Is Same Sex Marriage Safe

I've done this while I should be working so it's rough, but here are some thoughts.

Let's evaluate the Same Sex marriage free vote potential. I'm going to take worst-case scenario for Tories and best case for NDP and for Bloc. I figure that the few Tories who vote to maintain it will be cancelled out by the few NDP/Blocheads who go against their party lines.

That means, absent Liberals, we have 124 against, and 80 for.

With the Liberals, last time around, 37 voted against SSM (or were absent or paired). Many of them were re-elected. By my count, 28 of those 37 were re-elected (only Carr, Gallaway, Lastweka, Longfield, Savoy, and Ur lost).

So we have 28 guaranteed Liberal votes against SSM (or for a Harper motion repealing). Now that there is no cabinet, it's anyone's guess how they fall. I'm going to guess that the remaining Liberals vote in favour, since the incumbents did last time and no one knows how new candidates will go. That means there are 75 Liberal votes for SSM.

Thus, my simple, simple math gets us to this calcuation:

Against SSM: 124 Tories and 28 Liberals = 152
For SSM: 51 Bloc + 29 NDP + 75 Liberals = 155
One independent.

Basically, it's close. Very close.

Two calculations then come into play. First, how many Liberals who voted against SSM last time will decide either a) the issue has been put to bed, let's just leave it; or b) decide that it will help the Liberals to portray the Tories as socially conservative barbarians by swallowing their objections and voting to uphold SSM.

Second, given how close it is, will Harper decide to just let this issue slide in order to build his government and focus on other priorities, not wanting Canadians to get an early impression that he has a social agenda.

At the same time, Harper could also profit from ramming his motion through now while the Liberals are headless, rather than face the issue later in his Parliament when the opposition will be less inclined to make it work.

Western Triumphalism

I'm a bit over hearing this stuff about the West "being in."

First, all the snivelling that Albertans did the last election and the one before when their man didn't become PM, and they blamed us treacherous easterners. Let's look at history. First, provincially, in my lifetime, Ontario has had a Tory government (Davis), a Liberal/NDP (Peterson/Rae), a Liberal (Peterson), an NDP (Rae), a Tory (Harris/Eves) and now a Liberal government. For exactly how many years in the last 50 have Tories been in power in Alberta? Since 1971, Tories. From 1935-71, SoCred (i.e. Tories).

How about Federally? Alberta has returned nothing but Tory or Reform/Alliance MPs, apart from the occasional Liberal exception. Ontario? Gave Mulroney plenty of Tories, gave Harper some, gave Harper more this time. Ontario sends some NDP MPs too.

So to hear the one-party state complain that the rest of the country, in the last few elections, didn't wholesale go for the Tories/Alliance/Reform parties is ridiculous. Have you heard Ontarians complain that the rest of the country doesn't follow its lead? Never. Did you hear Atlantic Canadians lamenting their rejection ever, or saying "We should go it on our own?" No. Only from Alberta, which incidentally has fewer MPs than ignored and disregarded Toronto.

Further, in Alberta, the Tories commanded only 48% of the vote, but got all the seats. That means a majority of Albertans would rather have someone other than Harper as Prime Minister. Democratic deficit? That's Exhibit A right there.

So, please, let's get over "the West is in." No. We now have real national parties, which means we're ALL in. And if Harper tries to govern as if now Calgary and Calgarian values are those of Canadians, wonder how long he'll last. Not long, I'd say.

Let's also remember that the left wing parties still have a commanding majority of the seats. It is not the case that Canadians have embraced Tory values - 64% of Canadians voted for left-wing or centre-left parties.

Bush made the mistake of claiming a mandate with his recent win. Harper does not even have that. He shouldn't make the mistake of governing as if he has.

This feels right

It's a grey conservative morning in Canada, but it's a good day for Canada.

• The West is finally in, but not so 'in' that they are insufferable.
• Quebec has decided to play ball again with federal politics. The Bloc reduced to 40% support! I'm sure Gilles and Snowflake are worried.
• The power couple of the Canadian Left is together at last! If you thought the Jack show was good, just you wait for the Jack and Olivia show!

All is right in my little political world right now.

Let's see how long it lasts.

Improving relations

While I'm all for cross-border cooperation, and especially good cross-border interaction, Harper's promise to "improve relations" with the US strike me as a little silly.

The principal reason relations are not the best is because we're actually sticking up for such quaint ideas as the rule of law and adhering to signed agreements. You know, free trade, torture, illegal wars, that kind of thing.

So while an argument can be made that maybe Martin should have said "Please, sir," a little more before he said, "Why don't you honour the agreements you sign with us?" at the end of the day, anything Harper says he would do seems like it would come at the expense of our interests. Like conceding the softwood lumber deal.

A colleague of mine here made this observation, with which I'll close:

Oddly, the Tory idea of "improving relations" is similar to a large swath of Democratic leaders' (think Lieberman) idea of "bipartisanship." Which is convenient, since Bush's ideas of both "improving relations" with Canada and "bipartisanship" is largely "bending them over and screwing them."

Liberation!

No, not the end of Paul Martin.

The end of electronic manacles. An end to wireless bondage. Casting off email handcuffs.

If my Blackberry were shut down tomorrow, it would easily be the best thing that has ever happened to me. Being able to leave the office in the office, to not be perpetually on call, to not feel guilty if you leave the house for an hour and forget the damn device - i.e. a return to normal, civilized business culture - would be the greatest miracle ever.

Movies changing people

This, on Daily Kos, is an interesting read on how a movie can change the minds of men.

Hat tip to John at A Lie a Day.

I'm the Judge

Some days, I particularly enjoy my job. When you spend the day reading some really boring transcripts, something like this makes it sort of worth it (yeah, I'm a dork)

THE COURT: You asked him what he said. He's told you ad nauseam what he said.

ATTORNEY: I object to the "ad nauseam."

THE COURT: I'm the Judge. I get to make cutting remarks.

Law firm musings

As some of our regular readers know or can guess, I work at a big law firm. Most of the time, I enjoy my job, the hours notwithstanding. I certainly got lucky and have good cases that actually engage my brain; some of my poor colleagues don't have it that way and loathe their jobs for more than just the hours and the sense of always being on call.

As a big firm, we obviously pride ourselves on "excellence." But I'm starting to think that this obsessions, which we tout as one of our big selling points, really hurts our clients.

For example, a case I'm on is approaching trial right now, and it's a huge trial. We have a lot of stuff that needs to be done and done NOW.

I recently did a big memo, answering a bunch of questions. I sent it to a partner for review, who made no disagreements with my logic or my answer, but wanted me to make it more "concise" before it could be sent to those who need it. So I spent an extra four hours editing it - even though it contained the answers we needed and needed NOW, and even though during those four hours I could have been answering any one of the remaning 500 questions that need to be answered before trial.

Likewise when we write things. Sometimes we spend all-nighters editing documents for style, when these documents are trivial things that will be read by the clerk and filed. Debating whether we use the word "Thus" instead of "therefore."

At our billing rates, this seems ridiculous. Our clients pay us for results, not pretty memos with the words aligned just so, or for perfectly concise writing in internal memos.

At the end of the day, I shouldn't care - as long as I have work, I can bill hours, and leave it to the partners to explain to the client. But really, when our focus is to get the job done, if the internal steps aren't pretty, they'll at least be more cost-effective. I would hate to explain to a client that we lost an issue at trial because we couldn't research it because we were busy making a prior memo a work of art, rather than a functional tool.

Ridiculous public opinion polls

This is such nonsense.

These sorts of opinion polls are meaningless. Do you think that there are 10,000 people in all of Canada who can even name 5 supreme court opinions, other than the Separation Reference and the Same Sex Marriage Reference? Or even name five justices? Sure, they might be able to articulate the words "politics has tained the Supreme Court," but then if asked to explain exactly how, they could no more give a meaningful answer (other than invoking the shibboleth of "activist judges") than they could translate R. v. Oakes from English or French into Amharic.

These sorts of polls should be prefaced with a qualification quiz. And polls like this make me believe there should be a basic qualifying exam before people are allowed to vote in an election. When you have, as here in the US, 12% of the population believing that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife, trusting complex matters of national policy to an unthinking, uninformed electorate means politicians pander to fears, make populist arguments that ignore nuance, ignore meaning, and ignore any sort of substance.

The eternal war

A Lie a Day makes an excellent point today: It took the US and UK (and Canada) less time to invade, defeat, and occupy Germany, Italy, and Japan, than it has to track down Osama bin Laden.

The knives aren't even out . . .

. . . and yet the backstabbing has begun.

Shows you the calibre of people Martin surrounded himself with - not True Believers, but rather, people who wanted power. Now they know their great white knight is about to exit not with a bang but with a pathetic whimper, they jump ship, trying to find the next great star to attach themselves to.

Pathetic. If McKenna - or anyone else - has any sense, he'll tell Martin's lot that, far from being an effective group, they took down the most successful modern Prime Minster, they took the leadership not because of a competing vision for the Party but just so they could have it, and then ran a bad, and then an absolutely incompetent campaign, thrusting power into Steven Harper's hands.

Proof the Libs know they're doomed

Warren Kinsella give a compelling proof that the Liberals know they're about to lose:

A sitting Prime Minister personally approving an ad that defames a sitting president, with whom he would presumably need to work, after an election? That's a Prime Minister who is returning to the private sector. He knew it was all over when he approved those ads. They were designed to protect what few ridings he had left, not expand his base.

An excellent point. I agree completely with TDH Strategies on this being a good thing:

What people tend to forget is that being a Liberal has never had to do with the outcome of a leadership race, and so those underlings and hanger-ons (including those MPs and Ministers that were so anxious to sack the most successful leader
in a generation for their own personal gain) who took a trip on Paul Martin's train deserve everything they get for forgetting why they believed in Liberal values in the first place. . . Paul Martin never represented those ideals for thousands of party faithful across the country, and now is the time to not only choose a new leader, but to reform this party into something we can all be proud of once again.

Martin has been a spectacular failure as a leader, as a politician, as a liberal or as a Liberal. Let's now pray there's a Tory minority, a massive Liberal bloodbath, and a rebirth of the true Liberal party. Of course, my view of the true Liberal party more or less necessitates the resurrection of Trudeau, but I'll leave the mechanics of that to the more metaphysically-inclined.

Ghosts of Mulroneys Past

Today's Globe cartoon is brilliant.

It must be that enough time has passed that Canadians have forgotten Mulroney enough to move on. The interesting part to me is that Ontarians, only a few years after Harris, are able to deal with Harper. But then, federal and provincial parties have enough disconnect (i.e. Quebec Liberal Party and Federal Liberal Party) that Harris might be vaguely irrelevant.

If you're beneath them, attack them

For all the Sturm und Drang that goes on about the recent attack ads in Canada, nothing compares there to what we have to endure down here.

E.J. Dionne, in the WashPost, points out how Bush and Cheney - neither of whom have served in the military (well, Dubya "served") - have turned on John Murtha, as they did on Kerry, questioning his patriotism, his loyalty to his country, and his support for the military.

Forget that he served in Vietnam - where they didn't. Forget that he has constantly supported the Administration. Oh no. Forget that he was awarded two Purple Hearts. Apparently he didn't deserve them.

Dionne writes:

In any event, what we know about Murtha, McCain, Kerry and, yes, Bailey, is that they served in combat in Vietnam. What we know about Bush and Vice President Cheney ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service'') is that they didn't.

What's maddening here is the unblushing hypocrisy of the right wing and the way it circulates -- usually through Web sites or talk radio -- personal vilification to abort honest political debate.

And he continues, with the double standard:

When a Democrat went to war, there must have been something wrong with the way he did it. Gore's service was dismissed because he worked "only" as a military journalist. You can even find Bush's defenders back in 2000 daring to argue that flying planes over Texas was actually more dangerous than joining the Army and serving in Vietnam the way Gore did.

The Republicans had an even bigger problem with Kerry, who did unquestionably dangerous duty patrolling rivers. Not to worry. The Swift Boat Veterans simply smeared him.

But then - we know all about the double standard. Clinton lied about a blowjob from some saucy intern. And they impeached him. Dubya has lied about the war in Iraq, he's broken the law with spying and with torture, he's lost a major city, his Congressional lieutenants are all facing corruption charges - and not a single Republican bats an eyelash.

As I've said before - I'll take one for the team and blow him. Then we might get progress.

Alito - all process, no humanity

As my tag-team buddy keeps up his commentary on the Election, I'll keep up a sustained banging on Alito hearings.

David Broder, in the Post, makes the excellent point that Alito's a company man. He writes, "At no point that I heard did Alito express sympathy for the men and women who came to his court looking for help -- and were turned away." This matches my own view on Conservatives - if they can find a way to read a statute ueber-narrowly, they will, letting the statute triumph over either the intent behind it (think of the ADA or various civil rights provisions), or the people whom it is meant to benefit.

A shocking case Broder points to is one in which an all white jury convicted a black man, where the local prosecutors had eliminated all blacks from the jury in five trials over the past year. Ignoring supreme court precedent to the contrary, Alito dismissed the complaint (mercifully in dissent) with the trite line: "Although only about 10 [percent] of the population is left-handed, left-handers have won five of the last six presidential elections."

His fellow judges criticized this analogy, which he explained in the hearings with some dry, technical answer, ignoring completely the human fact behind the case.

If this is what we want - machines who will do their best to ignore the fact that the Constitution protects the individual, that the Constitution is a shield for the average person, that the goal of our society should be the expansion of protections and the increase in individual freedom - then Alito is perfect.

But as we lurch ever forward, giving the president authoritarian power, gutting the Bill of Rights, all while intoning a belief we're following what the Constitution requires, and ignoring that behind every law suit is a person coming to the court for help, Alito will be in the vanguard.

I, for one, am scared.

Layton's Revenge

After Paul Martin urged soft-NDP voters to go Liberal in the final days of the 2004 election, we now see Jack Layton returning the favour . Describing the current incarnation of the Liberal Party as nothing like the party of old, Layton is urging disappointed Liberals to flock to his banner.

The article describes the new NDP strategy as "picking the Liberal carcass". Fitting imagery indeed.

With a "Liberal carcass picked clean" and the inevitable (and overdue, and likely entertaining) descent into yet more vicious leadership battles among the survivors, we may witness the emergence of the NDP as the effective Opposition in Parliament. Not necessarily the Official Opposition, but at the very least, the Opposition as far as English Canada is concerned. And if a party can form an effective and credible Opposition, the next mental jump in public perception to Credible Governing Alternative isn't too far away. A matured NDP, dropping the far-left baggage and moving to the centre...

Far-fetched? Hey, two months ago, a Conservative government was unimaginable for most people. Now it is openly embraced and welcomed by those who previously would have been babbling incoherently in fear and loathing.

Editorials from Toronto

The Globe&Mail's editorial board has made its decision, and it's eloquent and convincing: It's time for a change

 

The Toronto Star's editorial board (or as I like to say PMO South) chooses to write up pure speculation to scare voters. Clearly they are still hoping for a last-minute turn around of Martin's fortunes. Today they write about the Canada that would have been without the Liberals. Tomorrow they'll turn the fear screws a bit more and write about the Canada we'll get if we don't vote for the Liberals.

 

No idea what the National Post is editorializing about (not that you can ever really tell the difference between an editorial and a regular news item). Their editorials are behind a subscription wall. But it's not hard to guess who's side they are coming down on.

Bible Thumpers don't know their Bible

Harpers Index is one of the coolest things ever. A gem from this month's:

Number of Alabama state senators co-sponsoring a bill last summer to protect public displays of the Ten Commandments: 10

Number of them who could list the Commandments: 1

Of course this just follows along the same lines as those Zealots who quote Leviticus for its prohibition of homosexuality, but then ignore the bits about stoning adulterers (20:10) or not eating shrimp (11:10) or not touching menstruatingng women (15:19) or eating rare steak (17:10-14) or not wearing mixed fabric (19:19) (I'm sure I saw Pat Robertson wearing a polyesther tie with his cotton suit).

Impeach Bush

Now, I'm sure that this post is going to result in my phone being monitored every time I call my Dad in Canada, but this piece on impeaching His Imperial Highness is worth reading.

We have a President who has spied on americans, in violation of the law, has said he won't follow the law, has authorized torture, has presided over the ballooning of the deficit and national debt, has cut back on programs for the poor, lost a major city, and entangled us in an unnecessary war.

In most countries, this person would have been shot, deposed, exiled, or forced to resign.

Here, he's at 45% approval.

Memo to Murphy: reduce your role by 80%

Margaret Wente believes that Paul Martin should fire his chief strategist: himself.

In this interview with the Queen's Journal, alumnus Tim Murphy, Martin's Chief of Staff, reveals just how much of his day he spends with Martin...

On Martin's debate performance: "He was fabulous".

Um...yeah. You need to go too.

The View from Abroad

Now that Canada looks set to press the eject button on 12 years of Liberal rule, the rest of the world is starting to take a look.

Some choice views from abroad:

The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the story that one of Harper's campaign strategists is an Australian who helped John Howard to victory.

The Boston Herald reports on the anti-US slant of the campaign, and the recent attack ads.

The Financial Times of London reports on Harper's lead

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer takes a poke, from a BC perspective.

And it appears Reuters is running this story internationally, on the challenges facing a Harper minority.

"Apply the law" is such nonsense

One of the most vexing things to listen to in these hearings, and indeed whenever some conservative opens his trap, is the incessant intoning of the phrase "apply the law." Of course we want judges to "apply the law."

The thing that this phrase, which sounds so appealing, completely misses is that the law is almost always not clear. If it were, why would we need lawyers? Why would we need judges? Why would we have cases and trials and appeals? You could just plug facts into some legal computer and it would spit out an answer.

The law is unclear in so many ways, and I'll use the Michael Jackson trial to illustrate.

First, there are areas where the law says one thing, but its application is unclear. In First Amendment law, with regard to California's SLAPP statute, there are public figures, and nonpublic figures. Michael Jackson is a public figure. My sister is not.

The seminal California Supreme Court case states: When an individual achieves pervasive fame or notoriety, they are properly classified as all-purpose public figures. Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 244, 253 (1984). [This explains the citation system].

But then there's the grey area. How about the boy who was allegedly abused? He's pretty famous. The case generated massive publicity. He probably is not a public figure, since merely being part of litigation against a public figure is usually insufficient - you have to willingly inject yourself into the controversy. So - how about the mother? Normally, she wouldn't be one, but then, there is a compelling case that, because of the added publicity she sought out - press conferences, media appearances, etc., she could be called one.

How about someone who's dating a star? Their fame and notoriety comes only from being with the star, but they necessarily choose the attendant fame.

So - from one statement of California law, a set of unsettled questions.

And then let's look at unsettled law. The law in California is not clear of the pleading standard necessary to survive a demurrer.

How about the Fourth Amendment? To get a search warrant, you have to have probable cause. That standard has been elucidated as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search." Well - how much information is needed?

And then once you have it - the police must "knock and announce," ('Police, we have a warrant, open up!') wait a reasonable time, and then they can kick the door down. Two seconds isn't enough, ten minutes isn't required. What about what's in the middle? If it's a granny in a walker who might take more time to get to the door? What about if it's for drugs that can be flushed? What if the person says "I'm coming" and can be heard walking to the door?

The point is that our system of laws allows for general statements of the law that can be easily applied in some situations, but not in others. The majority of situations are unclear - they're on the edges, which is why they're in court.

So any statements of "applying the law" are disingenuous. "Clear law" is still unclear. Judges - conservative, liberal, middle of the road - make these calls all the time. Was the search reasonable? Was the force excessive? Is the person famous? Were the words defamatory? Was the warning label adequate? Did the shareholders have sufficient notice. So to pretend that conservative judges apply the law with no regard to their own views is sheer nonsense.

The word according to Chantal

I remember Harper's run at the Alliance leadership. He ran as a social moderate in contrast to his rival, Stockwell Day. Everybody seems to have forgotten this. The man is not stupid. If he gets a minority, he'll hold his same-sex vote knowing full well that he will lose it. It's just to appease his base. And he's not going to do much more than that with social issues. Why? Because he needs to translate his minority into a majority, and that requires Quebec, and more Ontario seats.

I'm not afraid of Harper's so-called social agenda, and that's why I see Martin's increasingly hysterical rants as just that, hysterical. Unfortunately, many left-leaning voters have bought this argument, and will likely flock to the Liberals out of fear of the Conservatives, leaving the poor NDP to dangle in the wind. I have little patience for people who vote out of fear, for people who vote against a candidate. Especially when they don't critically think about what their candidate or party really stands for.

Few in the media have bothered to point out the glaring inconsistencies between what the Liberals profess to stand for, and actually believe in, when it comes to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. In particular, I refer to the 'gang' of Scarborough social conservatives that run as Liberals.

Chantal Hebert's article in today's Star brings this point out in force, and it's about time. And while I feel she went easy on Martin in the 2004 election, she has pulled no punches since. She concludes her article with this final dismissal of the Martin Liberals:

"This is the week when columnists have to decide where they want to be on election night to be on hand for the post-victory news conference of the winner. Until further notice, I am headed for Calgary."

Chantal, take me with you.

Alito for the big guy

E. J. Dionne, in the Washington Post, makes this observation:

Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor, has noted that Alito follows the law when it's clear, but he almost always tilts toward his conservative predilections when the law is less settled.

Exactly. Andrew Sullivan recently denounced Emily Bazelon's statement that

In almost none of these cases, though, does Alito seem like a little-guy champion. He seems like a judge who dutifully follows the law. When the law instructs him to find for the criminal defendant or the plaintiff, he does so. When you get to the Supreme Court, though, you get to rip up the instruction manual and rewrite it. There's very little in Alito's record that suggests his revisions will favor the little guy. And a lot that suggests they won't.

Sullivan said:

Just so we're clear: Alito's record as a judge indicates that he only rules for the little guy when the law dictates that he should. And this is really bad, because we need Supreme Court judges who are willing to "rip up the instruction manual" (I believe it's known as "active liberty" jurisprudence these days, but maybe Bazelon didn't get the memo) to help the little guy, or at least the little guy as defined by Ted Kennedy. And the way we should pick them is by nominating lower court judges who have . . . torn up the instruction manual on the lower courts?

Sullivan is dead wrong. First - it is conservative nonsense that only purportedly-liberal judges "tear up the instruction manual." There are countless examples of conservative judges going against settled precedent - just as there are with liberal justices. Judicial activism crosses the aisles.

More importantly, what Sullivan misses, with his cramped view of individual liberty, is that the Constitution does protect the person. The rights guaranteed by it, unlike, for example, the Constitution of Canada, inhere ONLY to the individual. There is no reasonable attorney or jurist or lawmaker who would dispute the fact that when a lower court comes up against settled precedent of a court superior to it, it must follow it. But the point is that where precedent is unclear, or where the law is murky, it should err on the side of individual liberty, of privacy, because that is the common thread of the Constitution. Look at the Amendments: The First guarantees the rights of the individual to speak and to believe. The Third guarantees that the individual cannot be forced to quarter troops. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth all guarantee the individual's rights in criminal proceedings, along with the glorious Eighth.

(I will point out - as a second year attorney, I see countless examples of unsettled law, even on a Constitutional level. The law is just not clear on so many things.)

So, Sullivan is right - follow the rules. I doubt Bazelon or Dionne would disagree. But where they part ways is in the grey area (and we all know Republicans don't believe in grey). Bazelon and Dionne would support the individual. Sullivan and Alito would support the state.

And when the State is arresting you and holding you without cause, and spying on you without a warrant, I'd far rather have the courts on my side.

Obligatory Attack Ad Joke

I was walking down University Avenue this afternoon, and I heard the wop-wop-wop of a helicopter landing at the Sick Kids hospital helipad. I can't resist watching the landing and take-off. But this time, it wasn't an air ambulance coming in for a landing.

It was a military helicopter.

Landing at Sick Kids.

A military helicopter. Maybe with guns.

In our city.

I am not making this stuff up.

Sorry, I had to get in my own version before it becomes cliche. Woops, too late.

Law professors, former AGs on the NSA Wire tapping

Their letter can be found here.

It speaks for itself.

Alito is a disaster

In the ten minutes it took me to drive to the gym, and the twenty to the office, I heard enough on the Alito hearings to terrify me.

First, he said he'd never heard of the Rule of Four. Did he not go to law school? Does he not read the papers and legal journals? It comes up ALL THE TIME in death penalty cases - and he says he'd not heard of it until the Roberts hearings? What does that mean? Either, as Nina Totenberg suggested, he's such an ivory tower academic that real world events pass him by, or he's just, well, weird.

But FAR FAR more chilling to me were his comments on the death penalty.

Sen. Leahy was questioning him on what would happen if a jury convicted, a court of appeals affirmed, and the Court either affirmed or didn't grant cert. I.e. all set to inject. And then suddenly DNA evidence, or a confession of someone else (i.e. proof of actual innocence) surfaces. What happens?

First, Alito dodged, saying something like "well if he'd been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," which Leahy smacked him down on with something to the effect of "being found guilty by a jury and actually being guilty are two different things." (And lord knows that's true - all you have to do is follow recent death penalty exonerations to know that).

And then Leahy asked him: "Does the Constitution countenance the execution of an innocent person?" To which he replied, "The Constitution is designed to prevent that."

Those are entirely different things! Congress, in its wisdom, is making Habeas petitions even more difficult, to the point where convicts won't be able even to raise claims of actual innocence. Sure, the Constitution is designed to ensure maximum due process, but that doesn't mean that it always succeeds. Alito seems to believe that if all the procedures are followed, an innocent man can go the gallows. At least Roberts said that no, the Consitution does not permit the execution of the innocent.

And final, this whole CAP kerfuffle. Recall that Alito put on his resume that he was a member. Recall that the CAP has quite nasty views on women, minorities, gays. After yesterday's Specter-Kennedy punch-out, the CAP files were inspected and apparently there's no record of Alito's membership.

Does this mean that, in order to please the Reagan administration in his job applications, and to burnish his conservative credentials, he lied about his membership? He found the most nasty conservative group he could think of and put it on his resume, even though he wasn't a member?

Now, we certainly all embellish on our resumes ("Managed and developed innovative client interaction strategies"="worked as salesminion at the Gap"), but to put something on there that has no foundation in truth, just to tell the prospective employer what he wants to hear, is scary.

Does that mean he's doing the same this week?

He was either lying then, or lying now.

Confirmation Report

The media here are blessed with three truly amazing Supreme Court reporters (whose reporting, obviously, interests but a tiny fraction of the nation's population.) There's Nina Totenberg on NPR, and Daliah Lithwick and Emily Bazelon on Slate. (Total aside: Lithwick's article on whether you should move to Canada is one of my favourite articles ever).

Lithwick (a Canadian) has been providing a day to day commentary on the Alito hearings.

Emily Bazelon has a great article today, dissecting the rulings in which Republicans claim that Alito sometimes rules for the little guy. She thinks this is nonsense and concludes with a chilling comment:

In almost none of these cases, though, does Alito seem like a little-guy champion. He seems like a judge who dutifully follows the law. When the law instructs him to find for the criminal defendant or the plaintiff, he does so. When you get to the Supreme Court, though, you get to rip up the instruction manual and rewrite it. There's very little in Alito's record that suggests hisrevisions will favor the little guy. And a lot that suggests they won't.

This much is true. Every single time that Alito has given a break, it's been through a dry application of procedural rules. The concerns of the individual are really an afterthought.

But this is the general conservative approach - all those strict constructionists. They argue for things in an almost academic vacuum: "The Constitution does not grant a right to privacy" - forgetting that this ruling has consequences to peoples lives. "The Constitution does not expressly permit X and thus it is not permitted," disregarding that not being able to do X has life-changing consequences for people.

A fun example is recent Republican attempts to limit habeas procedings even more - on procedural grounds. So, sorry semi-literate inmate who may not be given access to library and writing materials, you're one day late in filing your habeas petition, you can't challenge your incarceration even if your conviction is illegal, off to the gallows. (I've read and handled countless habeas petitions. I'm an attorney. I know a lot about criminal law and criminal procedure, and I struggle to understand the rules. Asking a prisoner to do so - and penalizing him so severely - is cruel.) So, no - it's not that we want to see you hang, we just want to make sure that you follow deadlines.

But then, it's easy to hide small-mindedness behind some dry constitutional argument rather than make the argument from belief.

Tory bloggers already planning to remake the country

No hidden agenda, eh?

(Okay - one blogger isn't indicative of everyone out there, but still - lends some credence to the idea that Harper's "We're Almost Liberals and There Won't Be Much Change" message isn't exactly honest).

Taber and Wells on Studio 2

Caught the Globe's Jane Taber and Maclean's Paul Wells on tonight's TVO Studio 2.

Steve Paiken (brilliant debate host from Monday night) asked why everybody was talking about the Liberal Red Book leak, and not the Liberal Red Book itself.

Paul Wells' reply was "because there's nothing in it!" He went on to characterize it as the least forward-looking Red Book in a decade, and that it made Jean Chretien look like Lincoln and Mahatma Ghandi rolled into one. Although it speaks to the rising importance of the thoroughly dead and beaten horse that is Chindia (at least in terms of Globe&Mail special reports), the Liberal platform proposes nothing new whatsoever to deal with it.

And as Jane Taber piped in, it contains no reference to that central plank of Martin's debate performance, the removal of the Notwithstanding Clause. Made up on the fly. Big surprise.

Paiken solicited advice for Harper and Martin in the last week and a half:

Taber: Harper needs to keep his cool and keep a lid on his team, and Martin, well, she doesn't know what she'd say to Martin.

Wells: Martin will be tempted to go negative hard like in 2004, but acting dignified might be a novel approach. And if he's going to go, he might as well go out dignified.

This corner would much prefer he go out kicking and screaming. Preferably to the gleeful cackling of the JeanFather.

We're not making this stuff up

from Wells

To quote Napoleon, an army marches on its stomach

from Kinsella

The Liberals' anti-Harper military ad is " officially, the 2006 Reptilian Kitten Eater moment. MEOW!"

Journalistic smackdown! Yeah!

This exchange is priceless. John Duffy tries to spin his way out of a legitimate question on the "soldiers in the streets" ad, and Mike Duffy rips him a new one. Nice. It's so refreshing to see a journalist stand up to a politican's spin. I've always argued that that was one of the strengths of our press corps in Canada - a willingness to go after politicians and not accept their bull.

Sadly, down here in the US, it's not the same. The deference that journalists give to the President, their unwillingness to hound him, is depressing, and keeps the truth from coming out. Of course, the fact that George Bush never gives unscripted press conferences makes it all the more difficult.

I wonder what it would be like if Bush et al. had to endure a daily scrum like Canadian politicans do. For our American readers, a scrum is where journalists mob politicians as they exit the Commons Chamber ever day. No scripts, no moderation, just the politican and a bunch of microphones and recorders stuffed in his face and journalists asking questions.

Of course I'm sure His Highness Bush would avoid them anyway - national security.

More proof of the Imperial Presidency

Yet more examples of Dubya thinking hisself above the law. So his highness, who's never vetoed a bill, exercises a stealth veto: the bill still is in force, but just has no effect. Wonderful.

This is crazy. If Congress rolls over and takes it, accepting that the President, whenever he feels like it, can say, well, okay, but I'm going to do what I want - well, we've entered true depotism.

If the Congress - if the legislative branch of the government - is merely advisory, and the laws they pass are merely suggestions, we have reached a turning point.

For all the talk in American mythology and hagiography about the word "freedom," and the national belief we have that the Revolution made Americans "free," it should be said that neither George III, nor any British Monarch since Charles I, had ever claimed the power that Bush II has claimed.

Well, this is a big surprise

The poor getting screwed more? Not in Bush's America!

Liberals exercise the nuclear option

Faced with oblivion, the Liberals bring out the heavy guns.

To be honest, they're pretty effective. All very simple: Grey screen. Courier text. A woman's voice, slightly urgent, but not terribly (Not like Paul Martin last night). A super-zoomed in blurry shot, which gradually resolves into a VERY scary picture of Harper.

But the scariest part, in my mind, is the drumming. A soft, martial beat. What is it meant to evoke? For me, I think of Shostakovich's 7th Symphony, 1st movement, with a drum beat that's meant to symbolize Nazi hordes invading Russia. Somehow I suspect not everyone else thinks that. But it still has a military sound to it. Menacing. The evil Tories, the barbarians beating at the gate, coming to take your rights, kill your sons, ravish your daughters.

The best two are Hotel and Washington Times. The quoting the hotel speech might be disingenuous, but reciting lines from the Times article is brilliant. Of course, they don't mention that Harper disavowed it, but still - many a good attack ad has been ruined by too close adherence to the truth.

So - will the public see these ads as a sign of desperation, or will they, in tandem with the Star's headline screaming "Tories Head for Majority" spook everyone into voting Liberal?

UPDATE: Apparenlty, as noted by Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne, the ad threatening the presence of soldiers in the streets has been pulled. Good. That ad was just a little silly. It was the French language ad (there may have been an English one too) that basically says (I was translating on the fly): "If Harper is Prime Minister, there will be many 'Fors' and 'Against': Against the Kyoto accord. For the war in Iraq. Against the right of women to choose, for the presence of the military in all our cities. Against same sex marriage, for the American missile shield, against banning handguns. And Gilles Duceppe can do nothing. Don't vote to send us backwards. Vote Liberal."

Now, come on. Harper has promised more military bases throughought the country. He hasn't promised to stick a soldier on every street corner. He's not planning on subjecting us to a perpetual October Crisis (though in the months after Sept. 11, there were young, jumpy soldiers with guns on every street corner in DC. Biking back and forth to law school was just a little scary. Americans now are inclined to shoot first and ask later - can you imagine what they were like then?). But seriously - that claim is so completely risible that, in addition to insulting viewers' intelligence, damages the credibility of all the other claims.

Confirmation hearings snore

I wasted half an hour of my life I'll never get back, listening to the Alito confirmation hearings on NPR/KPCC on my drive to work. (Well, not exactly wasted - I was going to be in the car anyway).

As foretold, the hearings are focused entierly (and legitimately) on Alito's belief that really, the President can do no wrong. Senator Kennedy rightly cited to the Knight-Ridder study that Alito's never seen a Government abuse he didn't approve.

The problem is, the way they're going about it is long speeches, reciting obvious points, declaring their outrage at the President's conduct (which I certainly share), and declaiming the importance of standing up to Emperor W.

Someone needs to send them a memo: apart from Senators, pundits, and dorky lawyers like me, no one is listening.

UPDATE: A friend in DC who's listening reports that Alito just said he wouldn't use foreign law to interpret US law, and that Dems should therefore filibuster. I think that's a nonstarter. While I of course believe that the US should do more than gaze at its own navel and realize that other countries do occasionally confront similar issues and address them in ways that might provide guidance to the US, that argument is far too complex for middle America. The easy Republican response is "they want us to be bound by the rulings of courts in Zimbabwe" - outrageous mischaracterization, of course, but one that will resonate.

Far better to mount a filibuster on the "leave me alone" front: "This is a man who thinks it's okay to come into your house, strip-search your daughter (the words of the warrant notwithstanding) who's 10 years old, and get away with it."

That said, it completely mystifies me how Republicans, who are supposed to be all about being left alone by the state, seem to be getting collective hardons by letting the government be as intrusive as it can with as few checks as possible.

Pundit Hair Watch

Yay, a post-debate At Issue panel on The National. Stay tuned for the latest news of Chantal Hebert's hair.

Update: Looks like the product is gone. Or perhaps it was never there. Of course, Chantal's not in the CBC studios, she's at the debate set. So maybe there wasn't time. I don't know, I love her work to bits, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Coyne needs a haircut.

Upperdate: (to borrow Paul Wells' terminology) Hebert's view on tonight's Notwithstanding Surprise: Only one leader has mused about using the Clause, and that is Martin with protection of religious rights, so if that's the best he can do on the unity file, their campaign is finished. Coyne's view is that he doesn't like the Clause, but to bring it out in the middle of the debate is just bizarre.

Dean P's meditations on the debate

Unlike my tag teaming buddy, I'm multitasking at work - thank god for cpac!

However, a few thoughts:

1. Martin is shrill. Talking too fast. Hysterical. I agree with Mike - Chindia as a reason for unity?

2. The Notwithstanding Clause. Do we NEED to go there? Do you think, once we open up the Constitution for amendment, all those people out there with other interests aren't going to come forward. Please. We had so many horrible, divisive years of Meech and of Charlottetown - do we need more constitutional fighting?

3. Harper - poised. Calmer. Apparently smiles at the wrong time.

4. I thought the response by Harper regarding working with the Bloc was excellent. He acknowledged that there are three, not four national parties, and that the Bloc's goals aren't the same. He said when working with the Bloc, he'd keep pan-Canadian interests in mind. I thought that was excellent. Neutralized the fear that he'd sacrifice the interests of Canada just to keep himself in power using the Bloc.

5. Duceppe's answer about Same Sex Marriage being settled but Separatism not was ridiculous. Group v. individual rights. He gets Supreme Court doctrine on that one wrong. And anyway, on the divisibility of Quebec, he got that one wrong too. Quebec came in as Lower Canada - a tiny little lump around the St. Lawrence. We'll take Ungava back, thank you very much, and any part of Anglophone Quebec that wants to come (given Duceppe said that French is the national language of Quebecers and that's why he doesn't run ads in English). Traitor. It takes a lot of my legal mind to keep my emotions in check and not think he should just be.... But when I think that way, I channel Trudeau: "Reason over Passion. Ommmm. Reason over Passon. Ommm."

6. Martin's "if we'd said give them a dollar a day" comment is old. Get a new line, buddy.

Debate observations AKA what I'm yelling at the TV

Harper always looks like he wants to break into a smile.

Harper's going after the support of working families and seniors? That's Layton's area.

Layton's going after the support of working families and seniors? Well duh.

Martin? Duceppe? You want the support of working families and seniors too?

Good on Layton to go positive amid the negative.

Martin going positive isn't as convincing.

Martin's response to the fact his ships use flags of convenience: "I want to see Canadians succeed on the global stage". Huh?

Canvassers at my door. Fools, don't you realize what's going on?

Oh lord, here comes Martin and the Charter. What does that have to do with the question asked?...Repeal the notwithstanding clause? What? Martin wins the Award for Deft Removal of Objects in One's Posterior.

Martin needs to stop bobbing. Pity the cameraman assigned to him. Although, it makes his job more interesting. I bet Harper's cameraman is asleep.

Phone call from the Tony Ianno campaign. Uh, sorry, I'm busy watching your leader self-immolate.

Watch it, Stephen Harper. Sgro was cleared of that immigration scandal. All the leaders are playing loose with the truth in their attacks.

I love the proportional representation question aimed at Duceppe. Let's see him squirm out of this one!

Martin wants more women in Parliament? His hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Jack! Jack! You could have nailed him on that, but you didn't!

That gun crime question to Harper, "would the 4 Mounties, would the Laval policewoman, would the 15-year old Toronto girl still be alive under your government?" Horrendously inflammatory.

Steve Paiken speaks too quickly.

Enough of the flags, Harper.

Yay public transit gets a mention.

Boo, public transit gets forgotten.

Harper refuses to look at Martin. Martin refuses to look at Layton except with contempt. Duceppe never speaks to the camera.

Martin: "We gave $5 billion to the aboriginals because that is one of the root causes of poverty in this country". Nice. Real nice.

Oh, finally, Martin throws a pitch at working families and seniors. Eeesh. Duceppe? Your turn.

As Steve Paiken asks the question on agriculture, all the leaders but Martin flip madly through their briefing binders. Martin looks poised, they look frantic. Guys, it's a wide angle shot, pay attention!

Oh Layton and your down-home stories from the campaign trail. Touching. Cue violin. Actually, you did a good job with that one. You kept it mercifully short.

Oh, so now suddenly, Martin is of Southern Ontario farming heritage? But of proud federalist Quebec heritage?

Question on the NDP working in a minority government: Jack, answer the damn question! Clever Martin turning the small-business tax cuts against Layton. Martin says we have to fund education? Then why haven't you? Duceppe's is the only decent answer.

Oh Steve...nice follow up on Layton working with the Tories. Answer it, answer it....come on! Oh well. I don't know why Layton is afraid to say he'll work with them. Classy Harper response, that he will still work with Layton anyway: perhaps he is trying help woo Liberal voters over to the NDP, in hopes it boosts Conservative chances.

Fiscal imbalance, booooooooorrrrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnng.

Oh, I LOVE it. They nailed Duceppe on the "same-sex marriage has been settled with a vote, no need to revisit it/ Quebec can revisit the independence issue over and over"

Uh oh, first the Charter, now Martin is pushing Chindia. Where's my Paul Martin speaking-points bingo card?

Damn Tony Ianno campaign, stop calling!

Jack Layton, stop saying "winning conditions". That is a separatist term!

Oh, I love love love these Duceppe questions: "Is Quebec divisible?" Nonsensical answer.

Good on Layton for being positive on unity, but he comes off as naive. And kinda lame. "Love is the answer!" seems to be his message.

These unity questions are GREAT. Question to Martin "Do you believe the country is so fragile it can't survive a change of government?" Martin's essential response: "Vote for us or have no say". Worst possible answer.

Sure, Martin has no problem referring to Quebec as a nation, except he won't say it. He'll call it a 'peuple' though. One thinks he's hoping Albertans won't know what that is.

Watch out Harper, Quebecers love their childcare program. Don't diss it...oops, too late.

Martin: "I have no problem using the word 'nation', I use it all the time". Except before the words 'of Quebec'.

Paiken to Duceppe: "Do you care who becomes Prime Minister?"
Paiken to Layton: "You haven't said you're running for Prime Minister..."
I am LOVING these questions. I don't think Paiken is running from a script anymore. I think he's free-wheeling it. This is where Martin will fall apart.

Closing statements:
Boring and predictable. Harper's 'redeem federalism and remove a government pre-occupied with scandal" is going to resonate.

Steve Paiken has done an absolutely outstanding job. I've watched him for many years on TVO, and this was his breakout opportunity. He smacked it out of the ballpark.

And a last note: stunned confusion amongst the leaders bumbling about as the credits roll. I suppose it's better than having their loving families running out to greet them as in the Edwards-Cheney debate of 2004. Not that Cheney's family loves him. Or are capable of love. Could you love an android? But I digress...

Dumb soldiers, dumb decisions

It should be obvious that the war in Iraq should be having a negative impact on military recruiting, although one hears via NPR and other sources that the military is meeting its goals (if not the reserves). Well, it appears that one of the ways they've been doing that is by lowering the bar.

This is pretty dumb headed. As the article points out, citing to a Rand study, dumb soldiers don't perform as well as smart soldiers, even with things like aiming guns (which you'd think would be more instinctive than anything else - how otherwise to explain the skills of hunters in the flyover states?).

So not only has Dubya's decision to smite Saddam damaged America's reputation in the world, as well as creating more terrorists than it got rid of, it's now making the American army a weaker, dumber fighting force.

Well done, King George.

Libs looking DOOMED

This is interesting. EKOS has done a poll, the results of which they won't release, because the "données sont si surprenantes qu'il serait irresponsable de les dévoiler à un moment aussi critique que l'aube du débat." They are apparently going to repeat the poll.

Even more fascinating,

Ce week-end, un sondage CPAC-SES Research révélait déjà que 23% des Québécois préféreraient avoir le chef conservateur Stephen Harper comme premier ministre, alors que seulement 13% d'entre eux pensaient la même chose avant Noël. Le libéral Paul Martin et le bloquiste Gilles Duceppe récoltent pour leur part 18% et 17% d'appuis, ce qui représente une dégringolade.

The election suddenly got interesting. More people in Quebec want Harper to be PM than want either Martin or Duceppe (presumably Duceppe's number is so low because they know he never will be PM). This, for a man whose party has been virtually invisible in Quebec since the '93 election.

Let's hope, however, this new Tory momentum isn't going to carry forward to a majority, because that would just be scary. Fun questions:

1. Do Ontarians now panic at the thought of a Tory majority and go firmly Red?

2. Do wavering Liberals, now convinced they won't form a government, flock to the NDP, figuring it's their best bet?

3. Do the Liberals, not having bothered with something as trivial as a policy, go on the warpath, noting that their own electoral collapse is clearly going to doom the country to Right Wing Lunacy?

4. Does the new resurgence of the Tories in Quebec signal a split of the Federalist vote, helping the Bloc, or does it mean that many soft nationalists who were disgusted by the Liberals (rather than separatist traitors) switch to the Tories, helping the federalist cause in Quebec?

Fascinating.

Can all Presidents torture?

A Lie a Day has found an excellent gem.

Trespassing Christians

This needs to be read to be believed.

Now, let's see. A bunch of Christian nuts announce that they plan to bless the seats in the Senate hearing room, because "God needs to be involved." Apparently, security was ready for them, but then they announce that they'd actually anointed the various seats with oil, THE DAY BEFORE.

So much is wrong with this, it's hard to know where to begin. First, I suspect that Americans who like their law without God in it, or don't quite believe in the same God as the National Clergy Council (say, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc), might be a little distressed to hear that God has to be a part of the debate.

Second, let's think about security. Dubya has made security the cornerstone of his presidency. You can't go into a courthouse, an airport, a museum, or even some office buildings these days without getting searched. But apparently a bunch of people with urns of oil managed to get into the hearing room and slather oil everywhere, and no one stopped them?

And finally, think of those poor Senators and helpers and minions - given the difficulty I have in getting silicone-based products out of my fabrics, I can't imagine what holy oil does to their suits.

Election Prayers

I agree completely with TDH that if Landslide Annie goes down, I won't cry too much. And if Dan McTeague gets it, I won't complain either. Back in my younger days, as a Young Liberal (I was 16), he was seeking nomination and since I had some position or another in the Durham West Young Liberals, gave me a call. We chatted - in French - for about an hour. He invited me to that staple of the Liberal summer - the BBQ. There, I asked him about the role of the opposition - was it to blindly oppose, or to cooperate when necessary or useful. He gave the wrong answer. Now, he's opposed to SSM. I thought he lacked vision then; thirteen years later, he lacks it now.

But I would be completely devastated if Stephane Dion lost. The leading intellectual light of the Liberal Party, one of the most passionate defenders of Federalism and of Canada, completely brilliant. Read some of his stuff here, here, and here. Of course, it's horrible that Martin bumped Dion from the Cabinet as soon as he took power (and then ate humble pie and brought him back), though, perhaps, given Dion's strong vision of Federalism and Headwaiter Martin's vision of Canada as a community of communities (and his Quebec Lieutenant), it's not a surprise.

But when the knives come out, as they inevitably must, and Martin's given the boot, the Libs will need some strong, intelligent people with an articulate vision for the future (the lack of which has been Martin's downfall), and they'd better hope that Dion is there.

Super Monday

My, today is a big day.

First, down here, is the start of the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito. A few fun observations.

The Emperor, in introducing the man who promises to give him more power, says "The Supreme Court is a dignified place. Sam's a dignified guy." You would think the President, in making a formal announcement in regard to the nomination, might make the announcement dignified by, perhaps, calling him "Judge Alito" rather than "Sam." Of course, Dubya and his penchant for nicknames is quite famous. And, Your Highness, the people who sit on the Supreme Court are Justices, not Judges. We know you don't really care for any sort of judicial restraint, but please at least go through the motions.

Of course, given that nominees now regularly refuse to answer questions on issues that may come before them, when asked about the limits of presidential power, he'll probably refuse to answer, since this is an issue which is clearly going to come up (NSA wire tapping, Padilla, enemy combattants . . .) So when asked to respond to Justice O'Connor's statement that "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," he'll probably take the judicial equivalent of the Fifth.

This is a shame. The limits of presidential power is shaping up to be a defining issue of the current administration, and Dubya seems to believe that, in war, there is no limit, Congress and the law notwithstanding. Given Bush's previous nominees have shown strong deference to the Executive (the CJ through his practice and his opinions, Harriet Miers through her "You're the best governor ever!!!!!!!!!" notes), one can hardly doubt that Alito shares their view. The Washington Post's editorial nicely sets out what's at stake here, as does David Broder's comment.

And the second interesting thing today are the second round of leaders' debates in Canada. Mike B's commentary on that is far more insightful and deeper than mine, so I'll tag him to talk more.

But still, how's a poor boy like me to concentrate on the use of video evidence of prior consistent statements at trial to demonstrate consistency and truthfulness of the current testimony when there are so very many distractions?!?

Liberal insiders speak out (but not really)

Liberal insider: "Where's the goddamned platform and the party position on things?"

One of my favourite games when reading media reports is to guess the identity of the ubiquitous 'Liberal insider/unnamed Liberal source/high ranking Liberal speaking on condition of anonymity/top Liberal source familiar with the campaign". I often wonder if reporters have a secret code, using the same descriptor for a particular official, because 'high ranking Liberal speaking on condition of anonymity' usually means Scott Reid.

Based on the language in this this article, I'm betting the "one Liberal" oft-quoted is Kinsella. Kicking ass indeed.

A Tory strategic error?

Tory plan to lead to deficit: Martin

It was probably a mistake on the part of the Tories to allow the Liberals to beat them to the punch costing out their own plan. Interesting that Jeffrey Simpson asks questions about the cost of Harper's plan at about the same time...

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the polls show, although it will be tough to extract this as a cause, given that the debates take place tonight.

oh REALLY...

Michael Ignatieff to deal with Liberal 'mess'

well well, look who's positioning themselves for the all-too-likely leadership race...

Strategic Voting that DOESN'T harm the NDP?

We've all heard about the legendary gullibility of the soft-NDP voter, strategic voting for Liberals to keep out the Conservative (even when they have NO chance of winning).

Well, in her Hot or Not election notebook, Jane Taber reports a novel concept: Conservatives strategic voting for the NDP to keep out the Liberal! And where might this happen? In Trinity-Spadina, no less, where the Conservative vote is tiny.

Hot: Strategic voting. CAW leader Buzz Hargrove is encouraging strategic voting to keep the Liberals in office, and now right-wingers are thinking about it to help the Conservatives. Tasha Kheiriddin, the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, told Macleans.ca (Maclean's magazine's website) that she is voting for the NDP. The CTF is considered a right-wing organization but Ms. Kheiriddin figures the only hope for the Tories in her riding of Trinity-Spadina is to vote for the NDP's Olivia Chow, who she believes has a shot at defeating Liberal junior cabinet minister Tony Ianno. "Normally, this would send my right-of-centre soul into convulsions," she wrote. "Electing her would deny the Liberals the riding -- thereby bringing the Conservatives one seat closer to government."
Globe&Mail, Saturday Jan.8, 2006

The question remains, is the number of Conservatives willing to sacrifice their principles and vote NDP larger or smaller than the number of NDPers willing to sacrifice theirs and vote Liberal? I'm thinking smaller...oh those principled Conservatives!

Gratuitous musical humour

While, of course, this blog tried to keep a certain amount of gravitas, some things are simply so unacceptably funny that they need to be shared.

Of course, the attorney in me, always looking for liability ("That little old lady killed by a truck crossing the street? She wasn't in the crosswalk. She owes the driver") wonders: those songs are almost surely not in the public domain. And even if the songs themselves are, is this woman from New Zealand actually so able to make background music that perfectly replicates the original? The mind reels at the scope of the violations of the Copyright Act and international copyright laws.

But then it's just so . . . catchy . . . that I want to go out and buy the originals, so perhaps that's why she's allowed to do what she's doing.

A side effect of the rise of China?

We all have been reading a great deal about China and India ("Chindia") and how we need to prepare for competing against them (maybe it's slipped off the radar during the election - I mean, it's been at least a week since the Globe did a big focus on China).

But for all the talk of exporting our resources and not having a brain drain and whatnot, how about a discussion of the consequences of China's economic grown mixing with things like this?

Changing their wicked ways, by joining them

Lonnie Latham, a southern Baptist pastor, was arrested yesterday for soliciting an undercover cop whom he thought was a male prostitute.

Apparently, Latham was "ministering to the police."

Now, it's hard to see how ministering to the police takes place by inviting the person into your hotel room for a blow job. Particularly when you don't even know the solicitee is a cop, and when it takes place not in places where the police tend to congregate (say, a police station or a doughnut shop), but rather in the parking lot (known as a place to pick up boys) of a hotel (where Latham was renting a room) which bills itself as the "Southwest's largest gay resort."

Perhaps there was some confusion: maybe he asked the cop to come back to his room and "get down on his knees" which the cop took to mean either a) "go down on me" or b) "get down on your knees and insert my priestly manhood into your mouth;" where Latham actually intended "let us get down on our knees and worship the greatness of the lord in my hotel room in the Southwest's largest gay resort."

Of course, this from the priest who's against SSM and who signed on to a statement urging churches to try to gays and lesbians that they can become heterosexual "if they accept Jesus Christ as their savior and reject their sinful, destructive lifestyle."

You can bet Latham'll be getting down on his knees a lot more in the coming future - for Bubba in Cell Block 5 of Oklahoma State Prison.

Right-wing double standards

Howard Kurtz's WashPost Media Notes makes a good observation about the silence of the right on the Abramoff deal:

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that, according to Nexis at least, Fox's Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly uttered not a word about Abramoff this week. And if this was a convicted lobbyist who funneled big bucks to Hillary Clinton, they'd be just as bored by the story.

Indeed. The histronics that came from Washington when Bill and Monica got hot and heavy were overwhelming. And now? While Kurtz notes that a few commentators have gotten on the game (Charles "Let's Torture" Krauthammer not being one of them - coincidence?) , for the most part, official Washington isn't doing all that much. Where are the firings? Where are top Republicans saying that this is wrong and bad - and doing more than just blaming it on a few bad apples (the usual Republican answer, c.f. Guantanamo).

Outrageous hearsay gossip

I have this totally fifth hand, passed on to me by my brother. It's so wonderfully delicious that I had to post it. Enjoy, gentle reader:

I've been following the Abramoff scandal for months now. There are no women mentioned anywhere at all in connection with him, in the trips to Scotland, the skybox, the restaurant that he used to bribe congressmen etc. (And we know congressman are a horny bunch). Abramoff apparently has neither wife nor girlfriend. He has either owned or rented a home in Rehoboth Beach. So has his partner-in-crime Michael Scanlon, who is similarly unattached. Scanlon has been accused of being gay on the internet already; it seems he is/was lifeguard in Rehoboth for many summers and had a lot of male lifeguard pals there. Is it a stretch assume that Abramoff and Scanlon are gay? I'm wondering if you know anyone in D.C. or Maryland who can confirm ordeny my suspicion.

Well, you may ask, so what? Here's the kicker…What if Abramoff/Scanlon is somehow connected to James Guckert/Jeff Gannon? I vaguely recall him living in or near Rehoboth Beach too. Now THAT would be a scandal...It's obvious to anyone not on the Kool-Aid diet that Guckert/Gannon had a friend in a VERY high place at the White House. If you or I tried to get a daily press pass under a bogus name, where do you think we would be spending our days? Probably in the basement under the VP's office, with Dick Cheney himself turning the thumbscrews. But Guckert/Gannon not only got hundreds of daily passes, he even got to ask the White House Spokesmen questions, despite the fact that he had no legitimate press credentials and the fact that HE WAS USING AN ASSUMED NAME. The Guckert/Gannon scandal was swept under the table because Bush was still very popular and powerful when it broke in early 2005, having just been reelected. But there is no possible innocent explanation forthe man's presence in the White House; someone must have told someone, let him in, don't do the background checks, he ok. Who had that kind of juice with the Bush Administration? And would be interested ingetting a working male escort into the White House under the guise of reporter? I wonder if it was Jack Abramoff…Anyway, if you know anyone who might know Abramoff or Scanlon on a, umm, personal level, let me know...you know how the gay boys are....noone can keep quiet for long.

John Reynolds wanted to be a Senator

According to Newman's book on Mulroney, apparently right after Muldoon's 1984 election win, Reynolds asked to be a Senator.

How fun. The party that trumpets an elected Senate and that laments patronage has as their former House Leader and Interim Leader someone who wrote a letter to Mulroney trumpeting his services to the PC party as being worthy of Senatorship.

You can't ban it just cos you think it's gross

While Mike has the pleasure of living in a vaguely enlightened country where same-sex marriage is legal, unfortunately I live in one where there are many, many, many, many, many attempts being made to ban it.

Yesterday, however, the top Cherokee Nation Court held that there citizens do not have standing to challenge the marriage of two Cherokee women, just cos they think it's icky. Several citizens had gotten together to enjoin the marriage of the two women. The court stated:

Members of the Tribal Council, like private Cherokee citizens, must demonstrate a specific particularized harm . . . . In the present case, the Council members fail to demonstrate the requisite harm.

Well, there you have it. Foes of SSM always think it's going to ruin marriage for everyone, though really, it seems to be doing just fine in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain. And now a Court comes out and says, hey, the fact that Adam and Steve got married doesn't really do much to your marriage, Billy-Bob and Mary-Sue. Just like Adam and Steve can't really do much about your wife-beater and trailer and the fact that you're reproducing, even though they wouldn't do that kinda stuff themselves (buck teeth are so 1920s), so you can't stop them from getting hitched and buying a fabulous condo and decorating it with chic furniture with tasteful accessories arranged just so to create a perfect feng-shui environment for fancy cocktail parties.

Oh yeah, and engaging in a little legal sodomy.

Pat Robertson strikes again

Per my earlier post on seeing the hand of god selectively, Pat Robertson has really taken it to a fantastic new height.

Apparently, Ariel Sharon's recent stroke is not due to his age and health or whatever, but rather God deciding to smite him down.

Quothe Robertson:

I have said last year that Israel was entering into the most dangerous period of its entire existence as a nation. That is intensifying this year with the loss of Sharon. Sharon was personally a very likeable person. I am sad to see him in this condition. But I think we need to look at the Bible and the Book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, "divide my land." God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible, he says, "This is my land." And for any prime minister of Israel who decides he going carve it up and give it away, God says, "No. This is mine."

Amazing to see a man revered among so many Americans talking about holy hemorrhages. I don't get it. Is it the case that every time someone who you think God doesn't like has something bad happen to him or her, it's a sign of God intervening? And let's also observe that this is a pretty malevolent, old-testament style god of fire and brimstone.

Some might also note that the president of Iran is offering similar rejoicing at Sharon's plight.

Nuts

I'm so glad that in 2006, we can still turn to magic potions to solve all our problems.

At least the NYTimes has some cojones

Finally, the New York Times defends itself.

And State of the Day posts a good quote on the subject from Michael Ignatieff. The original is here.

The key point is this: Living in a democracy, you accept certain risks. The price we pay for our freedom and liberties (and I don't mean that in a fatuous Bush-esque way) is that we take the risk that by not letting the government do certain things, we might find ourselves being harmed. Sure, if we wanted complete internal security, we could have it. We could let the government spy on us. We could let the government torture criminals and wrongdoers. We could chuck people who have even the slightest possibility of being dangerous (as criminals or as terrorists) into prison without trial. I'm sure internal security in North Korea is fantastic.

But we don't and we accept that we might pay a price because of it. That isn't to say we shouldn't be vigilant and careful, but if we buy Bush's argument that anything he wants to do is justified by national security, we hand unlimited, unfettered power into the executive. Once the rationale of breaking the law to protect security is accepted, then nothing the executive or the military or the police do cannot be justified. Little by little, we become the very model of what we purport not to be.

Shameless political plug

Now, while my fellow tag-teamer is working for Olivia Chow, and engaging in nefarious plots to mess with the Liberals, I confess that I'm one of those people whose blood is red not because of haemoglobin, but because I'm a Liberal.

Yes, Yes, I know. No principles, "Fiberals," blah blah blah.

I'm a Trudeauvian-Chretienite Liberal. The Charter is my manna. One day this nonsensical anomaly of Martinism will end, the directionless headwaitering to the provinces will stop, and again in Ottawa will be a Prime Minister who's not afraid of a robust, muscular federalism.

Say what you want about the useless Martinites, and how they squandered everything we achieved during the Chretien years - constitutional peace, fiscal stability, etc. I'll agree.

However, thanks to our parliamentary system, I can vote Liberal in good conscience, because I'm not voting for Martin, I'm voting for my MP. My riding's incumbent Liberal MP is Mark Holland. He's young, he's full of energy, and, most importantly, he appears to actually have principles.

As opposed to Martin's very grudging endorsement of same-sex marriage as a Charter issue, Holland, a backbencher, stood up and gave one of the most passionate speeches delivered in the Commons, saying SSM was the right thing to do because it was right. He didn't take the "the Charter made me do it" approach of Martin.

Contrast this to the local Tory, Rondo Thomas. Quite the hottie, eh? He's a big Christian Coalition bigwig and helper to the President (or dean or messiah or whatever they call them) of Canada Christian College, and, during the time when the SSM bill was being considered, offered this little gem in opposition:

"God does not rule from the provincial court bench, or from the hallowed halls of Parliament. He rules from the kingdom of heaven and he is not about to change his mind to accommodate the changing whims of man."

Thrilling stuff, eh? The Globe recently did an article (which of course you now have to pay to get, so I won't link you there) highlighting how he was handing out mad religious pamphlets as part of his electioneering.

And Harper says there's no hidden agenda?

So, faced with the choice of a young, enlightened, dynamic MP who's done a lot for Ajax-Pickering, and an old christian dinosaur, I think my choice is pretty clear cut.

ps - check out the Christian dinosaur link. It's pretty funny. As Warren Kinsella said, "The Flinstones is not a documentary."

Bush, the wounded war vet

"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself—not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."—Bush, after visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Hat tip to Slate magazine's Bushism of the Day.

Miracles, Elves, and Dragons

The story out of West Virginia, where all but one of the miners were found dead after initial reports were that twelve had survived, is certainly tragic.

But one thing that really strikes me is how quickly God is bandied about.

When news first came that 12 had survived, WV's governor announced that "Miracles happen in West Virginia."

Right. They happen in WV, but nowhere else. Or they happen in some places, but not in others. God's up there, dispensing some sort of capricious executive clemency (Dubya would love it), showering favour upon some and smiting others.

The vexing thing is that when something "miraculous" happens, people sing their hosannas and announce that, yea, the Lord shone his face down upon us and delivered us, but when there is no miracle, God's hand is mysteriously absent. The 12 miners being saved was a clear sign of God's mercy - shouldn't, by that logic, the fact that only one survived be a sign of executive disfavour?

Of course, the same people who will happy announce that landslides in California or terrorists in New York are punishment for blue-state godless heathenly ways seem to always ignore any sort of divine punishment when a hurricane or two smites Texas (Dubya) or Florida (Jeb), or any of the other bible-thumping red states on the Gulf Coast (I note, parenthetically, that the French Quarter of New Orleans was largely spared).

It seems outright hypocrisy to announce that every time something good is proof of god, but then ignore the bad. Really, God isn't a micromanager and it's sheer egotism to believe he's personally paying attention to you and everything good in your life is thanks to him.

Of course, these are the same people who will happily announce their belief in miracles and angels but will look at me funny when I say I believe in Elves and Dragons.

And leprechauns. I love me those leprechauns.

Glorious!

This is wonderful. Civil restitution of US$25,000,000 (that's a lot of zeros!), not to mention his whopping tax penalties. A base sentencing level of 31 (108-135 months), with a max of 30 years, and none of the language like there was in the Causey plea which would bind the judge to the level agreed by the parties. There's stuff about a downward departure, but even then, he's still going to jail for a long time. And even better, he gets the departure only for substantial cooperation. I'd happily see him depart downwards at sentencing if it means he sings like a choirboy - the total number of months served will still be higher if more people are going to jail.

And I bet those big scary thugs in jail really like pasty white backroom boys in the backrooms of the jail . . . .

Further, the fact he's pled out so soon after charges were filed - before discovery, before really getting into the meat of his case, suggest his case was pretty weak. Of course, he can still maintain his innocence while pleading guilty, but please. The man's dirtier than I was last Wednesday, and that's saying sumthin'.

As blogger A Lie A Day notes, The panic factor within the Republicans in DC must be at a post Nixon high.

One thing I don't get. The Government in Canada was brought to its knees and a massive commission set up because a few C$ millions were misspent in the sponsorship problem. Here, we have corruption allegations among scores high-placed Republicans, and it's left to one prosecutor to investigate (he is kinda sexy, but that might just be the indictments talking.) Where are the Senate hearings? Where are other official investigations? Of course, the fact that so many people are now in danger because of the plea might give us an answer: the people who have the power to call investigations and hearings are the one who want them the least.

Cross Border Standards

Here in the US, Bush is complaining about the NYTimes breaking the story about his domestic spying. The Department of Justice is investigating not the government for its malfeasance, but rather, the NYTimes and how it got the story.

Meanwhile, the RCMP have launched an investigation into the recent Ministry of Finance income trust leaks.

In one country, the wrongdoing is investigated. In the other, the exposure of the wrongdoing gets all the heat. Nice.

Meditating on Health Care

This story, about a 27-year old in Texas who was taken off life support because she couldn't pay her bills, inspires me to do a little cross-border comparison of health care.

A lot of people up in Canada talk about waiting times, or about how universal health care doesn't work, and how you should be able to pay for faster service (i.e. the rich should be able to jump the queue). They point to the U.S. model as an example of private health care working.

Well, these people have never lived in the U.S. They're comparing apples and oranges. They're comparing the best-case situation in the U.S. to the worst-case in Canada.

I have supposedly excellent health insurance here in the U.S. I'm healthy, well paid, live in a safe area. Yet I'm still petrified of getting sick. If I were hospitalized, the deductible would still break me, on my overpaid attorney salary. I have to pick doctors who accept my insurance. The insurance might fight over whether or not the service is covered. If I lose my job, I lose my coverage. Let's say I got a chronic disease, or cancer, and didn't have health care - companies could easily decide not to extend coverage to me. And I'm considered to have good coverage, unlike the 40% or so of Americans who have none.

My now-ex and I were once in San Fran., and said ex had some sort of allergies reaction to something, involving swelling and blotches. Said ex didn't want to go to a doctor, even though it was a bit scary, not out of laziness or machismo or something, but because ex's health care wasn't very good and probably wouldn't cover a doctor visit. (It didn't, and the bill was some $600).

Sure, in Canada you might have to wait a bit for elective surgery. But at least people aren't dying because they can't pay.