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."