It might not have made news over there, but things in Asia here are breaking down because of the undersea cables cut by the recent earthquake in Taiwan. I can access Google-based sites fun (surprise surprise) but any purely North American site is painfully slow. Businesses are apparently hurting here because they just can't communicate.
So for all the wonders of technology, it shows how dependent we are on just a few links. Cut those, and everything comes crashing down. . . .
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Monday, December 25, 2006
Christmas Day, Hong Kong
Hong Kong continues to astound. Today is Christmas day. We woke up and went down for breakfast, where we were wished "Merry Christmas" by everyone. Indeed, this town does Christmas like nowhere I've ever seen. Every night they have fireworks. Everywhere you go people are singing Christmas Carols. Yesterday we saw a bagpipe troop, in full kilts, all Chinese, playing bagpipe Christmas music. There was a street party last night in Kowloon, and I've never seen so many people in my entire life in one place. Ever. EVER.
Every building is done up in Christmas lights. It's wonderful. Now, I don't buy in to the "war on Christmas" nonsense, and I think some sensitivity is good, but here, no one is afraid to say it.
However, I don't think the religious right would like it much. Christmas here is far more about Santa and far less about Baby Jesus (cf. Taladega Nights). It's just a fun festival that everyone can take part in. It's nice--there's such a sense of celebration in Hong Kong today and all this week.
But perhaps it's worth ending today's post on a more somber note. My sister and I visited the Stanley War Cemetery, where Canadians who died defending Hong Kong are buried. So many of them were 18, 19, 21. I leave you with this picture, of a young man who died, 65 years ago today, fighting to defend a people he likely never knew, nor never knew him.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Hong Kong
Wow. I'm in love love love with Hong Kong.
This picture is the view from just outside my hotel room (my room has the same view but there's glare from the window). Insane.
As the cab took us from the airport, my sister said, "I feel like I'm in the future somewhere. What on earth do asian tourists come to LA for?"
I've been here less than 24 hours and I'm already stunned by the city. First, it feels like an asian London to me--the street signs are the same as in the UK, the layout of the streets, the general infrastructure (save here it's modern, there it's sort of decrepit). The one difference? We searched for a good half hour for a place to sit and have a beer, to no avail. That is not a problem one ever has in the UK.
And then the mix--ultra modern luxury, side by side with cramped markets selling cheap trinkets and "copy watchy!" (as the knock-off Rolex guy called them). Glorious skyscrapers beside horrible 1950s dingy dirty squalid apartment blocks.
And boy, one sure feels like a minority here.
To all our readers: Happy Christmas to you and your families!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Browbeating Iranians
Last night on NPR, I briefly listened to a discussion between two individuals on Iran and their response to the US.
One commentator, obviously a right-wingnut, said that the average Iranian was thinking "why is our money going to fund extremists, to buy nuclear missiles, and to support our crazy leader, rather than help us on the street?"
What outright nonsense. (What the other guy said in a second). That is exactly how the American right thinks: Everyone in the world is by nature American, and thus react to the same stimuli in the same way. Ergo, if we invade, take out their leaders, they'll spontaneously rise up and create America, just with a different language and maybe eating [insert ethnic dish] rather than burgers.
The other, who was a former Ambassador (not sure to where), made the point: Think of it like an Iranian. This bully, with a different language, different culture, different religion, and with a history of undermining governments it doesn't like, is saying you have no right to high technology. You have no right to defend yourself, even though you have nuclear-armed and crazy Pakistan on one side, and 100,000 American troops on the other. You're an axis of evil, in cahoots with your old enemy Iraq and that wierdo nutjob Kim Jong Il over in DPRK. You aren't allowed to be a regional power.
What would your response be?
Come on. At the slightest slight by the Americans, we Canadians fly off the handle. And we are more or less the same, cuturally, religiously, linguistically. Same with Europeans.
American foreign policy is so often (under Bush): "Just behave like we think you should, remember you're inferior to us."
Not exactly the way to win over hearts and minds, is it?
One commentator, obviously a right-wingnut, said that the average Iranian was thinking "why is our money going to fund extremists, to buy nuclear missiles, and to support our crazy leader, rather than help us on the street?"
What outright nonsense. (What the other guy said in a second). That is exactly how the American right thinks: Everyone in the world is by nature American, and thus react to the same stimuli in the same way. Ergo, if we invade, take out their leaders, they'll spontaneously rise up and create America, just with a different language and maybe eating [insert ethnic dish] rather than burgers.
The other, who was a former Ambassador (not sure to where), made the point: Think of it like an Iranian. This bully, with a different language, different culture, different religion, and with a history of undermining governments it doesn't like, is saying you have no right to high technology. You have no right to defend yourself, even though you have nuclear-armed and crazy Pakistan on one side, and 100,000 American troops on the other. You're an axis of evil, in cahoots with your old enemy Iraq and that wierdo nutjob Kim Jong Il over in DPRK. You aren't allowed to be a regional power.
What would your response be?
Come on. At the slightest slight by the Americans, we Canadians fly off the handle. And we are more or less the same, cuturally, religiously, linguistically. Same with Europeans.
American foreign policy is so often (under Bush): "Just behave like we think you should, remember you're inferior to us."
Not exactly the way to win over hearts and minds, is it?
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Stupid Questions
Clearly the study of science--nay, not even the study of science, simply the acceptance of reality--is something people hate. Two recent gems:
First off, there are those people who were sentenced to death for spreading HIV in Libya, even though a study of the strains of HIV showed that the children were infected long before the nurses arrived in Libya.
And then, even better, from Slate magazine. Daniel Engber, who does Slate's "Explainer," is going through questions that he didn't answer. This one is wonderful:
RIGHT. Cue Warren Kinsella, "The Flinstones is not a documentary." The Bible, that wonderful respository of fact. Honestly, anyone who believes the Bible is factual has no more rational basis for saying so than I have for saying that the Greek stories of Zeus or the Oddessy are actual factual accounts.
UPDATE: Going through the Slate article, there are even a lot of better, more stupid posts:
First off, there are those people who were sentenced to death for spreading HIV in Libya, even though a study of the strains of HIV showed that the children were infected long before the nurses arrived in Libya.
And then, even better, from Slate magazine. Daniel Engber, who does Slate's "Explainer," is going through questions that he didn't answer. This one is wonderful:
Why do humans die so young? In biblical times, people lived for several hundred years; now living to 100 is considered a long life. What happened?
RIGHT. Cue Warren Kinsella, "The Flinstones is not a documentary." The Bible, that wonderful respository of fact. Honestly, anyone who believes the Bible is factual has no more rational basis for saying so than I have for saying that the Greek stories of Zeus or the Oddessy are actual factual accounts.
UPDATE: Going through the Slate article, there are even a lot of better, more stupid posts:
- Could you tell me if there's been any kind of medical discovery in the last 30 years besides DNA.
- Hi. How did the horse in the movie about dreams make it to not only survive but to win again? Was this movie true?
- Are UFOs confirmed to be from other Alien Planets?
- Working in my yard yesterday, I killed a gnat in my ear canal, where it had flown. I couldn't remove the body as my finger was too fat. What happens to it now?
- yea i have my own 620 gang and i dont know how to run it to make not look like a little bitch gang joke it is just me and my friend how do i run it?
All I can say is: Wow.
Dumb People at Airport
This is beyond stupid. Apparently some woman at the airport put her baby in the x-ray machine.
She should be thrown in jail and her kid taken away not for child endangerment but simply because she's freakin' brain dead. (Aside: stupid people like her are allowed to marry and have kids; I'm not.)
Apparently she was an "inexperienced traveller."
I don't care if you've never been on a bloody airplane in your life--what kind of moron is so oblivious to the universe that it would make sense to put a baby in an XRAY machine?
The stupidity of people at airports, though, knows no bounds. How many times have you been stuck behind some fool who stands in line for security, and then, at the last second, realizes s/he has to take everything off and out of the pockets and then stands there flailing for ten minutes? And how many times have you been in line behind some woman who's covered in jewelry and accessories and fancy belts? (LA is particularly bad for that; there must be more accessories here per capita than any place on earth). I mean, who on earth doesn't understand airport security?
Honestly, people should have security passports. Once you've had fifteen stamps, earned when you pass through security quickly and without setting off the detector, you should get a special line.
And idiots who put their babies through security or don't realize that metal sets off the metal detector should never be allowed to fly again.
She should be thrown in jail and her kid taken away not for child endangerment but simply because she's freakin' brain dead. (Aside: stupid people like her are allowed to marry and have kids; I'm not.)
Apparently she was an "inexperienced traveller."
I don't care if you've never been on a bloody airplane in your life--what kind of moron is so oblivious to the universe that it would make sense to put a baby in an XRAY machine?
The stupidity of people at airports, though, knows no bounds. How many times have you been stuck behind some fool who stands in line for security, and then, at the last second, realizes s/he has to take everything off and out of the pockets and then stands there flailing for ten minutes? And how many times have you been in line behind some woman who's covered in jewelry and accessories and fancy belts? (LA is particularly bad for that; there must be more accessories here per capita than any place on earth). I mean, who on earth doesn't understand airport security?
Honestly, people should have security passports. Once you've had fifteen stamps, earned when you pass through security quickly and without setting off the detector, you should get a special line.
And idiots who put their babies through security or don't realize that metal sets off the metal detector should never be allowed to fly again.
Separatist Bullshit
So here's a little gem from Duceppe:
Yes. It's the government of the Province of Quebec. But it has nothing at all to do with the Federal Parliament. Imagine the chaos if a Provincial legislature could "express itself" and thus bind all its federal MPs to vote that way?
Regular readers will know my contempt for provincial governments. These nonsensical little baronetcies, with less regard for Canada than their own electoral promises, do nothing more than rip us apart. The "Council of the Federation" is anything but. It should be called the "Council devoted to advancing the parochial interests of its members to the expense of the Federation and of each other."
Case in point: Danny Williams' little temper tantrums. Demanding the Flag be lowered until the Federal Government grant some concession (which the failure Martin gave).
The provinces should be put in their place. Canada is the unifying power in our state, not some idiot little province. Perhaps I'm just a good Ontarian--someone who believes that our Country comes first, and any sacrifice we make that hurts our province is fine because the country as a whole benefits.
And then you have Klein, Williams, and those idiots Boisclair and Duceppe. Small minded, foolish, and, in the end, treacherous.
Honestly, the Crown should start to exercise some control: The loyalty of any head of any provincial government should always be to Canada first. That should be the overriding test, because, as the Separation Reference points out, all provinces have obligations to the others.
Our national motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare"--"From Sea to Sea." It isn't "From the border of the east end of my province to the west end."
A long way of saying I'm over provincial politicians forgetting Canada.
"If there was a motion on Kyoto before the budget and Mr. Harper made it a confidence motion and the national assembly – which is the government of Quebec – expressed itself and said it is unacceptable, he will have to be held accountable.["]
Yes. It's the government of the Province of Quebec. But it has nothing at all to do with the Federal Parliament. Imagine the chaos if a Provincial legislature could "express itself" and thus bind all its federal MPs to vote that way?
Regular readers will know my contempt for provincial governments. These nonsensical little baronetcies, with less regard for Canada than their own electoral promises, do nothing more than rip us apart. The "Council of the Federation" is anything but. It should be called the "Council devoted to advancing the parochial interests of its members to the expense of the Federation and of each other."
Case in point: Danny Williams' little temper tantrums. Demanding the Flag be lowered until the Federal Government grant some concession (which the failure Martin gave).
The provinces should be put in their place. Canada is the unifying power in our state, not some idiot little province. Perhaps I'm just a good Ontarian--someone who believes that our Country comes first, and any sacrifice we make that hurts our province is fine because the country as a whole benefits.
And then you have Klein, Williams, and those idiots Boisclair and Duceppe. Small minded, foolish, and, in the end, treacherous.
Honestly, the Crown should start to exercise some control: The loyalty of any head of any provincial government should always be to Canada first. That should be the overriding test, because, as the Separation Reference points out, all provinces have obligations to the others.
Our national motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare"--"From Sea to Sea." It isn't "From the border of the east end of my province to the west end."
A long way of saying I'm over provincial politicians forgetting Canada.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Thousands dead in victory
The Onion got it spot on this time. The heading and very first sentence tells the whole story, from how we're not winning a thing, to the Bush admin's Orwellian gift for perverting language. Enjoy:
Thousands More Dead In Continuing Iraq Victory
America marks three and a half years of winning in Iraq,
America marks three and a half years of winning in Iraq,
and nearly 3,000 victory deaths
Statistics released by the Department Of Defense estimated that 2,937 U.S. troops and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the ongoing American military victory in Iraq.
Dion and Iggy
So apparently Dion has named Ignatieff as his deputy leader.
Interesting. Of course, it's sort of a play taken from Chretien's book, who made Paul Martin his de facto number two by making him Finance Minister after defeating him for the leadership of the Liberal Party.
I had sort of thought that Kennedy would be deputy leader, but given he doesn't have a seat in the Commons, that doesn't make much sense.
But now the question will be how much of the Opposition leadership is given to former leadership candidates, at the expense of some of the very talented current MPs? Carolyn Bennett comes to mind (though she had been a candidate), David McGuinty is a good guy to have around (not least to keep relations with Queen's Park good), and of course Bill Graham and Lucienne Robillard did a good job of holding down the fort. What about Irwin Cotler, Ralph Goodale? Mark Holland? Etc. Etc.
I think that he can leave the bottom four out as a matter of course (or give them critic positions)--they don't have legions of followers who could conspire in the manner of Paul Martin to bring Dion down. That said, Martha is a rising star and should be given something, not least because of her staying in the race so tenaciously. Giving Rae an important role would also help him shed the image of having a recent conversion to the Liberal party. The better roles need to go to people who have seats.
So exciting.
Interesting. Of course, it's sort of a play taken from Chretien's book, who made Paul Martin his de facto number two by making him Finance Minister after defeating him for the leadership of the Liberal Party.
I had sort of thought that Kennedy would be deputy leader, but given he doesn't have a seat in the Commons, that doesn't make much sense.
But now the question will be how much of the Opposition leadership is given to former leadership candidates, at the expense of some of the very talented current MPs? Carolyn Bennett comes to mind (though she had been a candidate), David McGuinty is a good guy to have around (not least to keep relations with Queen's Park good), and of course Bill Graham and Lucienne Robillard did a good job of holding down the fort. What about Irwin Cotler, Ralph Goodale? Mark Holland? Etc. Etc.
I think that he can leave the bottom four out as a matter of course (or give them critic positions)--they don't have legions of followers who could conspire in the manner of Paul Martin to bring Dion down. That said, Martha is a rising star and should be given something, not least because of her staying in the race so tenaciously. Giving Rae an important role would also help him shed the image of having a recent conversion to the Liberal party. The better roles need to go to people who have seats.
So exciting.
Some hon members: Oh! Oh!
Those that actually spend their time reading the Hansard (as opposed to, say, having a life) know that MPs, when not speaking, say one of two things: Either "Oh! Oh!" or "Hear! Hear!" which is apparently what the cat calls and cheers get distilled to by the stenographer.
But things must have gotten a little rowdy last week. For your pleasure:
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minority government continues to display false transparency. First, the Conservatives cut $1 billion from programs for Canadians without ever assessing the effectiveness or pertinence of these cuts and without assessing the programs. Now they are making further cuts, which the government tried to slip under the radar in the recently tabled economic and financial update, without saying a word about it.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why he hid the truth from all Canadians?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Calm down, you fools!
But things must have gotten a little rowdy last week. For your pleasure:
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minority government continues to display false transparency. First, the Conservatives cut $1 billion from programs for Canadians without ever assessing the effectiveness or pertinence of these cuts and without assessing the programs. Now they are making further cuts, which the government tried to slip under the radar in the recently tabled economic and financial update, without saying a word about it.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why he hid the truth from all Canadians?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Calm down, you fools!
Friday, December 15, 2006
The US as a Christian Nation
Writing in the Post, Cal Thomas makes the following point:
Declaring America as special, or uniquely Christian, or more favored by God than, say, Canada, or Mexico, or even Iran, is a form of idolatry.
It also reflects an unbiblical view that God's Kingdom and the United States have a kind of "special relationship," the theological equivalent of the "special relationship" that has existed between the U.S. and Britain. A lot of Scripture has to be twisted to reach such a conclusion.
Only individuals can be Christian, not countries, and those who think otherwise are in danger of breaking the Commandment, "Thou shalt not have no [sic] other gods before me."
No kidding. I mean, the religious part of his argument notwithstanding ('cos it's bullshit), nothing drives me more crazy than people who intone that clearly, God has smiled upon the US and blessed it as God's Chosen Nation. (As a corrolary is the nonsense about how muslim congresman Keith Ellison swearing his oath on the Koran will undermine American civilization. Puh-lease.)
And if someone religious could inform me as to the objective facts that point to God favouring the US above all other nations, I'd be really happy.
Declaring America as special, or uniquely Christian, or more favored by God than, say, Canada, or Mexico, or even Iran, is a form of idolatry.
It also reflects an unbiblical view that God's Kingdom and the United States have a kind of "special relationship," the theological equivalent of the "special relationship" that has existed between the U.S. and Britain. A lot of Scripture has to be twisted to reach such a conclusion.
Only individuals can be Christian, not countries, and those who think otherwise are in danger of breaking the Commandment, "Thou shalt not have no [sic] other gods before me."
No kidding. I mean, the religious part of his argument notwithstanding ('cos it's bullshit), nothing drives me more crazy than people who intone that clearly, God has smiled upon the US and blessed it as God's Chosen Nation. (As a corrolary is the nonsense about how muslim congresman Keith Ellison swearing his oath on the Koran will undermine American civilization. Puh-lease.)
And if someone religious could inform me as to the objective facts that point to God favouring the US above all other nations, I'd be really happy.
Pundit Hair Watch aka Ok, Maybe Chantal's Not So Bad
Ok, so we've been harsh on Chantal, I won't speak for Dean, but my beefs have largely been because she's not agreeing with me on Dion, or the 'nation' debate, or on anything else coming out of Quebec. I think I've fallen into the trap of confusing 'separatist' with 'nationalist'. Chantal is the latter. Is that wrong? I don't know. Depends on how much I've had to drink. But to hear her on the CBC's At Issue panel last night, it's quite clear she's not a separatist. Her insights into the Quebec situation partially rehabilited her in my mind. Her hair is still not doing anything for me, but it's light years ahead of the disaster that is Andrew Coyne's. Don't get me started on his suit.
Chantal's points:
She used to think Boisclair was under-rated. Not anymore. Calling snowflake for the flake he is always gets points in my book.
Joining him in the over-rated camp? Duceppe. He grossly miscalculated in his 'nation' gambit, and his musings about confidence votes on the Afghan mission were loudly rejected by the Quebec punditry (but we know how much weight their opinions carry here!)
As for the latest poll out of Quebec, she pointed out that the Tories didn't so much lose support to the Liberals. They lost it to the Greens. If this trend exists outside of Quebec, the NDP is in big trouble.
Which brings us to what will likely be the least reported story of the day: News that the Liberals and Greens may work together in the next election. The Greens want a seat, any seat. The Liberals want to split the NDP vote, and regain lost seats. Seems like an odd fit, but consider the NDP and their lifeline to the Conservatives on the clean air bill. If Layton gives further backing to Harper, ala Budget of 2005, then we're faced with two clear choices: A Conservative environmental plan with NDP backing, or a Liberal-Green alternative. The Conservative plan is a joke, and by supporting it with marginal changes, the NDP have only tarnished themselves. The Liberals and Greens have the momentum and the advantage. Having dropped the environment ball in favour of an anti-war platform (that will, as Duceppe is about to realize, fail to energize voters), the NDP is going to hurt in the next election. I'm not entirely sad to see this happen. The NDP had so much potential to claim the spotlight in this House, and they have blown it.
So sorry Olivia, but I'd have to add your husband to the 'over-rated' list too.
Chantal's points:
She used to think Boisclair was under-rated. Not anymore. Calling snowflake for the flake he is always gets points in my book.
Joining him in the over-rated camp? Duceppe. He grossly miscalculated in his 'nation' gambit, and his musings about confidence votes on the Afghan mission were loudly rejected by the Quebec punditry (but we know how much weight their opinions carry here!)
As for the latest poll out of Quebec, she pointed out that the Tories didn't so much lose support to the Liberals. They lost it to the Greens. If this trend exists outside of Quebec, the NDP is in big trouble.
Which brings us to what will likely be the least reported story of the day: News that the Liberals and Greens may work together in the next election. The Greens want a seat, any seat. The Liberals want to split the NDP vote, and regain lost seats. Seems like an odd fit, but consider the NDP and their lifeline to the Conservatives on the clean air bill. If Layton gives further backing to Harper, ala Budget of 2005, then we're faced with two clear choices: A Conservative environmental plan with NDP backing, or a Liberal-Green alternative. The Conservative plan is a joke, and by supporting it with marginal changes, the NDP have only tarnished themselves. The Liberals and Greens have the momentum and the advantage. Having dropped the environment ball in favour of an anti-war platform (that will, as Duceppe is about to realize, fail to energize voters), the NDP is going to hurt in the next election. I'm not entirely sad to see this happen. The NDP had so much potential to claim the spotlight in this House, and they have blown it.
So sorry Olivia, but I'd have to add your husband to the 'over-rated' list too.
Following God's Law in NJ, not THE Law
Apparently there are some who still have the belief that what's in the Bible trumps what the law says.
In NJ, the Legislature just passed a bill permitting civil unions granting all the same rights as marriage, after the NJ Supreme Court told the Legislature that it had to do something to grant same-sex couples the same rights as opposite couples, though it could call them marriage or civil union or whatever.
Well, that was a little much for one Republican, Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer, who voted against the bill, and said that the bill was an affront to the Bible, and that “this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths.”
I'm sure no one checked if he was wearing mixed fabric or had eaten shrimp or had asked if he was into stoning adulterers, as the Bible also requires.
Don't get me wrong, I think that only marriage is enough and that separate-but-equal sucks, but then, given the rabid homophobia that distinguishes this apparently-great Republic from the rest of the civilized world (gay marriage is banned in what, 45 or so states?), I'll take what we can get.
But this little Republican shows what's wrong with politics. What the Supreme Court says is the law is the law. It isn't the job of some mad Christian (or Muslim or Jew) to say that, no, God trumps that.
I believe that legislators take a vow to defend the Constitution. Well, he just broke it.
In NJ, the Legislature just passed a bill permitting civil unions granting all the same rights as marriage, after the NJ Supreme Court told the Legislature that it had to do something to grant same-sex couples the same rights as opposite couples, though it could call them marriage or civil union or whatever.
Well, that was a little much for one Republican, Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer, who voted against the bill, and said that the bill was an affront to the Bible, and that “this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths.”
I'm sure no one checked if he was wearing mixed fabric or had eaten shrimp or had asked if he was into stoning adulterers, as the Bible also requires.
Don't get me wrong, I think that only marriage is enough and that separate-but-equal sucks, but then, given the rabid homophobia that distinguishes this apparently-great Republic from the rest of the civilized world (gay marriage is banned in what, 45 or so states?), I'll take what we can get.
But this little Republican shows what's wrong with politics. What the Supreme Court says is the law is the law. It isn't the job of some mad Christian (or Muslim or Jew) to say that, no, God trumps that.
I believe that legislators take a vow to defend the Constitution. Well, he just broke it.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
And we'll all feel gay when Johnny (Reb) comes marching home
Who knew that the South was a hotbed for being gay? LIsten carefully to the chorus.
Quebec's pundits are WRONG
I'm sorry. I'm tired of Quebec pundits. Because, really, they get it wrong.
Paul Wells (blessed be his name) gets it right today. He writes:
No kidding. As my brother Mike pointed out, certain pundits have been making a ponderous although somewhat zig-zagging evasive maneuver.
And, as our beloved Paul once earlier observed, the elites are wrong. The Quebec pundits (Chantal . . . .) are wrong.
The Liberal party is back as the Federalist option in Quebec. The Tories, given their behaviour this last year, are out. Dion is a good standard bearer.
We will triumph, the chattering nabobs of Quebec notwithstanding.
Paul Wells (blessed be his name) gets it right today. He writes:
But why is it that, on the very existential questions that cut closest to the distinctive hearts of Quebecers, Quebec's homegrown pundit class is so consistently wildly wrong about the reactions of ordinary Quebecers?
No kidding. As my brother Mike pointed out, certain pundits have been making a ponderous although somewhat zig-zagging evasive maneuver.
And, as our beloved Paul once earlier observed, the elites are wrong. The Quebec pundits (Chantal . . . .) are wrong.
The Liberal party is back as the Federalist option in Quebec. The Tories, given their behaviour this last year, are out. Dion is a good standard bearer.
We will triumph, the chattering nabobs of Quebec notwithstanding.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
A Devil Food is Turning Our Kids into Homosexuals
I'm not kidding. This is the actual title of a column by some right winger. Apparently, "when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens." He continues:
Who knew?! I used to think that tofu was bland, flavourless, had a tendency to break up in my stirfrys, and was sort of rubbery and icky.
Now--well, let's make sure everyone eats more soy, particularly pregnant mothers!
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!)
Who knew?! I used to think that tofu was bland, flavourless, had a tendency to break up in my stirfrys, and was sort of rubbery and icky.
Now--well, let's make sure everyone eats more soy, particularly pregnant mothers!
Get Rid of the Bad Liberals
Canadian Cynic makes a good point:
I agree. The Liberal party is a big tent, but there should be a limit. There should be some basic ideological standards that we require our candidates and MPs to adhere to.
The Liberal Party is the party that brough universal health care and equalization, that decriminalized homosexuality, that brought in the Charter which led to the glorious renaissance in our equality laws, that stopped the Tory attempt to ban abortion, which brought in SSM, the Clarity Act, and which has stood strong against separatism. It is the party of MacKenzie King, of Pearson, of Trudeau.
There simply is no place in the party for people who don't adhere to some basic concepts of social justice and of national unity.
There are plenty of loathesome people currently in the party: Paul Szabo, Dan McTeague spring quickly to mind. Read their speeches on Same Sex Marriage--they sound like Tories. Well, time for them to put their money where their ideas are: Dion should refuse to sign the nomination papers for anyone who does not buy into the Charter and to the Liberal idea of the Just Society. Dion says he wants more women candidates. This will give him a good excuse to install some more.
Sure, the vote last week was one of conscience: but sometimes following your conscience has consequences. This should be one of them.
Happily, in other good news, the Hill Times reports:
Case in point: the recent national vote on same-sex marriage, during which (despite that vote being an utter waste of time and doomed to failure) 13 Liberals actually voted to re-open the debate. . . . [T]here comes a point when progressives should be getting really freakin' tired of strategically having to support Liberal candidates who act like right-wing wankers.In cases like that, I think it's incumbent on progressives to send a message -- there's a limit to our patience and accommodation. If closet conservatives are caught hanging out in the Liberal party, they should be outed and punished, even if it means some short-term pain.
I agree. The Liberal party is a big tent, but there should be a limit. There should be some basic ideological standards that we require our candidates and MPs to adhere to.
The Liberal Party is the party that brough universal health care and equalization, that decriminalized homosexuality, that brought in the Charter which led to the glorious renaissance in our equality laws, that stopped the Tory attempt to ban abortion, which brought in SSM, the Clarity Act, and which has stood strong against separatism. It is the party of MacKenzie King, of Pearson, of Trudeau.
There simply is no place in the party for people who don't adhere to some basic concepts of social justice and of national unity.
There are plenty of loathesome people currently in the party: Paul Szabo, Dan McTeague spring quickly to mind. Read their speeches on Same Sex Marriage--they sound like Tories. Well, time for them to put their money where their ideas are: Dion should refuse to sign the nomination papers for anyone who does not buy into the Charter and to the Liberal idea of the Just Society. Dion says he wants more women candidates. This will give him a good excuse to install some more.
Sure, the vote last week was one of conscience: but sometimes following your conscience has consequences. This should be one of them.
Happily, in other good news, the Hill Times reports:
Liberal MP Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Que.), however, told The Toronto Star last week that he would not run again.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
What the Court decided
One person, in response to this post, made the rather incorrect comment that
In other words, the court refused to find a right to marriage for gay couples in the Charter. So stop claiming otherwise.
Such wonderful semantic nonsense. First, the court no more "refused to find a right to marriage for gay couples" than it "refused to find a right to make ill-informed comments based on a complete failure to understand the issues," or than it "refused to find a right to eat cabbage in the comfort of one's own home."
The Court declined to answer the question. To wit:
Read the opinion. Courts refuse to answer questions all the time. When the Supreme Court of Canada or of the US doesn't take a case for review, it's not denying it or however you want to phrase it. It's not answering the question one way or the other.
But let's put it this way: As the law stands, the Courts of Appeal for Ontario, BC, and Quebec--the highest courts in those provinces--have declared that gay marriage is required by the Charter. The trial courts in every province and territory but NWT, Nunavut, PEI, and Alberta have said the same, and the Government did not appeal. Until the Government appeals those to the Supreme Court, the law is crystal clear and those decisions stand. Many, many provincial Courts of Appeal decide cases that set precedent that never get appealed; just b/c the Supreme Court hasn't spoken on the issue doesn't make it any less binding.
And please, does anyone who's not smoking tar sands in Red Deer actually think that the Supreme Court, if faced with the question, would not affirm Ontario, BC, and Quebec?
In other words, the court refused to find a right to marriage for gay couples in the Charter. So stop claiming otherwise.
Such wonderful semantic nonsense. First, the court no more "refused to find a right to marriage for gay couples" than it "refused to find a right to make ill-informed comments based on a complete failure to understand the issues," or than it "refused to find a right to eat cabbage in the comfort of one's own home."
The Court declined to answer the question. To wit:
The government has stated its intention to address the issue of same-sex marriage by introducing legislation regardless of our opinion on this question. The parties to previous litigation have relied upon the finality of their judgments and have acquired rights which in our view are entitled to protection. Finally, an answer to Question 4 would not only fail to ensure uniformity of the law, but might undermine it. These circumstances, weighed against the hypothetical benefit Parliament might derive from an answer, convince the Court that it should exercise its discretion not to answer Question 4.
Read the opinion. Courts refuse to answer questions all the time. When the Supreme Court of Canada or of the US doesn't take a case for review, it's not denying it or however you want to phrase it. It's not answering the question one way or the other.
But let's put it this way: As the law stands, the Courts of Appeal for Ontario, BC, and Quebec--the highest courts in those provinces--have declared that gay marriage is required by the Charter. The trial courts in every province and territory but NWT, Nunavut, PEI, and Alberta have said the same, and the Government did not appeal. Until the Government appeals those to the Supreme Court, the law is crystal clear and those decisions stand. Many, many provincial Courts of Appeal decide cases that set precedent that never get appealed; just b/c the Supreme Court hasn't spoken on the issue doesn't make it any less binding.
And please, does anyone who's not smoking tar sands in Red Deer actually think that the Supreme Court, if faced with the question, would not affirm Ontario, BC, and Quebec?
Friday, December 08, 2006
Note to those who are publishing comments anonymously
We're not fans, but also realize that some people don't have Blogger accounts. A lot of the comments haven't been bad, so for the most part, we let them through. But: could you do something to distinguish yourselves? Because some of the anonymous posters seem to be intelligent, thoughtful, and decent people. And some appear to be right wing conservatives who don't understand the law or the constitution and probably have never met a minority, but are happy to comment away in their vapid inability to comprehend anything.
So, I dunno--could you at least give yourselves initials or something at the bottom, so we can tell who's who?
So, I dunno--could you at least give yourselves initials or something at the bottom, so we can tell who's who?
Some comic relief
Greetings from Utah, where I'm bringing Liberal Homo Foreign Athiest Heathenism to the Mormons (and skiing!)
Since we've been a little serious, we thought you might appreciate this little humourous interlude (hat tip to my sister):
Since we've been a little serious, we thought you might appreciate this little humourous interlude (hat tip to my sister):
Harper's claim to fame
Chantal writes today:
No kidding. I hope the Tories are proud today.
With same-sex marriage on the books since 2005, the debate had moved on to a more fundamental terrain: This week, Harper became the first post-war Prime
Minister to ask the Commons to consider taking away the rights of a Canadian minority.
That he failed to garner sufficient support to press on with the plan does not mitigate the fact that he was willing to ask.
No kidding. I hope the Tories are proud today.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
123 to 175
MOTION DEFEATED!
A few Tories--Cabinet level Tories--went against the motion. A few Liberals--and not many--went for the motion.
Now, let us pray that this is the end of it--both the general debate about our rights, and also the use of minority rights as a political football to score points with one's "base."
A few Tories--Cabinet level Tories--went against the motion. A few Liberals--and not many--went for the motion.
Now, let us pray that this is the end of it--both the general debate about our rights, and also the use of minority rights as a political football to score points with one's "base."
Same Sex Question Period
The Government has lost it.
Stronach: "Can the Government articulate the harm to Canadian society of gay marriage?"
Government: "We're having a free vote and that's what matters."
Stronach: "Will this be the last time?"
Government: "We're having a free vote."
Hedy Fry (who, suddenly, I respsect): "Given the government has no problem breaking its promises on income trusts, on appointed senators, on crossing the floor, why is it bringing this motion which clearly violates the Charter?"
Government: "We're having a free vote and that's what matters."
Hedy Fry: "Given the minister of public works has said he sees no societal harm in gay marriage, could the PM please share with the minister and this House what these harms are?"
Government: "We're having a free vote."
First: It's sort of pleasing that at least the Government (though not some backbenchers, who were embarassing in their speeches) isn't falling back on the old "it hurts families." Because, of course, it doesn't. Asked every day by Stronach to articulate the harm, the Government hasn't. That, at least, is a good thing.
But: They can't answer whether this is it. They can't say that they won't try again. We abuse the Bloc for playing the "If at first you don't win a referrendum, try, try again." Doesn't the same thing happen here?
At the end of the day, I'm not worried. It's going to fail. Even if it passes, it's so patently unconstitutional, on so many levels, that the Supreme Court won't tolerate it for an instant.
And Harper knows exactly what will happen if he uses the Notwithstanding Clause. He would basically be turning the Mace over to Dion to get beaten over the head with.
At the same time, it's still a little depressing to hear one's value to society being debated in any sort of serious manner.
Stronach: "Can the Government articulate the harm to Canadian society of gay marriage?"
Government: "We're having a free vote and that's what matters."
Stronach: "Will this be the last time?"
Government: "We're having a free vote."
Hedy Fry (who, suddenly, I respsect): "Given the government has no problem breaking its promises on income trusts, on appointed senators, on crossing the floor, why is it bringing this motion which clearly violates the Charter?"
Government: "We're having a free vote and that's what matters."
Hedy Fry: "Given the minister of public works has said he sees no societal harm in gay marriage, could the PM please share with the minister and this House what these harms are?"
Government: "We're having a free vote."
First: It's sort of pleasing that at least the Government (though not some backbenchers, who were embarassing in their speeches) isn't falling back on the old "it hurts families." Because, of course, it doesn't. Asked every day by Stronach to articulate the harm, the Government hasn't. That, at least, is a good thing.
But: They can't answer whether this is it. They can't say that they won't try again. We abuse the Bloc for playing the "If at first you don't win a referrendum, try, try again." Doesn't the same thing happen here?
At the end of the day, I'm not worried. It's going to fail. Even if it passes, it's so patently unconstitutional, on so many levels, that the Supreme Court won't tolerate it for an instant.
And Harper knows exactly what will happen if he uses the Notwithstanding Clause. He would basically be turning the Mace over to Dion to get beaten over the head with.
At the same time, it's still a little depressing to hear one's value to society being debated in any sort of serious manner.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Same Sex Marriage
Why is it that it's the old, white men who are anti-gay marriage?
Josee Verner--awesome speech, defying her party and opposing. Bravo Bill Graham--excellent speech, same with Real Menard.
And who is this tool, Rob Bruinooge, who's saying that the whipping of the BQ and the NDP violates the Charter? Oh, yes, because disallowing gay marriage is such a protected Charter value. But come on--the Liberals are not whipping, and does anyone think that any but one or two BQ and NDP MPs would vote for the motion.
Mike texted me earlier today that we should pass a law banning the use of one's familiarity or friendship with gays against a charge of bigotry. I agree. I also think there should be a law against those who preach family and christianity. Tired, tedious, and unproven arguments.
And, Dean Del Mastro, stop with the stupid slippery slope arguments. Those are boring. And childish.
Josee Verner--awesome speech, defying her party and opposing. Bravo Bill Graham--excellent speech, same with Real Menard.
And who is this tool, Rob Bruinooge, who's saying that the whipping of the BQ and the NDP violates the Charter? Oh, yes, because disallowing gay marriage is such a protected Charter value. But come on--the Liberals are not whipping, and does anyone think that any but one or two BQ and NDP MPs would vote for the motion.
Mike texted me earlier today that we should pass a law banning the use of one's familiarity or friendship with gays against a charge of bigotry. I agree. I also think there should be a law against those who preach family and christianity. Tired, tedious, and unproven arguments.
And, Dean Del Mastro, stop with the stupid slippery slope arguments. Those are boring. And childish.
Lazy Republican Excuses
As we know, the current Congress sat for fewer days than the "Do Nothing Congress" of 1948--a full 7 days less. The Democrats have served notice that this is going to change--that Congress will actually sit enough to get things done--supply bills passed, oversight, etc.
This, of course, doesn't suit the lazy Republicans one bit. But here's the excuse they offer:
What a load of nonsense. This lazy GOP from Georgia (hardly a long flight) pretends he can be a congressman with one full day in Washington? And the Democrats are doing this because they don't care about families?
First: When Kingston signed up to be a Congressman, he knew the deal and knew it would mean a lot of time in Washington. If he wants to spend more time in Georgia, he should have been a Georgia State Sentaor or peach picker or something.
Second, and more importantly: Do you want to talk about hard on families, Mr. Republican? How about families without health insurance? How about families who are paid at that pathetic minimum wage that the GOP refused to raise? How about families with kids in that useless war which they didn't bother to exercise any oversight whatsoever? How about the tens of thousands of gay families they refuse to help?
Don't whine, Mr. Congressman, that working hard hurts your family, because your party has done nothing to help families, anywhere.
This, of course, doesn't suit the lazy Republicans one bit. But here's the excuse they offer:
"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
What a load of nonsense. This lazy GOP from Georgia (hardly a long flight) pretends he can be a congressman with one full day in Washington? And the Democrats are doing this because they don't care about families?
First: When Kingston signed up to be a Congressman, he knew the deal and knew it would mean a lot of time in Washington. If he wants to spend more time in Georgia, he should have been a Georgia State Sentaor or peach picker or something.
Second, and more importantly: Do you want to talk about hard on families, Mr. Republican? How about families without health insurance? How about families who are paid at that pathetic minimum wage that the GOP refused to raise? How about families with kids in that useless war which they didn't bother to exercise any oversight whatsoever? How about the tens of thousands of gay families they refuse to help?
Don't whine, Mr. Congressman, that working hard hurts your family, because your party has done nothing to help families, anywhere.
SS Conventional Wisdom
In the face of a new Leger polling showing a 9% rise in Liberal support among Quebecers, Paul Wells comments:
A few columnists today (no names, no names) began trying to turn around the ocean liners of their pensée. Better speed up!..
He won't name names, but we will. Witness the good ship Chantal making a ponderous although somewhat zig-zagging evasive maneuver
A few columnists today (no names, no names) began trying to turn around the ocean liners of their pensée. Better speed up!..
He won't name names, but we will. Witness the good ship Chantal making a ponderous although somewhat zig-zagging evasive maneuver
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Globe comments by idiots
Sometimes reading the comments to the Globe made by readers makes me despair. Take, on SSM, this wonderful gem:
I'm going to just let that one lie. Because he's 1/30 millionth of the population--who care what happens to him?
But sometimes it's depressing to see just how many morons (who can't spell) are out there. I always think of the Globe as highbrow enough to leave the stupid reading the Sun.
Bob McDonald from Canada writes: 12,000 Canadian gays have married. That's 24,000 people OR 0.0008 % of the population. WHO CARES!!!!!
I'm going to just let that one lie. Because he's 1/30 millionth of the population--who care what happens to him?
But sometimes it's depressing to see just how many morons (who can't spell) are out there. I always think of the Globe as highbrow enough to leave the stupid reading the Sun.
Cynical on Same Sex Marriage
This is even worse. Apparently they're going to limit debate to a few hours, to "get it over with" so that they can move on, according to the Tory House Leader. Not only, then, do they know that the motion is going to fail, but the want to make it fail as quietly as possible.
And they wrap themselves in the "we made a promise" excuse. Stronach attacked them today: "Does the Prime Minister believe that same-sex marriage has in any way had a negative impact on our society or on traditional marriage, and if so, could he explain how?" The only response was "We made a promise." (They made promises about income trusts, too.)
It's ridiculous. A quick, prefunctory debate on fundamental rights just so that the Tories can throw a bone to their hard right supporters and say they kept a promise.
Does anyone think the right-wingers are that stupid? They all know that the Gov isn't really serious about SSM; they know that they're making this motion reluctantly.
We saw down here the disillusionment of evangelicals who realized that deep down, the Republicans think they're stupid. Harper's making the same mistake here.
That said, of course, where else will they go? All American politians have to talk about religion and how they love Jesus, so an evangelical can in some good conscience vote Democrat. Not so in Canada. The only party full of nutjobs (not that the Libs don't have a few) is the Tories.
And they wrap themselves in the "we made a promise" excuse. Stronach attacked them today: "Does the Prime Minister believe that same-sex marriage has in any way had a negative impact on our society or on traditional marriage, and if so, could he explain how?" The only response was "We made a promise." (They made promises about income trusts, too.)
It's ridiculous. A quick, prefunctory debate on fundamental rights just so that the Tories can throw a bone to their hard right supporters and say they kept a promise.
Does anyone think the right-wingers are that stupid? They all know that the Gov isn't really serious about SSM; they know that they're making this motion reluctantly.
We saw down here the disillusionment of evangelicals who realized that deep down, the Republicans think they're stupid. Harper's making the same mistake here.
That said, of course, where else will they go? All American politians have to talk about religion and how they love Jesus, so an evangelical can in some good conscience vote Democrat. Not so in Canada. The only party full of nutjobs (not that the Libs don't have a few) is the Tories.
Layton's a graceless jerk
Everyone else was gracious to Dion when he arrived in the Commons:
Harper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the new Leader of the Opposition on his election as leader of his party, a victory that I thought was well earned. I have been a resident of Stornoway myself. I hope he enjoys Stornoway and I hope he is happy there for a very long time. [Incidentally, that was the way Chretien used to welcome new Leaders of the Opposition.]
Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the new leader of the Liberal Party, who won a decisive victory on the weekend after running a good campaign. Our visions differ as to the future of Quebec, but the debate will only be clearer as a result.
Duceppe is particularly astonishing to me, given just how opposed they are.
And then Layton comes along.
Layton: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have learned to expect only one thing from ministers of the environment, whether they be current or former, and that is betrayal, because no matter which of them were in power, pollution continued to go up.
What a jerk--especially given he's praised Dion in the past.
The best part is, of course, he promptly made a fool of himself with his big ass comment. Which is exactly what he is.
The stupid NDP can spend their lives bitching about everything and sitting atop the moral highground because they never have to govern. They'll never be faced with the difficulty of having to impliment policies, of having to balance priorities. They, and the Bloc with them, can promise perfect justice, perfect environment, low taxes, strong military, and a balanced budget, and a pony for every Canadian to boot--because all they'll ever be are promises that they'll never have to impliment.
Harper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the new Leader of the Opposition on his election as leader of his party, a victory that I thought was well earned. I have been a resident of Stornoway myself. I hope he enjoys Stornoway and I hope he is happy there for a very long time. [Incidentally, that was the way Chretien used to welcome new Leaders of the Opposition.]
Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the new leader of the Liberal Party, who won a decisive victory on the weekend after running a good campaign. Our visions differ as to the future of Quebec, but the debate will only be clearer as a result.
Duceppe is particularly astonishing to me, given just how opposed they are.
And then Layton comes along.
Layton: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have learned to expect only one thing from ministers of the environment, whether they be current or former, and that is betrayal, because no matter which of them were in power, pollution continued to go up.
What a jerk--especially given he's praised Dion in the past.
The best part is, of course, he promptly made a fool of himself with his big ass comment. Which is exactly what he is.
The stupid NDP can spend their lives bitching about everything and sitting atop the moral highground because they never have to govern. They'll never be faced with the difficulty of having to impliment policies, of having to balance priorities. They, and the Bloc with them, can promise perfect justice, perfect environment, low taxes, strong military, and a balanced budget, and a pony for every Canadian to boot--because all they'll ever be are promises that they'll never have to impliment.
Monday, December 04, 2006
The Pundits are wrong--again
What was all that nonsense about the Liberals not being able to win with Dion?
Already, those that claim that are being proven wrong. The Liberals got a jump in the polls from Dion--of six points! And on the Quebec front:
We'll never have the separatist vote, so why worry about it? What we want to do is get all the federalist vote on our side and not on the Tories. Having a strong federalist is the key to doing that. And that's going to sell well in the rest of the country--no one can ever accuse Dion of pandering to Quebec.
Already, those that claim that are being proven wrong. The Liberals got a jump in the polls from Dion--of six points! And on the Quebec front:
And in a reaction that defies the conventional wisdom of Quebec pundits, 62 per cent of respondents in the province said that Mr. Dion was a good choice for the Liberals, with only 29 per cent saying he was a bad choice. The approval of the Liberals' pick was higher in Quebec than in the rest of the country, where 55 per cent liked the choice.
We'll never have the separatist vote, so why worry about it? What we want to do is get all the federalist vote on our side and not on the Tories. Having a strong federalist is the key to doing that. And that's going to sell well in the rest of the country--no one can ever accuse Dion of pandering to Quebec.
NDP environmental policy
"No more subsidies for Big Ass!"
-The Member for Toronto-Danforth
"Mr. Speaker, I promise to get to the bottom of it"
-The Rt. Hon. Prime Minister
-The Member for Toronto-Danforth
"Mr. Speaker, I promise to get to the bottom of it"
-The Rt. Hon. Prime Minister
anti-Dion hysteria
While expected, the negative talk coming out of the other parties is ridiculous.
The Bloc is actually arguing that the Liberals picked a francophone leader from Quebec on purpose, so as to beat up the province while claiming it's not anti-Quebecois.
The NDP is raising the complaint that Dion didn't actually get much done on Kyoto while he was minister of the environment. A valid point, one I've often wondered about as well. But I'd suggest that a simple answer to that critique is to remember who was at the head of the cabinet table when Kyoto obligations were being neglected. If I had to pick between Dion doing nothing, or Dion arguing in favour of meeting Kyoto targets, and Martin ignoring him for fear of losing votes or a simple inability to make a decision, I'd bet on Martin's dithering any day. But the NDP's general line of attack seems to be that they can place all past Liberal failings on Dion's lap, simply because he was at the cabinet table. It's a fine strategy, but with Dion, I don't think that's going to find much resonance with the public.
Finally, fears are being raised by disaffected Liberals, saying that Dion will lead the Liberals to devastation in Alberta and Quebec. Firstly, the Clarity Act was enormously popular in Alberta, and Dion's arguable #2, Kennedy, has developed a significant network there, as evidenced by his delegate votes. It's not hopeless for them. Hey, if Harper can achieve a breakthrough in Quebec, I think Dion can pull off the reverse with Alberta. As for Quebec, well, Dion was re-elected easily in his own riding during the last election, and after the Clarity Act was passed, the Liberals got their highest vote in years, reducing the Bloc to near insignificance (no coincidence that Bouchard retired from politics shortly afterwards). Preliminary polls coming out of Quebec seem to support the notion that Dion as leader is far from being a slap at Quebec, but quite the opposite.
Conventional wisdom was wrong. Conventional wisdom will continue to be wrong.
And don't get me started on the 'pundits'. That's for a whole other post.
The Bloc is actually arguing that the Liberals picked a francophone leader from Quebec on purpose, so as to beat up the province while claiming it's not anti-Quebecois.
The NDP is raising the complaint that Dion didn't actually get much done on Kyoto while he was minister of the environment. A valid point, one I've often wondered about as well. But I'd suggest that a simple answer to that critique is to remember who was at the head of the cabinet table when Kyoto obligations were being neglected. If I had to pick between Dion doing nothing, or Dion arguing in favour of meeting Kyoto targets, and Martin ignoring him for fear of losing votes or a simple inability to make a decision, I'd bet on Martin's dithering any day. But the NDP's general line of attack seems to be that they can place all past Liberal failings on Dion's lap, simply because he was at the cabinet table. It's a fine strategy, but with Dion, I don't think that's going to find much resonance with the public.
Finally, fears are being raised by disaffected Liberals, saying that Dion will lead the Liberals to devastation in Alberta and Quebec. Firstly, the Clarity Act was enormously popular in Alberta, and Dion's arguable #2, Kennedy, has developed a significant network there, as evidenced by his delegate votes. It's not hopeless for them. Hey, if Harper can achieve a breakthrough in Quebec, I think Dion can pull off the reverse with Alberta. As for Quebec, well, Dion was re-elected easily in his own riding during the last election, and after the Clarity Act was passed, the Liberals got their highest vote in years, reducing the Bloc to near insignificance (no coincidence that Bouchard retired from politics shortly afterwards). Preliminary polls coming out of Quebec seem to support the notion that Dion as leader is far from being a slap at Quebec, but quite the opposite.
Conventional wisdom was wrong. Conventional wisdom will continue to be wrong.
And don't get me started on the 'pundits'. That's for a whole other post.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
The new Rat Pack
Does anyone else think it's damn fantastic that we have the possibility of a new Rat Pack?
The three candidates who campaigned on ideas: Dion, Kennedy, and Findlay.
Imagine them as the centre of of the opposition? Breathtaking. The centre of the Government? Oh my.
Much like you heard it here first on Dion, you heard about the new Rat Pack here.
The three candidates who campaigned on ideas: Dion, Kennedy, and Findlay.
Imagine them as the centre of of the opposition? Breathtaking. The centre of the Government? Oh my.
Much like you heard it here first on Dion, you heard about the new Rat Pack here.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Dionistas rejoice!
To paraphrase our original posting back in January, why is nobody talking about how we were first to talk about Dion?
It was our first post to be noticed by our blog idol, Paul Wells and he credited us as the original Dionistas, and Andrew Coyne noted that the original blogs to endorse Dion were him, Wells, Colby Cosh, and us, so it's so exciting to see your candidate move from fourth to the final ballot. Ok, so maybe we're bragging just a bit.
Thrilling convention, absolutely thrilling, as candidates crossed the floor (Martha, we love you), and the delegates debated. We would vote against a one member/one vote system just for this reason. The CBC's coverage was great too. To see Boolinda in Black, John Manley, Rex Murphy and Rick Mercer talking in panel, with Andrew Coyne and Chantal Hebert on remote was enough to make these politics junkies absolute ecstatic.
And Chretien's speech was fantastic. The man can still stump. He connected all previous leaders into a Liberal continuum, pointed out their landmark achievements, including the No to the Iraq war (sorry Iggy). The olive branches to Paul Martin were remarkable. First was Chretien's comment that he was a delegate at Pearson's convention, but voted for Paul Martin Sr. Next, he credited Martin Jr. with the deficit slaying. His partisan attacks on Harper were classic Chretien, street fighter who takes no prisoner. As John Manley remarked, had he given that speech on Friday night, he would be voted leader today.
Anyway, an absolutely thrilling race. It's not over yet (10 min), but the final result is all over the Ignatieff camp's faces.
Some days, the man who fights the good fight, and does the hard thankless work, in the face of doubts, dismissals and enormous competition,...some days, like today, that man wins.
It's a good day, for Liberals and for Canada.
It was our first post to be noticed by our blog idol, Paul Wells and he credited us as the original Dionistas, and Andrew Coyne noted that the original blogs to endorse Dion were him, Wells, Colby Cosh, and us, so it's so exciting to see your candidate move from fourth to the final ballot. Ok, so maybe we're bragging just a bit.
Thrilling convention, absolutely thrilling, as candidates crossed the floor (Martha, we love you), and the delegates debated. We would vote against a one member/one vote system just for this reason. The CBC's coverage was great too. To see Boolinda in Black, John Manley, Rex Murphy and Rick Mercer talking in panel, with Andrew Coyne and Chantal Hebert on remote was enough to make these politics junkies absolute ecstatic.
And Chretien's speech was fantastic. The man can still stump. He connected all previous leaders into a Liberal continuum, pointed out their landmark achievements, including the No to the Iraq war (sorry Iggy). The olive branches to Paul Martin were remarkable. First was Chretien's comment that he was a delegate at Pearson's convention, but voted for Paul Martin Sr. Next, he credited Martin Jr. with the deficit slaying. His partisan attacks on Harper were classic Chretien, street fighter who takes no prisoner. As John Manley remarked, had he given that speech on Friday night, he would be voted leader today.
Anyway, an absolutely thrilling race. It's not over yet (10 min), but the final result is all over the Ignatieff camp's faces.
Some days, the man who fights the good fight, and does the hard thankless work, in the face of doubts, dismissals and enormous competition,...some days, like today, that man wins.
It's a good day, for Liberals and for Canada.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Three-tier marriage??
What nonsense are the Tories up to? Paul Wells reports:
Notice of government motion:
“That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.”
Now--I thought that the motion was going to be to reopen debate on the issue. Not one to open up debate to create not one, not two, but three levels of marriage.
What he's suggesting is we have these three levels: First, there's normal, opposite-sex marriage. First tier. Then, there will be the left-over legacy gay marriages. Second tier. And then the Third Tier: All those homos who couldn't get through the door fast enough in the narrow window offered by the Liberals and slammed shut by the Tories. The ones who can have a civil union, but not marriage.
In what universe do the Tories think that that would be constitutional? I mean, unequal treatment is bad enough, but doing it in two different ways? The mind boggles.
It's going to fail, but this shows you how great the Tories' understanding of the Constitution is.
Notice of government motion:
“That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.”
Now--I thought that the motion was going to be to reopen debate on the issue. Not one to open up debate to create not one, not two, but three levels of marriage.
What he's suggesting is we have these three levels: First, there's normal, opposite-sex marriage. First tier. Then, there will be the left-over legacy gay marriages. Second tier. And then the Third Tier: All those homos who couldn't get through the door fast enough in the narrow window offered by the Liberals and slammed shut by the Tories. The ones who can have a civil union, but not marriage.
In what universe do the Tories think that that would be constitutional? I mean, unequal treatment is bad enough, but doing it in two different ways? The mind boggles.
It's going to fail, but this shows you how great the Tories' understanding of the Constitution is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
