", a question I've posed often, and the other panel asks "Can Bloggers Influence Politics?" and features heavyweight political bloggers Warren Kinsella, Paul Wells and the sorely missed in blogland Andrew Coyne, as well as the Internet chief for the Ignatieff campaign, Brad Davis.

I wish I could make it down and I did get a media invite from the organizers, but alas it's on a weekday and I just can't make enough of a connection between the content and my day job (reporting on enterprise IT) to justify a day out of the office. But if you're in the area and available I'd encourage you to check it out, and hopefully blog all about it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Go Harpocrits go!

The Ottawa Citizen has a morning smile today far better than anything those latte-sipping yuppies at the Globe could ever offer up: Conservative MPs are attending Ottawa Senators playoff games in corporate luxury suites as the guests of corporate lobbyists.

But wait you say, didn't the Cons lambaste Liberals for doing the very same thing when they were in government? Didn't Conservative MP John Williams say it should be outlawed, and call it "influence peddling at its most obvious"?

Harsh words indeed. But hey, the Liberals did it; campaigns are campaigns, it's not (yet) against the law, pragmatism, yada yada.

But here's my absolutely, positively favourite justification for this obvious flip-floppery. It comes from a Conservative communications thingy, responding to questions about government whip Jay Hill attending a game as a guest of Bell Canada:

Charmaine Crockett, a spokeswoman in Hill's office, confirmed the whip had attended the game as a guest of Bell Canada, but said Hill received approval from ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro to attend the game. (Emphasis mine.)

Well, if Bernie said it was alright then go to town guys, because we all know how much the Conservatives respect the opinion of our esteemed Ethics Commissioner, and hold him in such high esteem, now don't we?...

Conservative MPs accepting perks
Despite Harper's former criticisms
Jack Aubry, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, May 09, 2006

OTTAWA -- Accepting gifts, including free Ottawa Senators playoff tickets in luxury corporate boxes, continue to be acceptable for Conservative MPs in Stephen Harper's government, despite criticism of the practice when the Tories were in opposition.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers