Dreams of Wardrobe

about how e-commerce site to build

2012-01-09T20:41:00.000-08:00

Internet is flooded with various e-commerce (electronic commerce) sites and setting up an online business is very difficult today. If you are determined to a large amount of online products to sell to earn, you have to figure out business intelligence. The site is pretty user friendly you have to be visually attractive, because the design of the site also plays an important role in attracting customers. The first attempt to create e-commerce site, can be a bit confusing, but once you have filled key principles and policies involved, it will automatically begin to roll in the right direction. The more you market your site through search engines, more sales you make. We gave you some clues about how e-commerce site to build here.

*Evaluate carefully
First and foremost tip on creating e-commerce site is doing extensive research online on all aspects relating to the success of a website. Remember that the urge to make money. Therefore, the demand for the sale of goods, picking products that heavy chunk of money. Identify the keywords that people are supporting a product a random search for products on-line use. Check other e-commerce sites have high rankings on the Internet for deployment planning, execution and business situation.

*Buy a domain name
Upon completion of the study, you can register a domain name. Never choose a domain name consisting of, or the domain name, it will be easy to remember. Short product areas should also be relevant. URL and content on the site must comply with the keywords you selected. You also need to connect to the web host company. Benefit package and check properties such as bandwidth, web space, databases, price, etc. before the investment. You should choose a cheaper price at first and then go on a package if needed.

*Yard
Building a site is probably the most important aspect of e-commerce sites. The number of pages, their appearance and content of some important things you must consider. Welcome paragraph should be the same place will promote the product to customers. Navigation links should be well placed, so people can easily move from one page to another. Frame content of the site you need to instill the confidence of customers. Products and services must be clear to help people understand easily accessed. Must often be asked questions section where people can an appropriate answer to their questions.

*Web Site Design
Professional web graphic designers to help it best to look. Sections, remove the first page of the website to include the "Company" available products "Description", "What's New" or "information". Layout design is accessible to customers and they find no difficulty in finding the products they want. The site should not be filled with many links, but also contain links provide useful information about the click. The design and graphics are not needed for heavy e-commerce site. Because the business, you should make your layout simple and sophisticated.

* Payment Options
Customers should not be misled by the charge. E-commerce sites open to all PayPal accounts to make purchases and payments easy, but also remove through the supplier. You can use your credit card as method of payment. If you have a free hosting package (like Magento), then you open a commercial bank, and then combine it with your site, to improve safety. You have defined functions in your web page where users free access to them.

Genocide Via Computer

2011-05-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

Of all the Terminator films, Rise of the Machines was certainly the most disappointing.

Directed by Jonathon Mostow in place of James Cameron, Terminator 3 came across with all the gloss, polish and adrenaline of a Hollywood action film, and none of the grit and tension of Cameron's masterpieces.

But, interestingly enough, of the three Terminator films, Rise of the Machines may have been the best-situated out of the three in terms of its prescience.

In the film, John Connor (Nick Stahl) is living "off-the-grid", with nothing but the clothes of his back and his motorcycle. He works day jobs to subsist himself, and has no place of residence, credit cards, or cell phone -- nothing that would leave a record he could be traced by.

Even though he and his now-deceased mother, Sarah Connor, have been led to believe they had averted Judgment Day by destroying Skynet, Connor lives in terror of the future, and rightfully so.

The future isn't nearly as secure as he would like to believe.

An encounter with Kate Brewster (Claire Danes) brings John face-to-face with both the T-X -- played by Kristanna Loken, a Terminator sent back to the eve of Judgment Day to kill off Connor's someday lieutenants -- and with the T-800 sent back in time to protect her -- a role again reprised by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As it turns out, the program that eventually leads to the creation of Skynet is still in operation. Brewster's father is the head of this project, and has his own concerns about removing human decision-making from defense planning. Meanwhile, an unstoppable computer virus is overwhelming the civilian internet, and is beginning to infiltrate defense networks.

The virus is Skynet. Whether it's been seeded in the past as seems to be happening in The Sarah Connor Chronicles or is created outside the defense program and merely infiltrates it remains unexplained.

As nuclear weapons cross the globe toward their targets, what is explained is that Skynet had presumably infiltrated millions of computers worldwide.

While one presumes that nothing as hyperbolic as a genocidal computer program plotting the wholesale destruction of humanity is currently occurring, it is a well known fact that many countries -- as well as private organizations and individuals -- have been investing in cyberwarfare capabilities that would allow them to strike at their opponents through their computer systems.

China has made its commitment to cyberwarfar technology a matter of public record. North Korea, India and other countries are also investing in cyberwar technologies at an alarming rate.

One particular cyberwarfare weapon, the zombie virus, uses infected computers to pass itself along to the next victim. It attaches itself to email and fax programs, and transmits itself through the user's own communications.

These programs can have purposes ranging from the theft of information to disruption of emergency services.

In Terminator 3, the virus' purpose was to facilitate the destruction of humankind.

Interestingly, the writers of Terminator 3 could be argued to accept the "inevitability thesis" of Andy Opel and Greg Elmer. But once again, one would have to counter by arguing that preemption is only as valuable as the amount of certainty with which it can be executed, and as the diligence used to ensure that the threat it is aimed at is actually destroyed.

Is Michael Ignatieff As Good As His Word?

2009-05-24T19:21:00.000-07:00

Ignatieff pledges not to reciprocate personal attacks

If there's any one word that could be used to sum up the recent Conservative ads regarding Michael Ignatieff, it's personal.

Rarely have Canadian politicians taken it upon themselves to attack a political opponent on such personal grounds, but the Conservatives have done this. It's absolutely undeniable.

Speaking on the matter today, however, the Liberal leader has pledged not to attack Stephen Harper on personal grounds -- at least not overtly.

"Let's be clear how we carry the attack, because I will not attack Mr Harper's patriotism," Ignatieff promised. "I will not attack his character. I will not attack his family. I will attack his record, and God knows, there's enough to work on."

"There's enough on the record that we can attack: record unemployment, record bankruptcies, record deficit," Ignatieff announced. "That should give us enough to be getting along with."

And while Ignatieff knows full well that the economic stimulus package -- the stimulus package that he and his fellow members of the opposition demanded -- is responsible for Canada's current deficit, and knows full well that economic mismanagement south of the border is responsible for Canada's current economic condition, it's encouraging to hear Ignatieff pledge to restrict his campaigning against Stephen Harper to substantive matters of policy.

And while it would be both encouraging and wise for the Liberal party to try to brand itself as the party of the high road -- thereby counter-branding the Conservative party as perveyours of low-road politics -- one also has to remember that this would be counter-characteristic of the Liberal party.

After all, it was the Liberal party that dressed Stephen Harper up in fictional policy. It was the Liberal party who insinuated that Harper would summarily declare martial law if elected to office.

Michael Ignatieff may personally be able to scrape together enough credibility to temporarily change the public image of his party. But Canadians will remember the disgusting and shameful lows the Liberals sank to in order to attack Stephen Harper. They'll remember that as disgusting and irresponsible as the Conservatives' current batch of political ads are, previous Liberal ads were even more disgusting and even more irresponsible.

Canadians may also be intrigued to be introduced, once more, to the "tough guy" personae, wherein he indulges himself in blue-collar tough talk, replete with calculatingly devolved language.

"If you mess with me, I will mess with you until I'm done," Ignatieff pronounced.

It's a bold statement, but one has to hope that Ignatieff is as good as his word. Even though the Liberal party has never succeeded electorally against Stephen Harper without resorting to personal -- and often fictionalized -- attacks, one has to hope that at least someone in Canada has the courage to rise above the personal mudslinging that has passed for political campaigning in this country for too long.

Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Ideas Revolutionary - "Attack Ads"

Fighting the Cold War Over a Chessboard

2009-05-23T02:14:00.000-07:00

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the western bloc countries never tested each other in a shooting war. They did, however, often contest their differences over sporting events.

One of those was the Bobby Fischer vs Boris Spassky world chess championship match played in 1972 -- the same year that Canada confronted the Soviet Union in the famed Summit Series.

In the Soviet Union, the Bolshevik party embraced chess as a matter of public policy.

As with most forms of competition -- athletic, intellectual or otherwise -- the Soviet Union sought to mobilize dominance at chess for maximum propaganda value. But chess had particular appeal.

With its overwhelming focus on strategy and not-so-subtle overtones of militarism, dominance at a game like chess could offer comfort to any members of the Soviet populace who worried about open warfare between the USA and the USSR.

Likewise, Americans who were worried about a military conflict between the USA and USSR -- and who wouldn't have been, considering that such a conflict would inevitably involve nuclear weapons -- must have been very distressed by Soviet dominance of the sport of chess. At one point, the Americans had only one Grand Master. The Soviets had numerous, a benefit of their Chess school.

Canadians were distressed by Soviet dominance of hockey during the 1960s and 1970s, but Canadians didn't have to worry about having to directly play nuclear hockey with the Soviets from across the globe.

It was against this fearful cold war backdrop that Bobby Fischer, considered to be the great American hope, failed to show up at the appointed time for his world championship match. Of all things, Fischer was repeatedly holding out for more money.

Fischer was anything but patriotic in his motives. He remarked that he intended to play a chess match against a lesser opponent every month. Instead, his handlers wanted a system for the fair selection of contenders for the world chess championship.

After significant political wranglings -- not surprising considering the environment surrounding sport at the time -- the match finally got underway.

Once the match began, Fischer very nearly quit. He lost the first game, then forfeit the second. But eventually personal pride prompted him to continue the matches under better conditions -- he insisted that television cameras were too loud, and had been distracting him.

Fischer would game three, and go on to dominate the match. The Soviets would claim that Fischer was using some sort of mind control device against Spassky -- an ironic claim considering that it was the Soviets themselves who were experimenting with techniques such as remote viewing.

Eventually, Spassky was so overwhelmed he had little choice but to concede defeat.

But Fischer would refuse to defend his championship. By 1975, Fischer was forced to forfeit the world championship to Anatoli Karpov, Spassky's Kremlin-chosen successor. Spassky would eventually be exiled from the country.

Defeat was something that Soviet sporting officials never tolerated. Just as the American Olympic hockey victory over the Soviets at the 1980 Lake Placid games led to the political disfavour of phenomenal Soviet goalie Vladimir Tretiak, and the Soviet loss in the 1988 Canada Cup eventually led to the Soviet Union turning its best players loose for the professional game, Spassky's defeat prompted an effective exile to Paris.

Just as the days when Canadian hockey players grinded out international ideological conflicts against their Soviet counterparts will likely never return, nor will chess ever see another contest as ideologically contested as the 72 Spassky-Fischer match.

That Sure Didn't Take Long

2008-09-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

With opposition parties likely getting ready to gear up their law and order policy planks following yesterday's school shooting in Toronto, it's unsurprising that the Conservatives have reacted so quickly with a spot addressing crime.

With Stephane Dion likely to step up his gun control-related rhetoric in the aftermath of these shootings, the Conservatives seem to be moving to preemptively re-brand ahead of futher accusations on Dion's behalf that the Tories haven't made Canada a safer place.

In the ad -- clearly produced at the same time as the preceding "sweater vest" ads -- Harper talks about the need for preventative measures when dealing with crime, but notes that "soft on crime does not work".

The implicit accusation is that the opposition parties are soft on crime -- an accusation that could gain traction in wake of the opposition's treatment of various Conservative anti-crime bills.

In other words, the Conservative campaign is counter-branding the opposition as soft on crime even as it re-brands itself as the party of law and order.

Moreover, the advertising arm of the Conservative campaign is clearly operating just the way it should. It's been responsive to the news and proactive in regards to the opposition.

A question remains about whether the Tory crime spot is being released too soon following the high-profile Toronto shooting. But one thing's for certain: in terms of advertising, the Conservative machine is burying their competitors, and the party's extremely successful fundraising is helping them do it.

Dion's Problem With the the Economy

2008-09-17T15:13:00.000-07:00

Stephane Dion's 'plan b' is still 'plan a'

With the Liberal campaign continuing to sag (yet somehow the Toronto Star figures it's "firing on all cylinders" -- Quelle surprise!), the common wisdom seems to be that Stephane Dion needs to stop talking about the Green Shift plan.

Because most Canadians are clearly more concerned about the economy, they argue, Dion should instead be talking about that.

Unfortunately for Dion, Dion's plan for the environment -- the Green Shift -- is also his plan for the economy.

And it only gets worse from there. As Conservative strategist Tim Powers points out in today's Globe and Mail, Bob Rae carries all kind of economic baggage with him from his days as the Premier of Ontario. Rae also managed to almost entirely alienate his former NDP followers -- the same followers the Liberal party will need to woo in order to stave off a third-place finish in this election, let alone win.

But Stephane Dion's environmental problem has become his campaign problem. And with little else of substance to campaign on, Dion may have no way out of this one -- and little hope of even holding on to the keys of Stornoway, let alone upgrading to 24 Sussex Drive.

Tory Eyes Blind to the World Outside?

2008-09-16T23:48:00.000-07:00

Conservatives thin on foreign policy thinkersm experience

As conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia continue to dominate the established international agenda and advocates for intervention in Zimbabwe, Myanmar and the Sudan continue to demand attention, there is no question that foreign policy will be a hot-button topic in the new Parliament regardless of which party wins the election.

On that note, some may be surprised to find out that, since current Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson has declined to run for reelection, the incumbent Conservative party is shockingly short on foreign policy expertise.

Emerson, most will recall, took over the portfolio from Maxime Bernier, whose misadventures with classified information made him a tremendous liability to cabinet. Previous to Bernier's ascension to the portfolio -- which speculation suggests he was never had any interest in -- Peter MacKay handled the department fairly successfully before being suffled to National Defense to make up for the emerging of deficiencies of previous minister Gordon O'Connor.

MacKay has since managed the Department of Defense effectively. Which leads one to wonder whom, precisely, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would appoint to Foreign Affairs following what currently seems to be an impending election victory.

As Embassy points out, however, the Conservatives seem to be suffering from a shortage of experience and expertise on the Foreign Affairs portfolio, while their various opponents seem to be awash in it.

First and foremost, naturally, there's Liberal Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff has written extensively on the topic of human rights, ethnic conflict, and the laws of war. He also has a tremendous amount of journalistic experience under his belt, harkening to his days with the BBC.

The NDP's answer to Michael Ignatieff is Michael Byers. Byers is a recognized expert on arctic sovereignty issues, and served as part of the Amnesty International legal team that sought Augusto Pinochet's conviction for crimes against humanity.

Also representing the NDP is Brad Pye, who has experience advancing democracy abroad with the National Democratic Institute (which, unsurprisingly, has deep ties to the American Democratic party, serving to further undermine NDP complaints about alleged importing of American political ideas by the Conservative party).

Also running for the Liberals is Dr Kirsty Duncan, a former panelist on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- expertise which clearly falls into line with Stephane Dion's Green Shift agenda.

The Liberal ticket will also feature Anne Park Shannon, a former civil servant in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

War Child Canada president Dr Eric Hoskins will also be running for the Liberals. Hoskins will almost certainly supplement Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire's expertise on issues related to children in warzones, particularly child soldiers.

Attempting a comeback is former Liberal Defense Minister David Pratt. Pratt has been out of Parliament since his 2004 defeat at the hands of Conservative Pierre Poillevre.

With arguably little expertise to spread between Foreign Affairs and Defense, Pratt would provide the Liberals with yet another weapon to use against the Conservative government -- provided, of course that he can manage to unseat Tory Environment Minister John Baird.

The Green party also has a score of candidates promoting themselves as foreign policy experts -- foremost among them the Ottawa Group of Four.

The Conservatives are considered to have one foreign policy heavyweight in their fold -- Patrick Boyer, who served in various foreign affairs-related sectors under Brian Mulroney. However, Boyer is running against the aforementioned Michael Ignatieff, and is as such unlikely to win.

With so many formidable (or at least formidable-seeming) opponents to compete against, it's a near certainty that foreign policy will be a weakpoint for the Conservatives not only during this election, but also during the upcoming Parliament.

There is, of course, a long-term solution to this problem: the Tories need to cultivate stronger relationships with the Senior Civil Service in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and need to start cultivating stronger relationships with various international Non Governmental Organizations.

That the Conservative party is attracting so few potential candidates from NGOs perhaps underscores a fundamental lack of understanding about the emerging shape of the global political order: one in which governments cooperate with civil society in the formulation of foreign policy.

The Conservatives are also clearly lacking a relationship with academia. If the Conservatives truly want to be able to claim to have an eye on the outside world, it would pay to start recruting from those who actually study it.

Until the Conservative party can muster some candidates with legitimate foreign policy chops, it will be hard to view a Conservative foreign policy as comprehensive and outward-looking.

September Officially Becomes Nexus Bloggiest Month Ever!

2008-09-16T21:42:00.000-07:00

...And it's only the 16th. Fucking election.

And to all our valued readers, thank you for your support.

Stay tuned for what I confidently believe I can say is the best election coverage of any blog in Canada.

Can Anyone Say "Leader of the Opposition Jack Layton"

2008-09-16T17:31:00.000-07:00

19% of Canadians -- and counting -- can

As the 2008 federal election progresses, it seems that Liberal leader Stephane Dion may be sho' nuff fucked.

With Stephen Harper's Conservative party comfortably in control of this election with 38% support, Dion's Liberals are polling at 23% -- a narrow lead over Jack Layton's NDP, who are polling at 19%.

"Although it is clear that the Liberals retain a small edge, on some days the difference is within the margin of error," said Ekos president Frank Graves.

In other words, the Stephane Dion Liberals are statistically tied with the NDP.

This comes as Dion gathers his former leadership rivals around him for campaign help.

Which he could certainly use. After all, as the campaign progresses, some of Dion's star candidates are nowhere to be seen -- in particular, Michael Ignatieff has inexplicably been a non-entity during this election campaign.

It seems even perennial insufferable douchebag Scott Reid can figure this one out.

Whether even the combined popularity of Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Ken Dryden and Martha Hall Findlay (among others) can save Dion at this point is anyone's guess. (You were going to make a "Kermit De Frog" joke here, weren't you? I have a sixth sense for these things. -Ed)

...Unless, of course, there's a reason why some of his higher-profile "team members" don't seem to be so eager to be seen with him.

An election result with the Liberals being punted from the status of Official Opposition in favour of the NDP would unquestionably turf any further leadership ambitions on Dion's behalf. The smart money says that any one of these individuals would absolutely love to play hero and lead the Liberal party out of the dredges of third-party status and back into the government benches.

Which would, of course, cast the Jamie Carroll affair in a whole new light.

Carroll, as some may recall, resigned as the national director of the Liberal party over outrage over comments he made about the backroom deals being made in the name of the leadership ambitions of Dion's rivals.

Of course, before anyone can even begin to worry about that, they have to worry about the current election. The Liberals still have almost a month to turn this thing around.

"If the alarm bells are not ringing already at Liberal headquarters, they should now," Graves says.

The question is: are those alarm bells being heard?

Liberal Ad Strikes Back at Conservatives

2008-09-16T16:11:00.000-07:00

In only their second English-language ad released during this election campaign, the Liberal party has finally deployed its first English-language counter-branding spot against Stephen Harper.

For some political parties, a week would be a long time to wait. For the cash-strapped Liberal party, maybe not so much.

That being said, the ad begins by pushing Harper's image closer to that of an unpopular American president. In a marginally creative shift, however, that president isn't George W Bush, although it is a Republican.

Instead, it's Ronald Regan, as the spot substitutes Harper's name into the "Reganomics" label so often used to describe Regan's trickle-down economic policies.

The ad first questions Harper's commitment to environmental policy. Obviously, the ad doesn't mention that Liberal MP Ralph Goodale recently admitted that, by the criteria that most environmental groups allegedly judge environmental policy, the Tory Green Plan is superior to the Liberal Green Shift.

The spot accuses the Conservatives of writing a "blank cheque" to oil companies to pollute and gouge Canadians at the gas pumps. Conservative Environment Minister John Baird has already struck back for the Tories on this issue, pointing out that the Green Shift plan would allow oilsand developers to continue polluting so long as they're willing to pay carbon taxes.

The spot also points out some of Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's comments about Ontario last year, wherein he questioned whether or not the province needed to cut corporate taxes in order to make investment in the province more viable.

The ad also notes the number of programs -- 66 in total according to the ad -- and accuses Harper of "divide and conquer politics".

This overlooks the fact that it's traditionally been the Liberals who have indulged themselves in "divide and conquer politics", pandering to Quebec and Ontario while largely ignoring the rest of the country. Only after the rise of the Bloc Quebecois have the Liberals been required to win seats across the country in order to form governments.

It's intriguing to see the Liberals, in the course of their counter-branding effort, trying to brand the Conservatives with a fault that has traditionally been their own.

Whether or not it works will be another story entirely.

The ad concludes by welcoming Canadians to "turn the page" with the Liberal Green Shift plan. The drab black-and-white images played during the "Harpernomics" portion of the ad is then substituted for colour images of promised environmentally-friendly prosperity under the Green Shift.

However, with the release of this ad -- their second ad promoting their vaunted Green Shift plan -- the Liberals are at risk of becoming a single-issue party.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have released ads concerning immigration, foreign policy, trade policy, and child care. While none of these ads tell the viewer very much about the related Conservative policies, they make the Conservative platform seem a good deal more comprehensive than the Liberal alternative.

Meanwhile, the ad also has a pivotal weakness: it's certain to remind voters who don't like Harper why they dislike him, but they're unlikely to convince many undecided voters against him, nor do they make any real specific appeal for NDP or Green party voters to switch to the Liberals.

At least one thing can be said for certain: with their first anti-Harper ad on the air in English Canada, the Liberal campaign's gloves have effectively come off.

The second round of this election has officially begun.

Afghanistan - MacKay Still Has Questions to Answer

2008-09-16T15:35:00.000-07:00

Questions remain concerning Canada's Post-2011 Role in Afghanistan

The promised 2011 end-date to Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan may be welcome to those many Canadians who end the war, but even in making this promise, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defense Minister Peter MacKay have some explaining to do.

The now-planned end of the combat mission in 2011 doesn't constitute "cutting and running", according to MacKay. "Certainly not. We have been there in a military developmental and diplomatic role for some time now. We made significant contributions to the development of Afghanistan. We have done our share."

Of course, at the end of the day, it will matter very little as to whether or not Canada has "done its share" if the job remains undone.

Fortunately, in comments reported in the September 11th issue of the Globe and Mail, MacKay has suggested that Canada will maintain a role in Afghanistan after 2011.

"We're there in numerous roles. We're there participating in reconstruction and development through CIDA,” he said. "We have diplomats who are working in Kabul. We have a significant number of civilian police trainers and military trainers and there are of course going to be NGOs [non-governmental organizations], so Canada will continue to support the effort to rebuild Afghanistan."

"But the Stephen Harper was crystal clear. He said the mission ends in 2011 and that's consistent with the vote that was taken in Parliament. That's respecting Parliament's voice."

Unfortunately, there are questions that remain unanswered. To have CIDA and Canadian diplomats at work in Afghanistan after 2011 is all and good, but an important question remains:

Afghanistan will almost certainly remain a theatre of warfare after 2011. As such, Canadians need to know who will fill the role of securing said theatre for our aid workers and diplomats.

To effect a full-scale withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan -- as Stephen Harper has indicated -- would be, as Jim Davis has noted -- irresponsible.

And not merely so the deaths of the soldiers already killed in Afghanistan aren't in vain, because it would be irresponsible to leave our aid workers and diplomats in harm's way.

In the end, only one real option remains: that of Canadian troops remaining in Afghanistan to ensure our aid workers and diplomats are properly protected. This would, by necessity, mean Canadian troops staying in Afghanistan in more than simply a "technical" role.

MacKay and Harper may want to wait until after the election to make any final decisions on Afghanistan. After all, it may be "Parliament's wishes" that the combat mission in Khandahar end at that time, but if "Parliament's wishes" are that Canadian diplomats and CIDA workers remain in Afghanistan protected only by the good graces of the Afghan army and our NATO allies, Parliament as a whole may find itself explaining itself to Canadians in the event that any of them come to harm.

Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay most certainly don't want to find themselves at the forefront of that.

Hillary Clinton & Sarah Palin On Sexism

2008-09-15T11:00:00.000-07:00

Can the Tories Sweep Saskatchewan?

2008-09-15T09:00:00.000-07:00

Green Shift plan not playing well in Saskatchewan

As observers look ahead to the results of the 14 October federal election, two questions loom large.

First: will the Conservatives sweep Alberta again?

Second: can the Conservatives sweep Saskatchewan?

In Alberta, the prospects of another smothering Conservative victory remain strong. Although Rahim Jaffer could be upset in Edmonton-Strathcona and Laurie Hawn will have to work hard to hold Edmonton Centre, the Tories still have a solid provincial victory earlier in the year giving them the momentum they need to maintain their lock on Alberta.

In Saskatchewan, meanwhile, Wascana MP Ralph Goodale remains the only Liberal awash in a sea of blue.

He was one of two non-Conservative MPs in the province until Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River MP Gary Merasty resigned his seat. In a by-election he was replaced by Conservative Rob Clarke, who defeated Liberal Joan Beatty. Beatty had been hand-chosen by Stephane Dion over current candidate David Orchard, who had been chosen by the party's riding association.

Orchard has already called for Dion to soften the Green Shift's inevitable impact on farmers.

Orchard has, against Dion's inclinations, been cast into a star candidate role in Saskatchewan. But that isn't where Liberal troubles end in the province. Not by a longshot.

Just as in Alberta, conservatives in Saskatchewan have an election victory -- this one by Brad Wall's Saskatchewan party -- to provide them with momentum.

Wall has come out and criticized Liberal leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift plan. Wall noted that the Green Shift plan would result in a loss of $500 million per annum for Saskatchewan and a 41% increase in electricity costs by 2012.

For his own part, Goodale denounced Wall's claims as "crock of unmitigated horsefeathers."

Unfortunately for Goodale, horses don't have feathers, and Scott Brison, one of the masterminds of the Green Shift plan, has already admitted that the plan will result in higher electicity costs.

"Their arithmetic is just completely wrong, mistaken and false," Goodale insisted, noting that corporate tax cuts accompanying carbon taxation should make up for the extra costs. In theory.

"This is the old Conservative tactic of throw enough mud against the fan and hope everyone gets splattered," Goodale added.

According to political scientist Ken Rasmussen, Wall's comments likely won't have much effect on the election in Saskatchewan. "This is a province that the Tories have, I wouldn't say sewn up, but they're probably going to be quite effective in retaining their seats," he noted.

University of Saskatchewan political scientist David McGrane thinks otherwise. "The fact that Premier Wall has been so outspoken in saying that the Green Shift is harmful for Saskatchewan, that's definitely going to play in favour of the Conservatives," he predicted.

Meanwhile, David Orchard may be stepping on the wrong toes in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River by opposing uranium mining. This in a rural riding where the Green Shift will almost certainly prove to be anathema. “The proposed carbon tax will spell economic doom for the north, in forestry, exploration, farming. Orchard is against uranium mining and oil development,” Rob Clarke noted. “The carbon tax is going to increase fuels costs and raise costs on all household items. Being in government, I will prevent that from happening."

Stephen Harper has offered solid support of his candidate in Wascana, Michelle Hunter.

Clearly, Harper understands the value of unseating Goodale, a former Finance Minister.

For his own part, Goodale insists that the Liberal Green Shift plan would be less costly than the Conservative plan. "They are going to impose costs by imposing their regulations and the target they're aiming at is 35 per cent more severe than Mr Dion's plan. But the crucial difference is that the Dion plan has across-the-board income tax cuts for every family, every individual, every business in the country that will add up to the biggest reduction in income tax in Canadian history," Goodale insisted.

So, while Goodale admits that, by the measuring stick that most environmentalists are measuring climate change policy, Harper's plan is better, Goodale wants to insist that, well, the Liberal plan will at least be cheaper.

Goodale and the Liberals can't even seem to play straight with the environmental lobby.

All the while many Canadians remain concerned about Dion's plans for potential carbon tariffs and seeming lack of a post-Green Shift vision, particularly vis a vis the recovery of lost revenue once carbon tax revenues decline with greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberals have their work cut out for them in Saskatchewan. Come October 14, Saskatchewan could be joing Alberta adorned in Tory blue.

Canadians Thinking Less of Our Leaders

2008-09-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

Election costs party leaders in public regard

As the 2008 federal election progresses, each party leader is hoping to make a positive impression on Canadians and improve their party's standings in the House of Commons.

Almost inevitably, some parties will accomplish the latter. But a poll released yesterday reveals that none have yet accomplished the latter. In fact, Canada's political leaders have done the precise opposite.

Stephen Harper's sweater vest and lack-lustre campaign ads couldn't save him from being the leader losing the most -- 36% of polled Canadians hold him in lesser regard, likely due to an unprincipled election call and a pair of serious campaign gaffes on the part of his Conservative Party.

Liberal leader Stephane Dion suffered as well. 32% of Canadians hold him in lower regard following a week in which he claimed he wanted an open debate about his Green Shift plan, but instead settled for calling his Conservative opponents liars.

Jack Layton tried to emulate Barack Obama, but 15% of Canadians found him to be considerably less appealing than that.

23% of polled Canadians found Gilles Duceppe less appealing. Picking at the religious beliefs of a Conservative candidate probably didn't help him much, but then again the only numbers that are really applicable to Duceppe are the ones collected in Quebec.

Hopefully, Canada's political leaders will avert the course they've been following and give Canadians a little less reason to feel cynical and discouraged about our politics.

Is It Or Isn't It?

2008-09-14T16:04:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth May confrims why she shouldn't have been allowed in the debate

In what should be treated as cause for second thought for those Canadians who support Elizabeth May taking part in the televised leaders' debate, Green party leader Elizabeth May told CTV's Question Period today that she's going to help Stephane Dion explain his Green Shift plan to the Canadian people.

Moreover, she actually wants to take credit for the entire policy.

"Since it's our plan, the 'Green Shift' plan, I can explain it fully," May insisted.

This could certainly put an amusing twist on Stephen Harper's insistence that "Elizabeth May is not an opponent of Stephane Dion. She is his candidate in Central Nova, and I think it would be fundamentally unfair to have two candidates who are essentially running on the same platform in the debate."

Apparently, Stephane Dion may in fact be Elizabeth May's candidate in St Laurent-Cartierville. After all, she's formally taking credit for his policies.

To her partial credit, May has voiced some disagreement with Dion on some issues.

"Where I agree with him, I'll agree with him," she insisted. "And where I disagree with him -- on issues like NAFTA, nuclear power, some of the economic policies that the Liberals have traditionally espoused -- I will be taking him on in a respectful way, as I will the other leaders."

Yet on the fundamental issue on which Dion wants to contest this election -- "his" (apparently actually Elizabeth May's) Green plan -- May has already formally pledged herself to help him during the debates.

All of this, even as she and Dion decline to field candidates against one another, and as Blair Wilson -- conveniently, a former Liberal -- conveniently defects to her party. And May still claims there's no backroom deal.

"I think the notion of a backroom pact is such nonsense," she told Question Period.

At least one thing's for certain: if May and Dion haven't made themselves utterly transparent -- and their backroom deal obvious -- by this point, May will do so for the both of them the instant she utters "What Stephane is trying to say" during the course of the debate.

If further evidence that May's inclusion of the debates is actually needed, one can rest assured that May will provide it in time. If not on Oct 1 & 2, then sooner.

Who Are the "Ottawa Group of Four"?

2008-09-14T15:00:00.000-07:00

Maillet, Lemieux, Ghanem and Manoussi have big leftist-utopian dreams

When Ottawa-area Green party candidate Qais Ghanem recently drew some criticism over his attitude toward Israel, an interesting sub-plot emerged in the Green party's attempts to convince themselves they're politically relevant in Canada: that of the "Ottawa group of four".

Consisting of Ghanem, Paul Maillet, Sylvie Lemieux and Akbar Manoussi, the group is made up of four Ottawa-area candidates cumulatively promoting their own policies both in the course of a federal election, and within the Green party itself.

In the end, there may be no better way to judge the Group of Four then by their policies. Fortunately, they've been kind enough to supply anyone enterprising enough to look with a list.

The "Ottawa Group of Four 2008 Proposed Policy Resolutions" document takes pains to note that it "does not necessarily represent the official policy
of the Green Party of Canada." It covers topics ranging from electoral reform to policy development.

From surveying the proposed resolutions, it would seem that Paul Maillet is the ringleader of the Group of Four -- he sponsors seven of the resolutions. Sylvie Lemieux sponsors another five. The remaining resolution -- the infamous "Palestine" resolution -- is sponsored by Qais Ghanem.

In all, the document presents 14 recommendations. The first deals with electoral reform:

"Resolution 1 - Electoral Reform

Whereas we believe that Canadians want to be governed by a parliament more fully representative of Canada.

Whereas we believe that Canadians want to be governed only by directly elected people; in a fair, transparent and open process in which every Member of Parliament faces the voters.

Whereas the Green Party strongly believes in electoral reform.

Therefore it be resolved that the Green party of Canada advocate electoral reform in terms of the minimum criteria of a Canada governed by a parliament more fully representative of Canada, and a Canada governed only by directly elected people in a fair, transparent and open process.

Therefore is also be resolved that the minimum representative constituencies in parliament be (1) political parties in proportion of the popular vote, (perhaps based on a 3-5% threshold of votes, and perhaps members selected from the vote and rank-ordered from non-elected candidates) and (2) our National Diversity such as to ensure gender balance, major language groups, and aboriginal peoples, in proportion of the most recent national census results (and perhaps selected from the vote and rank-ordered from non-elected candidates regardless of party affiliation to fill imbalances)."

One wonders if Ghanem, Lemieux, Maillet and Manoussi stopped to consider the contradictory nature of this resolution.

The four start out by recognizing that Canadians continue to favour the ability to elect their representatives directly "in a fair, transparent and open process." Yet they resolve that Canada's electoral system be reformed to elect Members of Parliament proportionally -- a process under which its utterly impossible to elect them directly.

Furthermore, even under mixed-member plurality systems, in which a portion of Parliament would be elected under the existing first-past-the-post system and another portion elected proportionally, the question of precisely how Members of Parliament would be selected remains a critical one.

Interestingly, the four seem to have their answer -- these members should be selected through an affirmative action program.

Of course, the question of who would make the decisions regarding who gets elected to Parliament under such a system is another matter entirely. Suffice to say there is virtually no way such a system could be administered in a fully open and transparent manner.

The second resolution proposed by the group of four addresses the very nature of Green Party policy:

"Resolution 2 - Vision Green Reformatting

Whereas the GPC wishes to obtain seats in the Parliament in the next general election.

Whereas the GPC wishes to be a full spectrum party and not a single-issue party.

Whereas the GPC needs to expand its voter base beyond the existing environmental constituency, and that GPC wishes to appeal and be sensitive, credible and involved in all issues of concern of the voters.

Whereas the document “Vision Green” is heavily oriented in its current format to environmental issues, and can be perceived as almost marginalizing other issues. The current index reads Part 1: the green economy, Part 2: averting climate catastrophe , Part 3: preserving and restoring the environment , Part 4: people, Part 5: the planet needs Canada (and vice versa), Part 6: good government

Whereas effective campaign and marketing success is critically dependent on identifying voter issues and needs, speaking their language, and gaining their trust by addressing their needs within a clear integrity framework.

Whereas the GPC wishes to appeal to voters beyond the green constituency that is already in place.

Therefore it be resolved that the Vision Green document be reformatted to directly address, better balance and better reflect the broader needs of Canadians as a whole, and their wider expectations of elected members of parliament.

As a minimum, initial main subject areas, equally weighted and emphasized, are suggested as the Environment, the Economy, Tax reform, Health care, Education, Crime Prevention, Diversity and Human rights, Aboriginal affairs, Good government, Electoral reform, International affairs, Peace and security and Quality of life (all others)."

Resolution number two is merely a statement on the importance of the Green Party formulating a wide vareity of non-environmental policies.

This is simply wise politics for a party that would like to one day contend for national power -- even if right now its willing to settle for being a sidekick for the Liberal party.

"Resolution 3 - Issues of Conscience

Whereas our values commit us to Social Justice “acting to secure basic human rights and build a just society”; Nonviolence, in that “every act of violence delays our progress toward a just society; Diversity in that “we honour the diversity of life on our planet. All diversity of the Earth's people has intrinsic value”; Personal and Global Responsibility in that “we must learn to take responsibility for ourselves, our families, our communities and ultimately for our planet”; and Ecological Wisdom in that “when we damage the web of life, we damage ourselves”.

Whereas there is a class of issues relating to issues of conscience, in which moral uncertainty exists, and which may be extremely personal and difficult in terms of competing rights, and potentially divisive in the party, and potentially exclusive of major voting groups.

Whereas within Green party values of respect for diversity, non-violence, compassion, intrinsic value of life, rights to existence, and broader human rights, we will respect the rights of members to make personal moral decisions in identified areas of moral uncertainty, which may be different from other member decisions.

Whereas we are a party of shared values. We are a party with the highest standards of ethical values. We are an inclusive party and respect differences of belief. This is what attracted us to the Green Party. This is what make us unique compared to other parties. We promote an inclusive values-based application to issues, rather than a power-based application.

Therefore it be resolved that being a party of shared values, and respecting the right of party members to exercise such party values, that certain and significant “issues of conscience” such as relating to religion, euthanasia and abortion and others as may be identified by the party, are subject to free votes and free positions among party candidates and members.

Whereas that being a party of shared values and respecting the right of members to express differing opinion in free and open debate and free from reprisal."

The issues of consience resolution is actually quite constructive. It would promise free rein to Green party MPs to vote according to their conscience on a wide vareity of issues.

However, not all is as rosy as it would seem. The Group of Four has still left themselves a club with which to handle party dissidents:

"Whereas that once important and identified policies resolutions and positions are taken, that are not trivial or morally ambiguous, and adopted through the democratic process, that all are obligated to support such positions in good faith as a condition of party membership."

Which makes one wonder how the group of four would address Green party members or MPs dissenting from some of the Group of Four's policy resolutions -- in particular the highly controversial "Palestine" resolution (to be addressed shortly).

"Whereas we acknowledge that all GPC policy, resolutions and party positions may not cover all eventualities or situations and exceptions may arise, such as involving differences between rural and urban ridings.

Whereas as a duty of GPC integrity and respect to our members, the GPC wishes to respect the right of members to disagree or hold differing opinions, if differences remain consistent with party values, be non-trivial, and within a framework of disclosure and consensus with the GPC.

Therefore it be resolved that the GPC develop a values-based process for the efficient and timely consideration of requests to publicly adopt differing positions based in special, extraordinary and justified circumstances."

In fact, it would seem that Green party members and MPs would actually have to seek permission from the party leadership in order to dissent from the party line on that particular issue.

That being said, this is an issue that could prove useful to Green party leader Elizabeth May. After all, May's own views on abortion may find herself outside the party line on the topic.

It may also prove useful to Ghanem himself, who hs proven to have sympathy for the 9/11 "truth" movement.

"Resolution 5 - Organizational Ethics in the GPC

Whereas the GPC is a party of high moral values and ethics, notably honesty and respect, for which it is willing to be held accountable.

Whereas the GPC conducts its affairs in a complex matrix of relationships, power and diversity that have ethical context and risk; such as in GPC party affairs and each other, EDA affairs, media interaction, interaction with competing parties, election campaigns, candidate nomination selection activity, fundraising, voter interactions, and policy development and others.

Whereas the GPC wishes to set the highest example of ethics in politics and party affairs.

Whereas GPC wishes to tangibly demonstrate its commitment to ethical conduct, in a manner that respects GPC values, and informs our judgement, decision-making and relationships.

Therefore it be resolved that GPC develop and implement an ethics program based on organizational ethics best practices and the highest ethical standards, which will include ethical guidelines for the GPC leadership and membership relating to the ethical conduct and ethical risk management within the GPC and in our external relationships."

Resolution five may seem like some mundane administrative jargon, but it confirms that the party is beginning to grow to a posiiton at which it's starting to think more about the ordinary, pragmatic day-to-date issues in running a political party rather than merely being a political outlet for the idealism of its members.

Resolution six follows in a much different vein:

"Resolution 6 – International Affairs Policy Framework

Whereas the GPC believes that Canada must fully assert our values in international affairs, and meet our obligations to the global community.

Whereas the GPC desires a consistent and values based approach to foreign policy, international affairs, foreign aid and development, and peace and security activities.

Whereas we believe that Canada’s commitment to the global community is a commitment to advocacy, leadership and action in human rights, peace and security, good governance, environmental responsibility and sustainable economic development.

Therefore it be resolved that the GPC is guided in its international policy by the following principles:

1. We commit to a value based and socially responsible approach in all our global relationships.
2. We accept to be accountable for the highest global, social and environmental values, and commit to transparency and public oversight.
3. We assert that the security and prosperity of Canada is contingent on a secure and stable world and we will contribute to global security and stability.
4. In conflict zones, we commit to a three-pillar approach of; (1) diplomacy and human rights – (2) aid and development – (3) peace and security.
5. In conflict zones, we commit to the primacy of “diplomacy and human rights”.
6. We commit to neutrality, dialogue, non-violence, ceasefire and reconciliation activity in “peace and security” operations.
7. We commit to “Aid and Development” to global humanitarian crisis and human development.
8. We believe that foreign “aid and development” requires a coherent approach to good governance, rights and freedoms, poverty reduction, health improvement, education strengthening, gender equity, sustainable economic development, and environmental responsibility."

In essence, the "Group of Four" is advocating that Canadian Foreign Policy be transformed into a political outlet for their personal idealism.

Little is outlined about the specific role the military would play under a Green party government -- although we can imagine. Many references are made to "the primacy of diplomacy", but little said about what happens when diplomacy fails. Numerous references are made about human rights, but nothing is said about how a Green party government would address states that violate human rights.

These turn out to be important issues to overlook as one turns toward the next resolution:

"Resolution 7 - Afghanistan

Whereas the GPC desires to maintain a consistent values based policy response to international crises of interest to Canada as part of our approach to foreign policy and international affairs.

Whereas Vision Green provides operational and implementation detail of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan.

Whereas the situation in Afghanistan remains extremely volatile and subject to unknown and unforeseen circumstances.

Therefore it be resolved that the GPC evolve its role in Afghanistan according to the following principles;

1. That Canada re-assert a values-based approach to restoring peace, stability and alleviating suffering in Afghanistan, through a revised mission mandate emphasizing “peace making in this conflict zone”. That Canada develop proficiency in “high risk diplomacy” in this mission.
2. That Canada reorient the Canadian military and the overall mission towards neutrality and against offensive combat operations in Afghanistan. That the Canadian military force structure in Afghanistan realigned with the new “peacemaking” role.
3. That Canada shift offensive combat operations to the Afghan national authority but agree to assist with Afghan force and policing training and operational support.
4. That in support of human rights, environmental and economic strengthening, Canada conducts humanitarian aid, governance development and reconstruction projects.
5. That the primary function of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan be diplomacy through the creation of safe spaces for all parties involved, and the facilitation of dialogue with the aim of stopping the violence and beginning the process of reconciliation.
6. That the primary military role be to contribute to diplomatic activity, through initial contact with all parties in conflict, protection of military and civilian diplomatic staff, and protection of safe space activity.
7. That a secondary military role be the protection of all mission components be they defence forces, diplomatic staff, humanitarian aid agencies, governance development and reconstruction activity."

First off, the Green party insists that we stop fighting the Taliban (thereby making it easier for them to return to power), then start negotiating.

The Group of Four seems to imagine Canadian forces defending areas of neutrality within Afghanistan so their imagined negotiations can proceed. However, their approach suffers from two key misconceptions:

First off, the Taliban is not interested in negotiating in any realistic sense. Secondly, the world knows full well what the Taliban plans to re-institute in Afghanistan upon re-taking power there, and that should be considered non-negotiable to anyone with a legitimate concern for human rights.

The eighth resolution is the infamous "Palestine" resolution:

"Resolution 8 - Palestine

Whereas the Green Party of Canada unequivocally supports the human rights of all people in the world, equally;

Whereas UN General Assembly Resolution 194, (re-passed 28 times) affirms the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property; and its Charter stipulates that there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war; even by a state acting in self defence;

Whereas article 49 of the Geneva Convention states that the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies;

And whereas all Arab states, in the “Saudi Peace Plan” of March 2002 in Beirut and endorsed by 57 Muslim states, have offered Israel a full and permanent peace, with normal diplomatic relations, in return for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied land to the 1967 borders;

And whereas the Green Party of the United States has demanded that Israel cease its violent actions against the Palestinian people, and proposed an international peacekeeping body to enforce a Middle East ceasefire;

Therefore it be resolved that the Green Party of Canada calls upon Israel to end its forty year occupation of all occupied land without preconditions, and calls upon the resistance movement in Palestine to simultaneously halt all violent action against Israel and for both parties to begin to implement the “Saudi Peace Plan”, without delay."

In a certain sense, "Palestine" seems to be less malignant than originally thought.

However, it remains scant on key details that make it seem much less than benign. For example, the resolution asserts the right of Palestinians to "return to their homes and property". It doesn't seem to address the claims of numerous Palestinians to the entirety of the country.

Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that Israel has been at a continuous state of de facto warfare ever since its establishment. There is a great deal of virtue to be found in the argument that Israel should relinquish the West Bank and the other occupied territories. Yet, under the duress of attacks by Islamic and Palestinian terrorist groups, Israel has never truly known peacetime.

The resolution wisely calls upon Palestian groups to cease violent action against Israel, just as it calls upon Israel to cease violent action against Palestians. Yet it seems to overlook that many elements of Islamic culture in the Middle East have begun to honour those who perpetrate violence against Israelis -- even children -- and celebrating them as heroes.

How can one honestly expect Palestinian groups to cease violent action against Israel in a cultural climate where a man who smashes an Israeli child's head in (while her father watches) is hailed as a hero?

Resolution nine is another resolution that could be effected by the Group of Four's "issues of conscience" resolution:

"Resolution 9 – Euthanasia

Whereas on 15 June 2005, Bill C-407, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Right to Die with Dignity) was introduced by Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l’Île, Quebec). Due to the subsequent dissolution of Parliament and the call of a federal election, a vote did not take place and the Bill was not subsequently re-introduced after the election.

Whereas Bill C-407 would have amended sections 14 (Consent to Death), 222 (Homicide), and 241 (Counseling or aiding suicide) of the Criminal Code so that, provided that certain criteria are met, a person who assists another person to die would be neither committing a homicide nor counseling or aiding suicide. The bill would have required that the individual whose death is assisted to meet detailed provisions such as being at least 18 years old; either experiencing “severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief” or terminally ill; made a free and informed wish to die; have designated a person who aids him or her to die.
Whereas the bill would also have required that the person who is assisting the death to meet detailed provisions including; involvement of a medical practitioner; confirmation of the diagnosis from one or two medical practitioners; be entitled by law to provide this assistance; to act as directed by the individual whose death is assisted; and provide the coroner with a copy of the diagnosis from the confirming medical practitioners.

Therefore, be it resolved that the GPC support the re-introduction in Parliament of new Bill similar to Bill C-407."

Once again, one may wonder how the Group of Four would respond if their own "issues of conscience" resolution was used to resist their "euthanasia" policy?

Only time -- and an unlikely Green party election victory -- could tell.

The next two resolutions deal with aboriginal peoples:

"Resolution 10 - Aboriginal Affairs – Redress for Losses

Whereas many recommendations of the 1990 the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have not been implemented.

Whereas Provincial, territorial and the Canadian governments have benefited greatly from Aboriginal peoples' loss of lands and resources.

Therefore, be it resolved the provincial and territorial and the Canadian governments issue a sincere apology for suffering and loss, and fully acknowledge a moral and a legal responsibility to participate fully in measures to restore self-reliance and autonomy, including land redistribution, the redesign of government responsibilities, and arrangements for co-management of shared resources."

This, in particular is a resolution that many land-owning Canadians may not like.

After all, what could be said about this in Montreal, where the entirety of the downtown area is subject to an (as yet) unresolved aboriginal landclaim? What about British Columbia, where some of the claims actually exceed the sum of the land actually in British Columbia?

Furthermore, there is also the matter of the public outcry that arises whenever a politician talks about the need to restore autonomy and self-reliance to Canada's aboriginal peoples (the latter of the two propositions clearly being the allegedly troublesome one).

"Resolution 11 - Aboriginal Affairs – Nationhood Status

Whereas because of their original occupancy of the country, the treaties that recognized their rights, the constitution that affirms those rights, and their continued cohesion as peoples, the GPC believes that aboriginal peoples are distinct political entities and nations within Canada - with their own character and traditions, a right to their own autonomous governments, and a special place in the flexible federalism that defines Canada.

Whereas the GPC believes that our government must make a clear commitment to renewing the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, guided by recognition, respect, sharing and responsibility.

Therefore be it resolved that a new relationship with aboriginal peoples be defined and reflected in new legislation that includes:

1. An Aboriginal Nations Recognition and Government Act, to recognize Aboriginal nations and make interim arrangements to finance their activities.
2· An Aboriginal Treaties Implementation Act, to establish processes and principles for recognized nations to renew their existing treaties or create new ones; and to establish regional treaty commissions to facilitate and support treaty negotiations, and that this be conducted by representatives of the governments concerned.
3· An Aboriginal Lands and Treaties Tribunal Act, to establish an independent body to decide on specific claims, ensure that treaty negotiations are conducted and financed fairly, and protect the interests of affected parties while treaties are being negotiated.
4· An Aboriginal Parliament Act, to establish a parliamentary body to represent Aboriginal peoples within federal governing institutions and advise Parliament on matters affecting Aboriginal people.
5· An Aboriginal National Relations and Services Department Act, to establish a department to implement the new relationship with Aboriginal nations, to administer continuing services for groups not yet self-governing; and replace the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development."

While the base principle of this resolution -- the recognition of aboriginal bands as autonomous self-governing peoples and direct partners in the enterprise of Canadian federalism -- is a huge step in a positive direction, there remain numerous problems with this resolution.

First off, the insistence that aboriginal peoples must be recognized as autonomous and self-reliant conflicts drastically with the notion of funding their governments on an indefinite basis. University of Calgary Political Scientist Tom Flanagan is right when he notes that the best solutions to the dilemmas surrounding aboriginal peoples and their relationship with the Canadian government will inevitably include granting these bands the power to collect taxes within their jurisdiction.

However, the notion of replacing the Department of Indian Affairs with a department that would function on a more cooperative basis would be good for all Canadians, not just aboriginals.

The twelfth resolution is actually quite novel:

"Resolution 12 – Extending the order table through dissolution of Parliament

Whereas the GPC believes that the passage of legislation should be one of the highest priorities of the affairs of the parliament of Canada.

Whereas the creation of bills and legislation require a substantial investment of time and effort on the part of the public, committees, public servants, elected members, ministers, and others, and at a high cost to taxpayers.

Whereas on dissolution of parliament for an election, existing bills are lost from the order table of parliament (the order of business).

Therefore be it resolved that the GPC advocate for the amendment of parliamentary rules and procedures and the creation of a parliamentary committee, which will review bills existing previous to the dissolution, and recommend bills, with all party support, past third reading, and that transcend partisan politics, “to stand” and be included in the new order table of the new government."

This is the kind of legislative reform that should have existed in Canada a long time ago. While many politicians would likely oppose such a reform due to the time it would take away from their reelection campaigns, enacting such a reform would remind politicians and Canadians as a whole that doing the country's business must come before petty partisan or electoral concerns.

Finally, the 13th resolution deals with the currently malignant environment in which the Canadian Parliament has conducted itself -- an environment that all of our political parties and elected officials have contriubted to:

"Resolution 13 – Decorum In Parliament

Whereas the GPC do not accept the current manner that politics is practiced in this country; and want to change the way politics is conducted for the better.

Whereas we believe in of integrity in government, characterized by a cooperative, honest, respectful and responsible parliament and we will act accordingly.

Whereas it is observed that the behaviour of members of parliament in the House of Commons is on regular occasions unacceptable in terms of decorum, common courtesy and respect.

Whereas the GPC wishes to set an example of a new standard in Parliament which reflects that highest standards of respect and courtesy and be worthy of the public trust.

Therefore be it resolved that in the GPC develop and publish a code of conduct for our elected members of Parliament, which will set an example to others, and to which we are willing to be held accountable. This code will articulate the standards of dignity and respect we and the public want from our elected officials."

One of the best ways to disperse the typically acrimonious environment of Canadian Parliament is, indeed, for one of Canada's political parties to agree to lead by example. Naturally, any one of Canada's parties would currently claim to be leading by example. For the Green party to come out and actually do so would be a welcome example.

Of course, there's more to the Ottawa Group of Four than this package of policies. But it is interesting to consider what the Green party may or may not become under the leadership or influence of such a clique.

Many Canadians may want to question whether or not Canada can go where the Ottawa Group of Four would have the Green Party lead it, or even if it should.

Quick! Buy Another Case of Embarrass-mints!

2008-09-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

Murray Dobbin on Canadian Foreign Policy

2008-09-14T09:00:00.000-07:00

Dobbin waxes eloquent about mythical Canada

Coming once again via the Real News Network, Murray Dobbin insists that Canada's engagement in Afghanistan somehow imperils Canadian culture.

Dobbin recites all the tired left-wing rhetoric surrounding Afghanistan: that the combat mission was accepted to appease the United States, that Canadian forces are "occupying" Afghanistan, and Canada is becoming too "American".

But Dobbin makes a serious misstep when he insists that the "military is being integrated into what has been a strictly non-military culture."

Dobbin is either a tremendously poor student of Canadian history, or has simply allowed his reading of Canadian history to be distorted beyond recognition by his personal ideological preferences.

Canadian culture has never been "strictly non-military". Historians are in general agreement that notions of Canada as a sovereign state -- as opposed to merely a British colony -- came out of a military engagement: the Second World War. Historians agree that Canadians -- like the citizens of many British colonies -- came out of WWII believing that Canada had earned its sovereignty by playing a critical role in winning the European conflict.

Canadians have always taken pride in our military. Canadians have been known to boast about the "make-do" ingenuity of Canadian service men and women, who perform amazing feats with equipment many others would be considered ill-suited to the task.

We come together as Canadians every 11th of November to honour the sacrifices of our service men and women. Those sacrifices were predominantly made during times of war -- mostly during the First World War, Second World War and Korean War, although various Peacekeeping missions and the Afghan war have also added to the ranks of the remembered dead.

One of Canada's great national symbols, the Snowbirds, is made up of Air Force pilots specially trained to perform aerial stunts. They are world-renowned for their skill and artistry.

Even the Peacekeeping that Dobbin and his ideological stalwarts laud is carried out not by civilians, but by military personell. It was the labours of such military personell that helped Prime Minister Lester Pearson secure his Nobel Peace Prize -- again, a symbol of pride for Canadians.

Dobbin clearly misunderstands the role of the military in Canadian history. There is nothing un-Canadian about the military.

Dobbin also trots out a conspiracy theory suggesting that the engagement in Afghanistan is being fought primarily to secure a proposed pipeline through Afghanistan. The pipeline would carry natural gas from Turkmenistan to foreign markets.

However, Dobbin should be interested to learn that the pipeline in question would not be carrying natural gas to American or European markets, but rather to India and Pakistan. Furthermore, no war effort would have ever been needed to secure that pipeline, considering that the Taliban was in favour of building the pipeline.

Dobbin also accuses Stephen Harper and the Conservatives of being in league with George W Bush in allegedly trying to surround Russia with NATO states friendly to the United States.

But Dobbin should also keep in mind that Georgia and the Ukraine applied to NATO for membership, and that membership has still not yet been granted. It seems illogical for NATO to drag its feet on granting full membership -- as opposed to their current associate membership -- if their goal is to encircle Russia.

Dobbin argues that Harper and the Conservatives are backing American foreign policy despite it being against Canada's interests. But he may want to double-check what Canada's interests really are.

To begin with, Central and Eastern Canada remain energy importers. Thus, Canada has an interest in helping to break Russian dominance over east European and west Asian energy markets.

Furthermore, Canada has a very real interest in helping to corral states that harbour terrorists -- not to mention interests in promoting human rights by ensuring that one of the world's worst abusers of human rights does not return to power in Afghanistan.

In the end, Dobbin engages in some base defeatism. Canada cannot win in Afghanistan, he insists, although he, like his ideological stalwarts, have made a habit of overlooking successes in Afghanistan so that they may focus on the failures and challenges there.

Unfortunately, it isn't at all unlike Murray Dobbin to be narrowly ideological. His Michael Byers-esque turn on Canadian Foreign Policy is really little more than another drop in the bucket.

The Rest of Canada? Where's That?

2008-09-13T20:51:00.000-07:00

If one were to pay close attention to the ongoing federal election campaign, one would think the Conservative party is overwhelmingly carrying the day in terms of advertising.

They are carrying the day. But not as overwhelmingly as one might think -- at least, not if one were from English Canada.

In English Canada, the Conservatives have released 12 ads. The Liberal party has released one.

In Quebec, the story is entirely different. In fact, the Liberals have released numerous ads there that they have yet to release in the rest of the country.

The earlier batch of Quebec-only ads seem to emphasize Stephane Dion and "his team", as numerous Liberal party MPs and candidates wax eloquently on topics such as employment:

Poverty:

Arts and culture:

And "the word Canada":

In the second batch, the Liberal party tries to portray ordinary Quebecers offering their criticisms of Stephen Harper:

On great leadership:

And hope:

The ads feature the Liberal party sinking to some typical low points -- such as dropping George W Bush and Denis Coderre at least seeming to imply that Stephen Harper is "insane".

But the ads clearly show where Stephane Dion at least seems to think his bread his buttered: Quebec. The lack of any kind of comprehensive advertising Campaign in the rest of Canada is certainly nothing less than a glaring strategic blunder by the Liberals.

Considering their current third-place standing in Quebec (behind the Bloc and Tories, who are neck-and-neck), the Liberals may want to start paying some attention to the rest of Canada before it's too late.

That is, if they can even find it on a map. Right now, one wonders.

Orchard to Dion: Lighten Green Shift Lite

2008-09-13T16:11:00.000-07:00

Saskatchewan star Liberal candidate proposes mid-campaign policy changes

As the 2008 federal election progresses, one can't really help but wonder if Stephane Dion is regretting not intervening (again) in the nomination process in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River.

Even after lightening his vaunted Green Shift plan, Stephane Dion is being called upon by David Orchard (his candidate in Desenethe-Missinippi-Churchill River) to lighten it some more.

"I don't want to see farmers or fisherman or northerners penalized for using fuels for which there is no option, they have no alternative," Orchard pronounced.

Orchard insists that he has no shortage of confidence in Dion's leadership, despite his previous interference in Orchard's electoral ambitions. "I would have no trouble working for Stéphane Dion and I'm working hard to help him win power," he insists.

Calling upon Dion to once again change his policy -- this time in the middle of an election campaign -- probably isn't as helpful as Orchard would like to believe.

To help like this, Stephane Dion may need to say "thanks, but no thanks."

Free Trade Issues Enter the Counter-Branding Fray

2008-09-13T12:45:00.000-07:00

In a new ad released yesterday, the Conservative party took advantage of a trade-related issue brought up by Stephane Dion.

Dion has suggested that the allgedly weak environmental policies of the Conservative government would imperil Canadian trade, as other countries impose punitive tariffs on countries judged to have taken insufficient action fighitng climate change.

"Other countries are considering slapping carbon tariffs on those who don't take action on climate change. As hard as it is to believe, for now, Canada is one of those countries," Dion recently said.

Dion's Green Shift plan promises to impose such "carbon tariffs" on other countries judged to be dragging their feet on climate change.

The ad itself seems to have been put together rather hastily. It features a different narrator than previous Conservative ads, and relies almost overwhelmingly on the analysis of a single expert -- Carlton University's Michael Hart. It features images of numerous Canadian trading partners being stamped with the word "tariff" as it progresses toward its logical conclusion: a map of the United States -- Canada's largest trading partner -- being stamped.

Perhaps it's inevitable that trade-related issues (in particular, Free Trade-related issues) were going to come up in the election campaign. In August, David Orchard, Canada's leading anti-free trader finally secured his opportunity to run for the Liberal party.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time before the Liberal party offered up some kind of Free Trade-related policy -- one that would inevitably require the abrogation of NAFTA -- in order to keep their newest star candidate in the fold.

Not so surprisingly, Dion's trade-related musings closely resemble musings by Barack Obama that he would try to renegotiate NAFTA in order to add environmental agreements. Considering Dion's poor performance on fighting climate change during his last go around, questions over whether or not Dion is, like Obama, merely bluffing remain lefitimate.

As such, the Conservative counter-branding effort in this case ironically tries to drive Dion closer to potentially unpopular policies of the man he would likely most like to emulate, even if Jack Layton is outdoing him on that particular front right now.

This subtext of the ad -- and reminders that many key details about Dion's Green Shift plan have been postponed in Campbellian fashion until after the election -- seem to be meant to work together to encourage voters to question Dion's genuinity and ponder the economic consequences of such a move.

The ad also represents a notable shift in the overall Conservative campaign -- moving away from tactics of ridicule and toward serious debate.

This particular ad is a bold move for the Conservative party. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect it has on the campaign.

Canadian Cynic: Canadians are Stupid

2008-09-13T11:48:00.000-07:00

There's clearly something about Canadian Cynic and the word "stupid".

According to Cynic, the Blogging Tories are stupid, Christians are stupid, and anyone who dares stand up to him is stupid too.

In a post at the Sycophantic Groupthink Temple today, however, Cynic takes his little act an unsurprising step forward: Canadians are stupid.

Ironically, this assertion comes as Cynic is addressing a column by Christopher Flavelle in which he asked: darn it, how has Canada gotten so gosh-darn mean?

Certainly, the irony shouldn't be lost on anyone familiar with the distinctly un-Canadian dump that is (as he calls it) Cynic HQ. After all, if anyone in Canada has written the book on "mean", it certainly wasn't the Conservative party of Canada.

After all, there's something inherently mean about expressing amusement about an assassination attempt on a Canadian politician. Encouraging people to go after a political opponent through his children? To the point of stalking them to their school?

Not much more needs to be said about any of this. The irony of the individual who is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Canada's meanest blogger essentially decrying the alleged meanness of Canadian society?

Most certainly lost upon himself (as these things tend to be), but not lost upon the rational observer.

In the end, it's unsurprising that Cynic considers Canadians to be stupid. After all, he certainly thinks his readers are stupid (it helps that they're all too often slavishly willing to oblige him).

After all, Cynic eagerly piled on the tasergate controversy. This would be fair enough if his inherently fascistic schaedenfreude hadn't already been run up the flagpole for the world to see.

For Cynic to expect to be able to fall in line with the progressive movement while they protested the injudicious use of tasers that has, sadly, been spreading across our country like wildfire while having made excuses for the injudicious use of tasers on a man who dared ask too many questions of the man who was once the favoured Presidential candidate of progressives?

This is a person who thinks Canadians are -- in fact, who clearly thinks everyone aside from himself is -- stupid.

And what was it that spurned him to finally just come out and say it? Likely polls that show the object of Cynic's simmering hatred to be headed toward a stronger minority government, if not a majority.

The very object of hatred that Cynic has spent the better part of his day for the past god-only-knows how long emptying both barrels at.

It seems that, once again, Candian Cynic is a good deal less influential than he's deluded himself into believing.

But at least he's finally mustered the courage to come out and tell Canadians what he really thinks of them. Now, if only he could muster the courage to attach his own name to those comments...

The Machinations of Left-Wing Reactionaries

2008-09-12T15:21:00.000-07:00

Vote-swapping scheme shows left-wing extremists running scared

All over Canada, left-wing extremists are sweating bullets at the prospect of a Conservative majority government.

In an effort to try and head this off, Hamilton, Ontario's Mat Savelli has started an "Anti-Harper Vote Swap" group on Facebook, in which people in 41 battle ground ridings are encouraged to vote strategically to prevent a Conservative victory in that riding.

"Let's pretend I'm NDP supporter in the riding of Winnipeg South. Seeing as the Tories only managed to beat the Liberals by less than 150 votes in the 2006 election, the Liberals almost surely have the best chance of winning. I post on this group's wall 'NDP in Winnipeg South looking for Liberal swap' and agree to vote Liberal in exchange for someone else (i.e. a Liberal living in rural Alberta where the Tories are a lock to win) voting NDP in another riding. The group runs on an honour system in the belief that we are all united against Harper."

In theory, this is an idea that could work. However, there are a number of issues with it.

First off, some may recall that former Canadian AutoWorkers union President Buzz Hargrove had his NDP membership revoked for encouraging Canadians to vote strategically during the 2005/06 federal election. Any NDP members participating in the "Anti-Harper vote swap" will almost certainly be imperiling their party membership.

Secondly, at a mere 1,128 members -- including, uncharacteristically, Saskboy -- it's unlikely that the vote swap will make a significant difference unless its membership grows in the coming weeks.

Most of all, however, the "Anti-Harper vote swap" seems to overlook the inherent cynicism of its own exercise. The "Anti-Harper vote swap" encourages Canadians to vote against their personal allegiances and own interests in order to block another party. In other words, the people participating in the swap aren't voting for anything. Rather, they're simply voting against the Stephen Harper Conservatives.

As a political act, this is inherently pessimistic and cynical. A large question of trust remains: who's to say that a Liberal agreeing to vote for the NDP -- essentially in Savelli's place -- won't instead just go ahead and vote Liberal?

Perhaps for NDP supporters there is very little incentive for being dishonest. But with the Liberal party very much in contention to win the election, there is absolutely no doubt that there is an incentive for Liberal party supporters to secure a vote from an NDP supporter and then renege.

The perverse brilliance of such an act is that the individual getting burned would never know the difference.

The dis- and mistrust bred so easily in the heart of an individual cynical enough to engage in such an enterprise may, in the end, turn out to be enough to sink the entire enterprise. But whether or not the "Anti-Harper vote swap" is successful or not won't be known until election day.

Me, Too! Me, Too!

2008-09-12T10:53:00.000-07:00

Green party admission to leaders' debates has brought Canada's other political crazies out of the woodworks

With Green party leader Elizabeth May set to participate in the televised leaders' debates -- despite her party having never elected a single, solitary MP -- many of Canada's other political crazies want a spot in the big show, too.

"The parties that are in the House are treating it like a private fiefdom, they're trying to pull up the drawbridge behind them and exclude other parties and new ideas," said Christian Heritage party leader Ron Gray.

"A democracy requires an informed electorate," he added. "To preempt the voter's decision by excluding one important voice is anti-democratic."

But in the 2005/06 federal election, only 28,152 voters voted for the anti-abortion, anti-gay social conservative Christian Heritage party. That's good for a 0.19% of the popular vote.

Is the Christian Heritage party really an "important voice"? Not bloody likely.

Marijuana party leader Blair Longley also thinks that, gosh-darn it, it's all just not fair.

"It's so unfair it goes off the scale," Longley sniffed. "We've been complaining forever and ever. Marijuana Party candidates are routinely excluded from debates, all over the place, all the time."

"If you're below the two-per-cent (threshold), you're nothing," Longley noted.

And for good reason, too. It's one thing for the debates to have to moderate a leaders' debate amongst four (now five) different leaders. Add a burnout douchebag who's probably stoned to the mix?

Not a pretty picture.

In the 2005/06 election 9,171 voters cast their ballot in favour of the Marijuana party. One presumes that a good deal of their constituency must have had an epiphany on election day: "if the only political issue I care about is the legalization of marijuana, I am clearly too fucking stupid to vote."

Of course, there is one fringe party in Canada that could actually make a somewhat legitimate claim to a spot in the leaders' debate: the Communist party, who elected Fred Rose in 1943, when the party ran candidates as the Labour Progressive party.

Unfortunately for the Communist party (and fortunately for the rest of us), however, the Communist party will still have to field candidates against the Marxist-Leninist party, splitting what is quite literally the pinko-commie vote.

Of course, neither party would stand a chance of electing an MP anywhere. There are three reasons for this: Communist. Marxist. Leninist.

Commanding a potential 10% of the popular vote, the Green party has certainly grown in status far beyond the meager dreams of these other fringe upstarts. But with the party finally claiming a place at the televised debate -- even with a leader acting as nothing more than a proxy for the Liberal party -- one has to wonder how long it may be before the network consortium relents and lets all these other crazies in, too.

Then again, Parliament (on a good day) already resembles an unruly kindergarten classroom. Why shouldn't the leaders' debate follow suit?

So Fucking What?

2008-09-11T18:38:00.000-07:00

Ryan Sparrow screws the proverbial pooch, is shown actual door

"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."

Those are the words that should have been uttered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper today, as he suspended Communications Director Ryan Sparrow.

Sparrow has been suspended for an email he sent to CTV following an appearance by Jim Davis, the father of fallen Corporal Paul Davis, following an appearance on Canada AM, in which he (rightfully) criticized Stephen Harper's promise to end the Canadian Forces engagement in Afghanistan in 2011.

Sparrow responded by emailing CTV and telling them that Davis is a Liberal party member who supported Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership contest.

So the question on many people's minds is: so fucking what?

Not as in "Ryan Sparrow emailed CTV: so fucking what," but: "Jim Davis is a Liberal. So fucking what?"

Davis is entirely right to be concerned that his son's death not be in vain. Davis is entirely right to voice his opinion that, when Canada finally withdraws from Afghanistan, the mission there will have been accomplished. Jim Davis is entirely right to express his opinion.

And it isn't as if he had never confronted Liberals over their policies in Afghanistan. In July 2007, Davis encouraged Liberal leader Stephane Dion to support the extension of Canada's Afghanistan engagement.

Davis has been anything but partisan in his comment on Afghanistan. He has now taken both federal leaders on over their stance regarding the mission.

For Sparrow to try to suggest that Davis was acting as a partisan hack is nothing short of shameful -- especially considering that he himself was acting as nothing more than a partisan hack.

Sparrow's behaviour is not only embarassing for himself or his party. It's also embarassing for his country. Canadians expect better than this out of their politicians.

Davis, for his own part, has remained classy throughout this entire shameful affair. He's voiced his disagreement with Sparrow's suspension, noting that "we all learn from our mistakes and we become better people because of that. The last thing that I would want is somebody to have hardship over my son's death. That's not what this is all about, this is not politics."

Unfortunately, however, Sparrow didn't get that particular memo -- just as online hatemoger Canadian Cynic didn't get the message that it's unacceptable to attack the parents of war casualties for political purposes.

And he still hasn't gotten the memo. (But for those keeping track on Cynic's psychopathic delusions of personal destruction, one may want to take note of the effect such an attack can have on one's personal career -- just something for the hateful sociopath to mull over for a little while.)

Davis never wanted his son's death to be about politics. Unfortuantely, Ryan Sparrow tried to make it about politics and, as such, he should be making a much more permanent exit from his position with the Conservative party than merely a "suspension".

"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."

Stephen Harper should be memorizing that.

Why Do We Fight?

2008-09-11T15:00:00.000-07:00

September Tapes offers post-9/11 cautionary tale

In the post-9/11 world, many people have developed a fascinating interest in telling people "why we fight".

Many people treat it as a foregone conclusion: "We fight. This is why." Rarely is the matter even treated as a question.

2004's The September Tapes -- think of it as The Blair Witch Project meets Babel in wartime Afghanistan -- presents Don Larson (George Calil) as a documtary filmmaker in Afghanistan intent on witnessing the capture of Osama Bin Laden by American troops. His Afghan-American guide Wali Zarif (Wali Razaqi) leads Larson deeper and deeper into the dangerous world of Afghanistan's ethnic conflicts.

As he does so, Larson is drawn deeper and deeper into the conflict, eventually sacrificing his role as an observer and non-combatant for that of warrior, as he pursues the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks with a fierce doggedness that quickly escalates into outright obsession.

As the movie progresses, it quickly becomes obvious that Larson has taken the events of 9/11 very personally. It turns out that he actually has ample cause -- something the viewer doesn't learn until the film's conclusion.

But the film offers a cautionary tale about 9/11 and about the war on terror that it has spawned.

The United States and its allies -- including and especially Canada -- cannot allow the war on terror to be about revenge. The United States and its allies cannot allow the war on terror to become about revenge.

It's impossible to argue that the response to 9/11 shouldn't be considered personal. The country attacked on that dark day certainly took the event personally. Frankly, it's hard to blame them.

As Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) notes in 2004's The Punisher, "revenge is not a valid motive. It's an emotional response." Any response to 9/11 based purely on emotion is one that is certain to fail.

Frank Castle is a character incapable of dealing with his own internal (emotional and psychological) problems in the wake of his family's murder. Instead, he focuses his efforts on the destruction of external enemies. When he finally manages to kill the man who ordered his family's murder, he takes to the road in search of other enemies to fight.

Likewise, Don Larson is a man seemingly incapable of dealing with his own (again, emotional and psychological) problems in the wake of 9/11. Instead, he focuses his efforts on witnessing American soldiers bringing the man who masterminded the attacks to justice. When it becomes apparent that this will not happen, he takes up arms and pursues Bin Laden on his own.

The loss of his allies along the way doesn't deter him. In the end, the conclusion of the film is a foregone conclusion. In fact, it's divulged at the start of the film -- Larson disappears, and his tapes are eventually recovered by American soldiers.

Don Larson the man has vanished. He may be dead, or he may be hunting Osama Bin Laden still.

As the world stops to commemorate the seventh anniversary of 9/11, one wonders about the ultimate fate of the country south of the 49th parallel. Has it learned how to deal with its own internal problems (psychological or emotional, or economic or political), or will it continue to hunt for enemies?

Will it focus on the very real enemies that exist -- terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, the states that choose to harbour them and, ultimately, the conditions that breed them -- or will it again expand its crusade to threats that, if they even exist at all, are far from pressing? (One fears that talks about an eventual invasion of Iran are not as far-fetched as they may seem.)

The question is not if we will fight. The question is why. And, yes, it is a question.

As Canada and other countries continue to ally with the United States in the global war on terror, we must come to grips with the fact that the motives for which the United States fights will, in one way or another, impact upon us and be our motives as well.

We must continue to ensure that the United States is not fighting for revenge, but for the betterment of the world as a whole, and in the promotion of global security. If we witness the United States straying from this path again -- as it did when it chose to invade Iraq to confront non-existent weapons of mass destruction -- we must ensure that Canada does not follow them there.

That is why we fight. Not for revenge, as Don Larson eventually does, but for the betterment of all. For justice. For reason.

But never revenge.

Separatism in ICU

2008-09-11T09:18:00.000-07:00

Bloc Quebecois wounded by 'friendly fire'

Two days after criticizng the religious beliefs of a Conservative candidate as "out of touch with Quebec values", Gilles Duceppe is facing down a critical identity crisis within his party, as some senior Pequistes are wondering precisely what "Quebec values" really are.

"The leftist, ideological bric-a-brac (state interventionism, egalitarianism, pacifism, environmentalism, anti-Americanism) transforms itself, as if by alchemy, into ‘Quebec values' that we must defend furiously," wrote Jacques Brassard, a former Parti Quebecois minister. "The Bloc has thus become the twin of the NDP, that archaic Canadian socialist party."

"Sovereignty has more or less been put on the back burner. It's not discussed any more. The circumstances aren't suitable. But the fact remains that that's why the Bloc exists," Brassard wrote. "I'm sorry, but this does not suit me. I don't recognize myself in this party."

For his own part, Duceppe naturally disagrees with Brassard's assertions. "In a democracy there are people who belong to a family who do not necessarily agree with what happens in that family," Duceppe replied.

However, with Conservative party support rising in Quebec, Conservative trade minister Michael Fortier naturally rushed to take advantage of the situation, pointing out the Bloc's dismal record in Ottawa.

"Mr Duceppe cannot mention in all honesty a single achievement, a single real gain for Quebecers, which is attributable to the Bloc," Fortier announced. "Any municipal council accomplishes more in one year than the Bloc has in 18 years."

The Bloc's poor record and effective abandonment of the sovereignty issue may be to blame for the party's decreasing support. In the January 2006 federal election, they claimed 42% of the Quebec vote. With the 2008 balloting just over a month away, the party is poised to claim a mere 30%.

Brassard's comments come less than a month after an internal kerfuffle within the Bloc's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, as Francois Legault noted that the separatist cause in Quebec has suffered a significant setback.

All this being said, it would be premature to start writing off separatism as "dead", as Pierre Trudeau once did (to his own and nearly the entire country's chagrin), as University of Montreal political scientist Pierre Martin notes.

"All journalists should take the stories about the death of the Bloc and bury them. This is not going to happen as long as you have anywhere between a third and half of the electorate who claim to be 'sovereigntist' -- there will be a voice for that electorate," Martin said.

Separatism is far from dead. However, it's certainly in intensive care for at least the short term.

Tory Counter-Branding Effort Takes a Turn for the Ridiculous

2008-09-11T07:33:00.000-07:00

Anti-family label is just plain silly

Yesterday, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the Liberals and NDP for allegedly being "anti-family", the Conservatives released yet another spot targeting Stephane Dion.

The ad addresses a previous statement by Stephane Dion in which he announced he would cut the Conservative's $1200 per annum childcare tax credit.

The ad insists that the choice to voters is clear "you keep the $1200, or [Dion] gets it."

Dion has denounced the claim as a "lie". Yet Dion did, in fact, say that he would cancel the Tory plan. More specifically, Dion would replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with Ken Dryden's plan for a national daycare program.

"The Dryden plan was much better. We need child care facilities to provide Canadian parents with real choice. It's a matter of social justice, but also of sound economics: child care facilities are a good way to encourage flexibility and mobility of our workforce, at a time when, often, two parents are working outside the home."

Which is obviously precisely what the ad is referring to when it warns that "[Dion] thinks he can spend [the $1200] better than you can."

Thus, there's nothing dishonest about the ad.

However, the ad's place in an effort to counter-brand Stephane Dion as "anti-family" is just plain silly. After all, Dion is a family man himself. It's unlikely that Dion himself would do anything to hurt his own family. Anything that would hurt Canadian families would inevitably hurt his own, in one way or another.

Just as Jack Layton is a family man as well, and has campaigned on numerous pro-family policies.

However, as silly as the Conservative effort to counter-brand Dion as Layton as "anti-family" (and there is a great peril in dragging politics down into the realm of vapid "anti-" labels), Dion's attempt to counter-brand the Conservatives as "liars" is doubly silly.

For one thing, the claims in the Conservative ad pan out to be true. Secondly, the base accusation of lying portrays Dion as a man incapable of debating the real issues -- instead choosing to dodge behind accusations of lies.

Stephen Harper himself insisted that the 2008 federal election would be a nasty one. With moves such as the inherently silly "anti-family" label, he's done more than his fair share to make it a nasty one.

Equally unfortunately, Stephane Dion has proven himself more than willing to oblige him.

9/11 At Election Time

2008-09-11T05:00:00.000-07:00

Normally, the pressure has been to keep partisanship to a bare minimum on this day every year.

But with this year's anniversary of 9/11 -- the seventh year since that infamous day -- falling during not one but two North American elections, 9/11 will almost certainly become a topic of some importance today.

Particularly with an American election in which no incumbent can be returned to the White House, the question of 9/11 and how another such attack can be prevented will be a pivotal issue. In 2004, voters knew first hand President George W Bush's views on how to avert terrorist attacks. In 2008, they don't have that luxury in comparing the anti-terrorism plans of John McCain and Barack Obama.

But to truly understand the events of 9/11, and truly understand how another such attack can be prevented, it's important to understand how the event unfolded in the first place.

As such, today The Nexus presents (with brief commentary) the documentary Inside 9/11: Zero Hour:

It's remarkable how ineffective pre-9/11 security was at detecting the 19 terrorists, even when a number of them were selected for additional security. The very rules set by the FAA actually facilitated the hijacking by allowing the hijackers to carry their weapons on board.

It's also disconcerting how, even after the hijacking was known, the eventual disaster was still unable to be prevented.

The FAA's inability to communicate effectively with F-15 fighter jets that had been scrambled to track American Airlines flight 11 and the literal impossibility of fighting a fire at the height in question point to the obvious ill-preparedness of the American transportation infrastructure, military and civil authorities to deal with the events of that day.

One would almost excuse ill-preparedness to deal with events previously considered almost unimaginable. But on the very day of the events in question, novelist John Grisham told CNN that he had proposed events remarkably similar to 9/11 as a national security scenario to Pentagon officials.

The events of 9/11 weren't as unthinkable as we may like to believe.

The detail with which the film portrays the events of 9/11 is shocking, but underscores the reality of the event -- and reminds us why a repeat of that catastrophe must be averted.

Confusion began to set in as the FAA and air traffic controllers literally lost track of which planes were still in the air, and which planes had already reached their target.

Particularly chilling is the deception the hijackers employed with their passengers. Knowing full well that they were all going to die upon reaching their target, one can't help but treat the deception -- and the false hope it promises -- as unnecessarily cruel.

Then again, perhaps it could be said that any hope in the heart of a suicide bomber is false hope indeed.

Part of dealing with any event such as 9/11 requires a response plan -- something evidently lacking on that date in 2001. It pains any rational person to criticize the response of emergency services -- men and women doing their jobs under extremely difficult circumstances.

But there is little question that their jobs were made unacceptably more difficult by the lack of a response plan. When building a 100-plus story building, it isn't unreasonable to expect that civil authorities will plan for a possible evacuation of that building in the event of a catastrophe -- particularly when that building has been the target of a terrorist attack before.

The lack of a realistic plan to deal with fires such as those burning in the WTC becomes immediately apparent. The film notes that the average firefighter takes an hour to climb 25 stories, meaning the firefighters being sent to fight the fires -- each carrying 100 pounds of equipment -- would take four hours to reach the fire.

The fires, meanwhile, were beginning to soften the support beams, which had been stripped of their fire-proofing by the impact of the planes.

The lost four hours could have potentially prevented the collapse of the towers -- if there were a plan in place to help get firefighters to the impact floors in a reasonable amount of time.

Only the determination and dedication of the firefighters in question served to avert further loss of life that day where disaster planning effectively failed.

The film also presents some of the smaller human tales amidst the tragedy, such as that of Usman Farman, a Muslim man who a Jewish man helped escape from the debris cloud following the WTC's collapse.

Zero Hour also imparts on the viewer the culpability of basic human hubris for the loss of life that occurred on 9/11. Individuals less fortunate than Pasqual Buzzelli who were instructed by building security to remain in their offices despite the fires raging so far above died simply because of the apparent inability of WTC security staff to comprehend the inherent mortal hazard of the situation unfolding.

Once again, a complete evacuation should have been part of any disaster response plan. That there was no evacuation is simply a tragic testament to the lack of an effective plan.

The film also briefly addresses the policy shift following the attack -- explained by talking head David Frum -- and the policy and administrative failure in the lead-up to the attack.

"We were shocked at the carnage, but we certainly weren't surprised," explains J Coffer Black, a CIA analyst.

"I don't think anyone who worked on this problem expected anything less than what happened on 9/11," explained Michael Scheuer. "If the policymakers expected anything less, than shame on them."

There's a disturbing irony in the chirping of the firefighters' electronic locators -- devices once used to find a firefighter in the midst of a blaze, instead marking their graves amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center.

Even seven years after the event, the losses on that day stagger the imagination.

The film concludes with a brief summary of the events following 9/11: the invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Kabul, the invasion of Iraq -- basically, the rest of the story thus far. It outlines the continuing challenges of the post-9/11 world.

With elections underway in both the United States and Canada, it will be hard to keep the legacy of 9/11 separate from the political and partisan considerations at the very heart of these contests -- even if one agrees that it should be kept separate.

If the legacy of 9/11 really is to be dragged into the middle of either election -- and for the record, this author prays it won't be -- we will owe it to those lost on that day to postulate wisely on the topic, and ensure that it leads somewhere constructive.

To do anything less would trample their memories.

Where the Liberal Party's Advertising Budget Went...

2008-09-10T17:27:00.000-07:00

Ted Byfield on the Challenge of Compromise

2008-09-10T15:24:00.000-07:00

Byfield encourages social conservatives to lobby the government

At a recent event Wynyard, Saskatchewan commemorating Joe Borowski's Trial for Life, Ted Byfield addressed the crowd with a speech entitled "How Did We Get into This Predicament?"

The "predicament" in question is somewhat obvious -- Dr Henry Morgentaler's ascension to the Order of Canada was clearly taken as a slight by so many social conservatives especially because individuals such as Borowski, and all the opposition they offered, have meanwhile been discarded to the scrap heap of history. For many social conservatives, the Morgentaler OoC was treated as yet another symbol of the ideological dominance the pro-abortion lobby demands on that particular issue.

Which isn't hard to understand -- many pro-abortion activists flaunted it as such.

The story of Borowski's Ttrial for Life is actually a fairly intriguing one, and could never be done justice in the course of a post about Byfield's comments. There are other times and places for that.

In this particular video, Byfield addresses a question asked concerning what social conservatives can do to reassert their influence on a government that, in the eyes of many social conservatives, has all but abandoned them.

Byfield's response is actually somewhat surprising -- although some individuals are almost perversely unembarrassed to misunderstand them.

Byfield actually opens his answer with some remarks about the importance of compromise in politics:

"I think that the Conservative government has to walk a line, as we all know, between its principles and its practical necessities. It exists through compromise. That is one of the great charms and weaknesses of the democratic system.

No single candidate, no single party, anywhere will ever completely represent what you think the government ought to do.

Therefore everyone you come to vote for is going to have to compromise on some level."

One should likely assume that Byfield is advising his audience that any political party would have to be open to compromise on their particular issues (in this case, abortion) in order to get elected and remain electable -- certainly, its these very "practical necessities" that are at the core of the Conservative move to scrap Bill C-484, offering instead a legislatively redundant alternative.

Of course, not only social conservatives have to accept compromises after an election. For all their rhetoric to the contrary, it's highly unlikely that the NDP would put a stop to the Fort MacMurray oilsands -- nor are they likely to satisfy the demands of their most extreme left-wing supporters and start nationalizing industry in Canada.

Such voters would either have to be prepared to accept the inevitable post-election compromise, or consider casting their votes for a different party -- in the NDP example, perhaps the Communist party.

Yet, as Byfield points out, too much compromise can have a negative impact on the prospects of any political party:

"However, the Harper government has to walk a very, very careful path because it assumes it has the votes of what it calls 'social conservatives'. That's you and that's me.

They will compromise as far as they can with the other side. But they will always be watching what organizations like this say about what they do. If you see them compromising too far, tell them, because they are very, very alert to any possibility of rebellion from the small-c conservative side."

Inevitably, a party has to govern at least partially to its base. While governments can take this entirely too far and alienate the rest of the electorate in doing so -- the example of George W Bush is a cogent example -- it can only remain viable so long as it remembers who elected it in the first place.

Byfield knows this well, having been front-and-centre during an episode of Canada's political history that underscores this for any politician willing to take an honest look at the federal politics of the 1990s:

"They're aware of one other thing: the old Conservative party ignored the social conservatives, and the consequence of that was the rise of the Reform party. And the consequence of that was many, many years of Liberal government, because the conservative vote split -- part to Reform, part to [Progressive] Conservative.

They don't want that to happen again.

So when you see them doing things that they are now doing and you believe goes too far away -- too much of a compromise -- tell them. Write your MP. Get on open line shows when issues like this come up. Call in. Say what you think. Because they will listen. If at any time they get the idea that they've gone too far, they'll pull back again.

My message would be to make sure the Conservative government remains a conservative government. Let them know what you think all the time."

The solution, Byfield insists, is rather simple: lobby the government. Apply pressure. Stand up for what you believe in.

And while the necessary big-tent nature of the modern Conservative party renders it unlikely that social conservatives will ever attain everything on their "wish list" from a Conservative government, the party inevitably has to respect the basic democratic prerogatives of its supporters -- namely, the right to make their views heard.

Of course, there are those who believe social conservatives should not speak -- that they should relent to going quietly into the good night.

Many of these are the same people who tried to prevent the formation of the modern Conservative party because they weren't willing to even consider the notion of discussion -- let alone compromise -- with social conservatives. Likewise, there were plenty of Reform party supporters who rejected the modern Conservative party because they, too, were unwilling to accept any compromise.

Clearly, Ted Byfield's message wasn't really meant for either one of these two camps. Instead, Byfield's message is to those social conservatives who are willing to accept compromise but aren't willing to outright capitulate.

Intriguingly, this is a message that applies equally to left-wingers with a similar predisposition. Whether or not any of them care to hear it from the former publisher of Alberta Report is another matter entirely.

Why Can't Elizabeth May Be Honest With Canadians?

2008-09-10T14:57:00.000-07:00

Green leader has interesting definition of "endorsement"

Elizabeth May didn't endorse Stephane Dion. Elizabeth May won't endorse Stephane Dion. Elizabeth May would never endorse Stephane Dion.

At least, that's reality according to Elizabeth May.

But those Canadians who follow politics -- and are blessed with a long-term memory exceeding that of a gnat -- know very differently. Elizabeth May did endorse Stephane Dion.

"I haven't endorsed Mr. Dion. I've consistently said that I am my first choice for prime minister," May recently insisted.

Of course, the truth is very different.

May's endorsement of Dion started shortly after striking her non-aggression pact with the Liberal leader.

"We recognize that a government in which Stephane Dion served as Prime Minister could work well with a Green caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May, committed to action on climate change," she said.

"Yes, Stephane Dion would like to see me in the House of Commons and I think that he should be Prime Minister," May said during a later interview, then adding her qualifier: "Of course, I'm my first choice for prime minister but he'd be very good as second choice."

But here's the thing: Elizabeth May isn't going to be Prime Minister. In fact, her party would be lucky to actually elect a single MP.

In her heart of hearts, Elizabeth May knows this. At the very least, she knows she won't be PM.

May's reasoning in this particular matter is nothing short of pervasively specious. Her "non-endorsement" of Stephane Dion is based on a qualifier that isn't even a remote possibility.

So, with May set to participate in the televised leaders' debate despite her realistically having no business being there, the question on the minds of Canadian voters has to be this:

Why can't Elizabeth May just be honest with Canadian voters?

As previously noted, May's justification for her non-aggression pact with Stephane Dion -- "leader's courtesy" -- was fundamentally dishonest, with no historical precedent applicable to a general election, nor to a riding which her party doesn't currently represent. Nor was the so-called "leader's courtesy" offered or extended to any other party leader.

When May insists she would never act as a proxy for Stephane Dion in the televised debate, how does she honestly expect Canadians to believe her considering the already-established record of electoral collusion between the two parties?

At least now the pressure will be on May to actually demonstrate her -- and her party's -- independence from Dion and the Liberals by not acting as such during the debate.

The Duceppe Code

2008-09-10T07:00:00.000-07:00

Duceppe declares witch hunt in St Bruno-St Hubert

Where's Sir Leigh Teabing when you need him?

Gilles Duceppe raised the alarm about a Conservative candidate in St Bruno-St Hubert, after La Presse of Montreal revealed that Nicole Charbonneau Barron is a member of Opus Dei.

Described by many as an ultra-Conservative Catholic Order, Opus Dei was portrayed -- and villainized -- in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Ever since the publication of the book, and especially since the release of the movie, Opus Dei has effectively become the Catholic Church's answer to Scientology -- villainized by those who despise it and defended ardently by its adherents. A fierce propaganda war has been waged between its opponents and proponents to the point where truth is entirely indistinguishable from spin.

As justification for his envokation of the controversial order, Duceppe claimed that Opus Dei's teachings "do not correspond to Quebec's modern mentality."

"Those people are certainly sharing a kind of ideology that doesn't correspond at all to modern times in Quebec," he announced. "I'm not saying they don't have the right to do so. [But] those people are against a lot of things that are allowed in Quebec."

Of course the right of Barron to hold her religious beliefs didn't dissuade Duceppe from steering his party's election campaign toward base religious intolerance. The general expectation in Canada is that political candidates will be judged not by their gender, ethnicity or religion, but by their policy platform -- or at the very least that of their party.

With his move today, Duceppe has turned away from criticizing the policy platform of the Conservatives and toward encouraging bigotry.

One wonders if perhaps there's some reason why Duceppe so desperately wants to debate something other than policy in this election campaign. With the BQ's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, reduced to a shambles of its former separatist glory and his own party's share of the popular vote precipitously dropping throughout a recent round of by-elections, Duceppe may be coming face to face with the reality that separatism has been rendered a spent force in Quebec -- currently capable of offering little more than empty promises and shameless fear mongering.

No wise man should rule out a future reenergizing of Quebec's sovereigntist movement -- Pierre Trudeau learned that the hard way. But at least in the present, and for the near future, Gilles Duceppe needs something to campaign on other than rendering Canada unto the ash heap of history.

Apparently, the spectre of religious bogeymen is the Holy Grail that Duceppe thinks will secure his party against a potential drubbing at the hands of a seemingly resurgent Conservative party in Quebec. Which just so happens to say a lot more about the BQ and its leader than it does about Nicole Charbonneau Barron.

However, Duceppe may actually be taking even a bigger risk than simply appearing bigoted. If conservatism in Quebec truly is as resurgent as recent polls have suggested it may be, Duceppe may have a lot to lose by taking aim at its traditional handmaiden in Quebec, the Catholic Church.

Few politicians have gotten ahead in Quebec by directly attacking the Church, and given the direct historical links between Catholicism and the embers of nationalist sentiment his party has always sought to fan into separatist flame, Dion may find himself getting burned by the fire he's choosing to play with.

Or, Duceppe could just call up Dr Robert Langdon for a good-old-fashioned Grail quest -- that is, if he wasn't a fictional character.

Taliban Eager to Exercise Its Vote

2008-09-09T20:51:00.001-07:00

Taliban ready to support any party willing to accept its endorsement

General Rick Hillier was fond of saying "The enemy has a vote."

As Canada enters its first wartime election in more than 60 years, the Taliban is eager to be the first enemy of Canada to exercise that unofficial and ill-gotten franchise.

In a statement released yesterday, Qari Muhammad Yussef confirmed Defense Minister Peter MacKay's fear that the Taliban would take the federal election as an opportunity to step up attacks on Canadian troops. "Yes, I know that the election is being held in Canada. That is why our attacks on Canadians are increased."

Yussef insisted that a withdrawal from Afghanistan "good for that party and for their nation and for the Canadian people."

"My suggestion for the next prime minister is to withdraw Canadians from Afghanistan," he added. "When any of these party leaders come to power, the first thing they must do is ask the Canadians to come from Afghanistan to Canada."

Certainly, one can expect that Canada's mainstream political parties will unequivocally reject the Taliban's endorsement. Unfortunately, one can't quite put it past the Green party -- proving itself to be nuttier and nuttier as this 2008 election progresses -- to accept the Taliban's support.

Certainly, they would be contradicting their own stated values in order to do so, but -- as previously said -- fringe political parties tend to embrace fringe politics.

Then, meanwhile, there are Canadians such as the craven individual who wrote this.

Unfortunately, there are Canadians among us who are prepared to cave in to the demands of the Taliban, and are willing to abandon their own values in order to do so.

In one sense, it's hard to blame them -- no proper-thinking Canadian likes the prospect of war, and no proper-thinking Canadian is anything other than saddened to see Canadian soldiers killed or injured. Nor is any proper-thinking Canadian anything other than saddened by the civilian casualties that inevitably come with modern warfare.

But one can safely assume that Canadian soldiers will not be voting with the Taliban in their effort to elect a government that will turn its back on Canada's responsibilities to the Afghan people and to the international community.

There is one other thing to be thankful for.

Fortunately, the Taliban's vote doesn't really count.

September 2008 Book Club Selection: Hard Call, John McCain

2008-09-09T20:51:00.000-07:00

McCain presents profiles in leadership

With three months remaining in the 2008 American Presidential Election, there's no time like the present to further acquaint oneself with the qualities of the candidates.

When considering which of the two candidates -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama -- would be better suited to the oft-called leadership of the free world, it's useful to have a book such as Hard Call to look to.

Hard Call divides the art of making good decisions into six categories: awareness, foresight, timing, confidence, humility and inspiration.

As McCain explores these elements he profiles a diverse group of figures, from Gerald Ford to Wayne Gretzky, from Anwar Sedat and Menachim Begin to (predictably) Abraham Lincoln.

McCain even takes some time out to critique himself -- reserving the blame for his capture by North Vietnamese for himself alone.

The book chronicles great decisions made during the struggle for civil justice in Liberia, the space race and in various forms of business. Each and every one has some historical significance.

As President, McCain would be called upon to make many decisions with historical ramifications. Hard Call provides its readers with the very internal handbook McCain would use to make them.

The Further Disillusionment of Lizzie May

2008-09-09T16:40:00.000-07:00

In this video, released by the Green party, Elizabeth May answers some questions about the decision to exclude her from the televised leaders' debates, and about her non-aggression pact with Stephane Dion.

Unfortunately, in the course of the latter, she insults the intelligence of Canadians.

"One must remember that when Stephen Harper first ran for his riding, he was unopposed by a Liberal candidate. I don't think at the time that anyone made the mistake of thinking he was the Liberal candidate because he was unopposed.

There is a tradition in this country of called 'leader's courtesy'. Mr Dion and I agreed to this measure in respect of each other as leaders of different political parties to not challenge each other in each other's ridings."

Unfortunately for May and her party, this insistence is just as intellectually dishonest as her insistence that Blair Wilson joining her party entitled her to a spot in the televised leaders' debate.

May certainly is correct in pointing out that there is a "leader's courtesy" tradition in Canada. However, it generally applies to newly-selected party leaders who don't possess a seat in the House of Commons.

When this happens, one of the party's MPs usually resigns their seat so the leader may take their place. When the by-election occurs, the other parties agree not to contest the seat. They do this for two reasons:

First off, because the party in question already has possession of that Parliamentary seat.

Secondly, because they expect the other parties to return that courtesy in the event that they elect a leader without a Parliamentary seat.

In order for May's theorem to hold water under the principle of "leader's courtesy", two very important conditions would have to be present: first, we would have to be talking about a by-election as opposed to a general election. Secondly, the Green Party would already have to possess Central Nova.

Neither condition is present, making her reasoning flagrantly fallacious. It would actually have to be a good deal more sound to actually qualify as "specious".

Moreover, the Liberal party certainly hasn't declined to run a candidate against Stephen Harper out of respect for "leader's courtesy" -- Marlene Lamontaigne is running for the party in Calgary-Southwest. The Green party isn't respecting "leader's courtesy" there either -- they're fielding Kelly Christie as a candidate.

Nor are the Liberals and Greens showing any "leader's courtesy" to NDP leader Jack Layton. The Greens are running Charles Battershill and the Liberals are running Andrew Lang in Toronto-Danforth.

So, one question that could still be raised is this: did the Liberals and Greens even bother to contact Jack Layton and Stephen Harper to offer them "leader's courtesy" in their ridings?

There's no indication that they ever did. And even if they did, it's hard to treat a request that Stephen Harper cancel the nomination of his own Deputy Prime Minister as anything other than untenable.

Of course May is, in principle, right to object to Stephen Harper's potrayal of her as the Liberal candidate in Central Nova:

"I am no more the Liberal candidate in Central Nova than Mr Dion is a Green Party candidate anywhere.

We are separate political parties. Our views on most issues are quite different."

Yet if, indeed, Elizabeth May is predisposed toward disagreeing with Stephane Dion on any policy topic, Canadians would be hard-pressed to determine precisely which topics those are -- she has not yet, to date, voiced a disagreement with Stephane Dion on record.

She hasn't even voiced disagreement with Dion over his party's performance on the climate change portfolio -- especially given that the Liberals were the ones who ratified the Kyoto protocol in the first place.

Which is, of course, only another little bit of intellectual dishonesty by Elizabeth May and the Greens.

If Canadians need another reason to reject the Green party, this is as good as any other.

So Then What About Green Shift Lite, Michael?

2008-09-09T15:35:00.000-07:00

Ignatieff denounces diesel tax cut despite Liberal Green Shift offering similar deal

Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to cut the excise tax on diesel fuel.

Michael Ignatieff took the opportunity to claim the plan "drives a truck through their environmental credibility."

"This is just a gimmick that will make no real difference for Canadians, while actually undermining the country's ability to switch to cleaner renewable sources of energy," Ignatieff insisted. "When it comes to facing the challenge of the climate change crisis, Mr. Harper is going in the opposite direction from the international community and every responsible leader."

Excluding, ironically, Ignatieff's own.

When Dion's Green Shift plan was criticized as being perilous for farmers and truckers -- people who depend upon low diesel fuel prices in order to help ensure their livelihood -- Dion abruptly introduced additional tax cuts for farmers and truckers to offset the additional cost of diesel that would be imposed by a carbon tax, thus eliminating his own proposed incentive for farmers and truckers to reduce their diesel fuel usage.

It's rather ironic for the Liberals to be raging about the environmental impact of Harper's diesel tax cut considering that the election hadn't even begun before the Liberals started running away from their own policies.

"His approach will do nothing to help Canadians who want to end their reliance on fossil fuels and it will do nothing to help the Canadian economy which is the worst performing economy in the G7," Ignatieff insisted.

Of course, what Ignatieff is leaving out is that the Liberal Green Shift Lite -- complete with exemptions for farmers and truckers -- won't do anything to help Canadians end reliance on fossil fuels, and won't do anything to help the Canadian economy. In fact, the Liberal Green Shift Lite plan will most likely do the exact opposite.

Meanwhile, Stephane Dion insisted that Harper's diesel tax cut as evidence that he doesn't govern for the future -- merely for the next election.

Of course, considering that Dion won't answer questions about his post-Green Shift plans, Dion may want to serve the "shortsighted" accusations.

For someone who has challenged Prime Minister Harper to an "honest debate" concerning his Green Shift plan, Dion and company are having a lot of difficulty keeping their story straight.

Why So Frantic, Heather Mallick?

2008-09-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

Mallick comes unhinged at Sarah Palin's ascension to Vice Presidential candidate

In the ongoing American Presidential election, one of the unfortunate epithets flung at Republican Presidential candidate is that of "crazy".

But what is one to make of such epithets when those so prone to flinging it themselves act "crazily"?

Thus unfolds the sad episode of CBC online Columnist Heather Mallick's "analysis" of John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

In the course of her column, Mallick comes across as frantic, vicious and generally unhinged as she vents all of her left-feminist rage at a woman who clearly refuses to be prodded into the cookie-cutter identity laid out for so-called "liberated" women.

Palin isn't the first target of Mallick's seemingly intractable rage. When the Ottawa Senators "Better Halves" accepted the First Place Pregnancy Centre as one of the beneficiaries of their Christmas tree raffle, Mallick had this to say:

"I hate picking on women. We're born at a disadvantage and in our wild flailing to stay afloat, we make such easy targets. But really, do the wives and girlfriends of the Ottawa Senators have to dress up in matching pink team sweaters and call their ad hoc union "The Better Halves?"

It's bad enough that these women have hooked up with bruised artist-athletes with careers of inevitably brief span, sold by hockey corporations as if they were cans of Spam, shipped around the continent without notice, thus dooming their wives' careers from the start."

Her condescension for these particular women, who apparently offend Mallick's left-feminist ideology, she lashed out at them for the inexcusable crime of dating or marrying a hockey player.

Apparently, Mallick imagines that hockey players the world over should remain permanently single just so the world's women can appease her disturbingly authoritarian view of feminism.

She admits openly in the article that she doesn't know any of the Senators Better Halves. She certainly doesn't know why any of them chose the companionship of a hockey player, yet having done so transformed them from women into outlets for her contempt -- supporting a charity that doesn't fit neatly into the ideological camp supporting Mallick's pro-abortion agenda was apparently merely the icing on the cake.

So imagine that a woman accepts the Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican party. In doing so she would become the first female Vice Presidential candidate in American history. One would think that a so-called feminist like Mallick would be encouraged by that.

But, no. Apparently not. Instead it seems to be, as the kids say, on:

"I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.

So why do it?

It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously."

Which is a rather curious way for a self-described feminist to open a column about the aforementioned first female Vice Presidential candidate in American history.

Apparently, Palin could only appeal to the "white trash vote". In no way could she possibly appeal to women.

In fact, Mallick suggests, Palin isn't even a woman at all:

"But do they not know that women have been trained to resent other women and that they only learn to suppress this by constantly berating themselves and reading columns like this one? I'm a feminist who understands that women can nurse terrible and delicate woman hatred.

Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too."

Apparently, in Mallick's fevered mind, Sarah Palin isn't a woman at all, as if she had somehow simultaneously sprouted a penis the second she accepted the Republican VP nomination, and apparently by simple virtue of not holding a lifetime membership in the Bra Burning Brigade.

No. In Mallick's mind, Sarah Palin -- despite everything she accomplished despite being a woman "born at a disadvantage" is nothing more than pure white trash:

"John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly. Damn his eyes, I wish I'd had the wit to come up with it first. It's safer than "white trash" but I'll pluck safety out of the nettle danger. Or something.

Doyle's job includes watching a lot of reality television and he's well-versed in the backstory. White trash — not trailer trash, that's something different — is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity. The semiotics are pure Palin: a sturdy body, clothes that are clinging yet boxy and a voice that could peel the plastic seal off your new microwave."

If that particular passage doesn't seem shrill enough, just take a look at how Mallick follows it up:

"Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a fuckin' redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?

I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don't the Palins? I'm not the one preaching homespun values but I'd destroy that ratboy before I'd let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you."

Just to ratchet off a tirade about how the first female VP candidate in American history so utterly offends Mallick's feminist sensibilities, why not accuse her of dressing herself up like a hussy?

Hell, don't even stop there. Take square aim at the woman's daughter, too. And let's drag her pregnant teenage daughter's relationship with her boyfriend -- himself also a hockey player -- through the mud while we're at it.

Mallick spends the next few paragraphs of her ill-concieved little frantic tirade to admit that she didn't really watch Palin's speech, and instead watched A Mighty Wind on Bravo.

Then she dropped this particular little nugget:

"I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."

Certainly, in Mallick's mind, the pitiful little mud people of the red states -- "white trash" as she herself so succinctly put it -- only vote for Republicans to build up their pathetic existence.

And as for the Republicans and their objections to the tax increases that, yes, Obama has practiced, it couldn't be an honest disagreement over whether or not the taxes in question are necessary (although, with the current state of the American federal budget, it's hard to imagine how they could disagree). No, instead, it must be racism. If not racism, then outright elitism:

"But surely they know Barack Obama is not planning to finish off the ordinary hillbilly when he adjusts tax rates. He's going to raise taxes on the top 2% of Americans and that doesn't include anyone at the convention beyond the Bushes and McCains and random party management. So why cheer Palin when she claims otherwise?

Is it racism? I'm told that it is, although I find racism so appalling that I have difficulty identifying it. It is more likely the dearly held Republican notion that any American can become violently rich, as rich as those hedge funders in Greenwich, Conn., who buy $40-million mansions unseen and have their topiary shaped in the form of musical notes.

When Palin and Rudy Giuliani sneered at Obama's years of "community organizing" — they said it like "rectal fissure" — the audience ewww-ed with them. Republicans dream of a personal future that involves only household staff, not equals who need to be persuaded to vote.

So I'm trying to imagine the pain of realizing, as they all must at some point, that it is not going to happen for them. It's the green light at the end of the dock. It's the ship that never comes in, gals, as Palin would put it. But she won't because the lie works for her. It helps her scramble, without compassion, above all those other tense no-hoper ladies in the audience."

No hope?

No hope, precisely, for what? It would be kind of pointless for Palin to run for Vice President if she had no hope for the future -- be it no hope for herself or no hope for the betterment of women in general.

It would be kind of pointless for all those "no hoper ladies" to support a woman for VP if they had no hope for the future. One simply has to wonder if Mallick so much as stopped to think for two seconds about what she was writing, or if she simply allowed her extreme ideological predispositions seize control of her while flailing frantically away at her keyboard?

In the end, it becomes immediately apparent. It isn't so much that Palin "isn't even female really" as she is the wrong kind of woman to be a Vice Presidential candidate:

"American politics isn't short of smart women. Susan Eisenhower, Ike's granddaughter, who just endorsed Obama, made an extraordinary speech at the Democratic convention (and a terrific casual appearance on The Colbert Report as Palin was speaking). The Republican party has already consumed nearly all of its moderate "seed corn," she said aptly. Time to start again.

Eisenhower, a scholar and journalist, has a point. Or am I only saying that because she's part of the thoughtful demographic that I'm trying to reach here? Think, Heather, think like a Republican! The Skeptics, shall I call them, are my base, and I'll pander to them as ardently as the Republican patriarchs tease their white female marginals."

So, in the end, what is it about Sarah Palin that Mallick finds so utterly repulsive?

It isn't that hard to figure out. Sarah Palin is a woman. Who is anti-abortion -- perhaps even shockingly so, as she once announced she would oppose an abortion "even if her own daughter had been raped".

Palin also supports absinence-only sex education in schools.

Both these positions have implications that are of obvious concern for feminists, and very well should be.

But perhaps Palin's greatest offense is being a member of Feminists for Life, a feminist group that opposes abortion.

Interestingly enough, Feminists for Life supports the establishment of support networks on College and University campuses for single mothers -- infrastructure such as on-campus daycare and appropriate housing facilities.

Feminists such as Heather Mallick should support and voraciously applaud such a policy position. But couple that with opposition to abortion, and suddenly all bets are off. "Feminists" like Heather Mallick seem to derive from this a bizarre need to strip women such as Sarah Palin of their "feminist cred", so to speak.

The message remains crystal clear: within the feminist movement, there is no room for disagreement on the topic of abortion. Even a hint of the wrong opinion on that particular topic, and not only can that particular woman not be accepted as a feminist, she can't even be accepted as a woman.

It's a bizarre tendency of the most extreme members of the left-wing feminist movement -- that any feminist possessing conservative political beliefs must not only be rejected as a feminist, but also thorougly re-gendered.

One could consider it a rather bizarre form of post-feminist feminist-chauvinism. Perhaps its the cognitive dissonance that makes Heather Mallick seem so utterly unbalanced.

Conservatives Take One For the Team

2008-09-08T19:33:00.000-07:00

Tories decline to run candidate in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier

With Quebec seemingly poised to grant the Conservative party a few more seats (depending upon whom you ask), one would think that the Conservatives would be going for broke in La Belle Province.

Apparently not so, as Independent MP Andre Arthur will find the task of being reelected in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier a little easier. The Conservatives have decided not to run a candidate there.

The rationale behind this decision is reportedly deciding not to split the federalist vote in the riding, allowing the BQ to pick up a seat. Even with the sovereigntist movement in Quebec splintering, a federalist candidate like Arthur can use every bit of help he can get.

"I'm like a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning and finds something under the tree," Arthur said. "Who am I to say it's not a good idea to make a gift like that to me."

It probably helps that Arthur is at least sympathetic to the Conservatives. "I think Harper has given us something that we haven't seen in Canada in the last 50 years," he said. "For the first time we've had a government that says what it does and does what it says."

Deciding not to run a candidate against Arthur may also be indirect retaliation against Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, who echoed increasingly typically Liberal calls for left-of-centre voters to vote strategically in order to prevent a Conservative majority.

The message in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier is cystal clear: vote for Andre Arthur to prevent a Bloc MP.

For his own part, Gilles Duceppe has sunk to the lowest common denominator in his quest to deny the Conservative party additional seats, dropping the B-word (Bush) in a campaign stop in Montreal.

"The Conservatives of Stephen Harper have an ideological vision inspired by that of George W Bush," Duceppe insisted, then actually tried to dig deeper in his quest to equate the Conservatives with what he considers to be a vile ideological figure. "The Reform party is there, hiding under the skirts of the Conservative Party, but more and more it is showing itself."

Of course, the Reform party has never tried to break up Canada with a racially divisive ideology as its foundation, unlike some other parties in Canada...

As the campaign gears up, there remain serious questions about whether or not the Bloc can really stop a Conservative majority.

In the meantime, however, the Conservatives have put the federalist cause in Quebec ahead of their own interests. It isn't that surprising -- it's what Stephen Harper has done ever since he took office.

The Disillusionment of Lizzie May

2008-09-08T15:56:00.000-07:00

Green party chief denied spot in televized debates

When Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe meet to debate the direction the country should take on October 1 & 2, they will do it in the absence of Green party leader Elizabeth May.

Today the network consortium that organizes the televised debates handed down their decision.

"The [network] consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green party in all or part of the leaders' debates," said spokesman Jason MacDonald. "However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates. In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all."

Now Canadians will get an opportunity to witness first-hand the character of May and the party she leads: she can accept that, never having elected a Member of Parliament, she has no business taking part in the leaders' debates, or make good on a a previous threat to sue.

Of course, there is no law in the land that can force Canada's television networks to put Elizabeth May on television alongside leaders of actual official political parties.

It's unsurprising that Canada's television networks have declined to give in to the Greens' bluff.

One can only hope that maybe -- just maybe -- Elections Canada will allow May and the Greens to claim their legal bills as an election expense. Heh.

Conservatives Continue Ad Blitz - Part Two

2008-09-08T10:01:00.000-07:00

Tories step up attack in counter-branding effort

Along with three enthusiasm-themed ads (discussed earlier today), the Conservative party released three negative ads directed at the policies of Liberal rival Stephane Dion.

In almost comical fashion, the Conservatives are seeking to portray Dion as a gamble for Canada. The first ad features a "Scratch n' lose" lottery ticket, portraying Dion's policies as a "triple threat" to Canadians.

In the first ad, the Conservatives press Dion over musing about hiking the GST, eliminating the Conservative $1200 per year childcare plan and the carbon tax.

On all three propositions, the Conservatives insist, Canadians lose.

In the second ad -- this time featuring a one-armed bandit -- the Conservatives raise the prospect of higher gas prices, grocery bills and increased cost of virtually all consumer goods under Stephane Dion.

As the unseen gambler continues to play the machine, each pull comes up Stephane Dion -- and each pull comes up as a loss.

In the third ad, the Conservatives use the imagrey of a craps table to address Dion's various flip-flops regarding carbon taxation -- noting that Dion was against it as a Liberal leadership candidate, suddenly for it as Liberal leader, and unwilling to commit to specific policy points -- or even release them for public consideration.

As the unseen shooter throws four dice, they continually come up spelling "DION", featuring a clip of Dion making contradictory policy statements just before the dealer continually pulls them away.

On the final throw, the dice instead come up spelling "RISK".

The ads in question are a slick counter-branding effort, likely prepared months in advance and just waiting until the Liberals released their first pro-Green Shift ad.

Not only do the ads counter Liberal party policy proposals with reasons for some sobering second thought, but they also continue to counter what is becoming a common assesment of conservatives -- that they lack a sense of humour.

The ads are also presciently themed. With the kinds of changes Stephane Dion wants to make to the Canadian tax structure, there is no question that Canadians voting for Stephane Dion are taking a real gamble. These Conservative ads should prove to be rather effective, as they're merely reminding Canadians of things they already know.

Conservative Party Continues Ad Blitz - Part One

2008-09-08T09:35:00.000-07:00

Conservative party continues its branding effort

Today, the Conservative party released a staggering six new campaign ads.

The ads fall distinctly into two categories: enthusiasm-baed spots, aimed at encouraging people to feel good about the prospects of voting Conservative, and negative ads, designed to make people think twice about voting for Stephane Dion and his Liberal party.

(Negative ads are considered distinct from attack ads because they address policy points as opposed to the personality points of a candidate.)

For the purpose of analyzing their role in the now-ongoing election, the two categories of ads will be considered separately.

This particular ad takes a page out of the old John Diefenbaker playbook and promises continued efforts to deal with arctic sovereignty.

In 1958, John Diefenbaker campaigned on the issue of arctic poverty and transformed his minority government into one of the most dominant majorities seen in Canadian history (he also followed it with a minority government that survived for less than a year before being defeated by Lester Pearson and the Liberals).

With this particular ad, Harper is trying to re-brand himself and his party as the party that cares about arctic issues. While Harper's campaigning on the issue of arctic sovereignty was a welcome prospect in the last election, Michael Byers and the NDP seized the initiative on arctic issues in the days leading up to the campaign, counter-branding the government as missing the big picture.

Of course, with the United States, a newly more aggressive Russia and other countries trying to stake claim to the Northwest Passage, arctic sovereignty will be an important issue in this election.

With both the Liberals and NDP fielding candidates percieved as foreign policy heavyweights (legitimately in the case of Michael Ignatieff and not-so-legitimately in the case of the aforementioned Michael Byers), the Conservatives needed to stake out foreign policy early in the election.

In this particular ad, Harper simply talks about the need to have "real capabilities" to "contribute to global security [and] humanitarian development".

"This country has to stand for something," Harper insists.

Yet, as a branding effort, this spot may be less effective than the Tories may have hoped. After all, it's one thing to insist that Canada should stand for something. It's entirely another to actually know what that "something" is.

The third enthusiasm-themed ad seems to be a re-branding attempt following an NDP ad portraying the Conservative government's tax cuts as being bad for Canadians.

Harper once again points to "global economic uncertainty" (something that is quickly emerging as a theme of the Conservative campaign), and insists that, while the government has cut taxes, it has ensured that new spending will benefit "ordinary families".

To be able to attempt to brand oneself while simultaneously counter-branding the opposition is an advantage that inevitably comes with having more money to spend than the opposition.

Liberals Continue Branding Effort in Election

2008-09-08T09:00:00.000-07:00

Branding is crucial for the Liberal party

For "Jack Layton and the NDP" (as he and his colleagues are often so eager to put it), "change" is the Obama-esque theme of their election campaign.

But that's territory they're going to have to fight for, as the Liberal party is promising sweeping changes to the country's tax structure that could very well change the country at a fundamental level.

The first Liberal campaign spot, released yesterday, doesn't quite go so far in promising their Green Shift plan as that kind of fundamental change, but certainly implies as much in the subtext.

The ad is, like the opening batch of Conservative spots, an enthusiasm-themed ad. Promising to "make the environment and economy work together" and "make polluters pay", the spot in question plays to a growing impression of Stephane Dion as a man of vision.

How far that vision extends, and whether or not Canadians favour it are different matters entirely.

Regardless, the ad seems to explain why the producers of the infamous Liberal attack ads of 2005/06 was available to go to work on the NDP's advertising -- instead of the stark, somewhat frightening tone of past Liberal ads (particularly those under Paul Martin's leadership reign), this ad speaks to a positive, optimistic space in Canadian politics.

The imagery in the ad is almost exclusively light and cheerful (with the obvious exception of smog-clouded smokestacks when the ad promises to "make polluters pay").

This may also mark the first time in a number of federal campaigns in which the Liberals have declined to go negative first -- this time, allowing the NDP to get their hands dirty first (unless one counts the "not a leader" and "oil splotch" ads released by the Conservatives).

One thing this ad certainly represents is the Liberals getting back to traditional business. Branding has always been an important element of any Liberal campaign, and with the NDP set to largely ignore the Liberals in favour of attacking the Conservatives, the Liberals may not need to stage a counter-branding campaign against the Conservatives at all.

By not moving to counter-brand against the Conservatives first, however, the Liberals have clearly put the ball in the Tories' court. What happens next in terms of campaign advertising will remain very much up to Stephen Harper.

(Unfortuantely, the embeddable player programmed by the Liberal party webmasters and obtained from their website is a little screwed up. Then again, this is the party that waited until 10 minutes before Stephane Dion's University of Alberta speech was scheduled to start to set up their Audio/Visual equipment.

Thanks again, organizational prowess of the Liberal party! -Ed)

Jack Layton: Agent of American Imperialism

2008-09-08T07:00:00.000-07:00

Layton getting awfully cozy with oft-despised Americans

To adopt the old parlance from sports to politics, "everyone wants to be like Barack".

It doesn't have quite the same snap as "everyone wants to be like Mike", but when assessing the state of left-wing politics in at least North America today, it holds true.

Just like anyone who ever even touched a basketball wanted to emulate the then-best-known athlete in the world, anyone who's ever embraced progressive politics wants desperately to emulate the man who is currently the best-known politician in the world today.

Certainly, Jack Layton wants to be like Barack. One need look no further than the theme of the 2008 NDP campaign: change.

It certainly doesn't hurt that Jack Layton attended the 2008 Democratic National Convention, either. For a party all too often content to accuse their opponents of importing American policies and American values, it seems that Jack Layton is utterly unafraid to get good and cozy with the "empire" to the south -- particularly with a Presidential candidate whose rightward shift promises little global reprieve from the "imperialist" policies the NDP so often denounces as abhorrent.

Of course, this particular paradox is nothing new for the NDP. Consider commentary offered by journalist Ian King about NDP House leader Libby Davies.

The episode in question involves Davies taking CBC veteran reporter Terry Milewski to Seattle to attend some anti-war protests there. Afterward, Davies brought anti-war protester Ann Wright back across the border.

As King notes, "There is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of the American “anti-war” movement, with all its attached hangups over Vietnam and line-by-line reuse of symbols and slogans from the time."

Add that to the fact that the anti-war movement in the United States -- preoccupied first and foremost with the Iraq conflict -- are ill-suited to address the state of affairs in Canada in regards to the Afghanistan conflict, which has been sanctioned by the United Nations, putting the lie to insistence that the war is "illegal", as opposed to the Iraq war which enjoys no such sanction and so arguably is illegal.

Not to mention that the Vietnam-era rhetoric being employed by Iraqi war resisters in Canada is also ill-suited to their obligation to participate in a war they volunteered to fight in (for good or ill).

Likewise, there is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of Obama-esque rhetoric into Canada, no matter how much the NDP wants to, or the Liberal party wishes they could.

Certainly, there's nothing un-Canadian about looking to political movements in other countries for inspiration, but therein lies the rub.

If it isn't un-Canadian for Jack Layton and the New Democrats (as Layton emphasizes it) to look south of the border for inspiration, then it isn't un-Canadian for the Conservative party to do likewise.

While the current state of affairs in the United States should serve as a cautionary tale to the Conservative party to remain very careful about which inspirations to act on and which to reject, for the NDP or their partisans to accuse the Conservatives of being un-Canadian for doing so isn't only engaging in some inherently silly rhetoric, it's also being incredibly dishonest.

Of course Jack Layton isn't really an agent of American Imperialism. To insist so is just plain silly. But, like stupid, silly is as silly does.

If Jack Layton wants to continue indulging himself in silly rhetoric that panders to cross-border partisan parochialism, he may want to remember this:

He could always reap that particular whirlwind.

Luckily, He Didn't Say "Jewish Bankers"

2008-09-07T21:41:00.000-07:00

Anti-Israel Green candidate will stay on ballot

In the immediate aftermath of Green party leader Elizabeth May's decision to allow the candidacy of Qais Ghanem to stand, one question remains on the mind of those observing the Green party during this 2008 federal election:

Why, exactly, was John Shavluk's nomination scrubbed?

We've heard the official explanation: Shavluk's apparently anti-semitic remarks were "not consistent with Green party philosophy".

Meanwhile, Ghanem -- a physicist and immigrant from Yemen -- who along with Sylvie Lemieux, Paul Maillet and Akbar Manoussi (collectively, they are known as the "Ottawa group of four"), to sponsor a resolution entitled simply "Palestine". The resolution "calls upon Israel to end its forty-year occupation of all Arab lands without preconditions."

Ghanem has caught flack within the Green party for using a Green party message board to post messages that were "one-sidedly anti-Israel".

For his own part, Ghanem insists that I do not have to record the opposite point of view to every quotation I dig up, for the sake of so-called 'balance,'. The Israeli point of view is voiced non-stop by the North American media which is controlled by a small oligarchy."

Of course, it would be hard to pretend that when Ghanem refers to a "small oligarchy", he isn't referring to media owners such as the Asper family, who own and control Canwest Global.

So long as he doesn't refer to "a small Jewish oligarchy", it would seem, he's treading on safe territory.

Apparently, Ghanem can counter-factually claim that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected despite the fact that Iran has barred nuclear inspectors from its facilities.

So long as Ghanem restrains himself from posting bizarre references to Jewish bankers online, it seems, he's safe, even if such sentiments in his comments seem only thinly veiled.

There is, of course, one other element in play: Ghanem didn't mention 9/11 in the course of his comments.

Of course, he has voiced some rather remarkable views regarding 9/11 on his campaign website:

"2001-Sept-11 The Big Event!

Hijackers were Saudis with box cutters, NONE were Afghans or Iraqis.
2001-Sept-12: (ONE day later) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz declared that Iraq should be attacked!

Here is a list of questions that need answers:
Why was the FBI investigation of hijackers shut down?
Why were military response stand down orders issued?
Why were distracting war games set up on 9/11 of all days?
Why did building 7, not attacked at all, collapse like controlled demolition?"

This is in the course of a post entitled "What are we doing in Afghanistan?"

(Interestingly, he can't quite seem to come to grips with the Taliban's harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.)

Meanwhile, Kevin Potvin wrote an editorial wherein he cheered Bin Laden's escape ("Go Osama go!"), and encouraged Vancouver-area 9/11 "truth"ers to meet with him to discuss the matter. His nomination was rejected.

John Shavluk posted a comment implicating the Americans in a terrorist attack on their own soil upon "[their] shoddily built world bank headquarters", and his nomination was turfed as well.

Meanwhile, Qais Ghanem writes a blog post endorsing the 9/11 "truth" movement and advances resolutions that deny Israel's right to exist, and somehow he's still "within [Green] party policy."

While there's clearly a strong 9/11 "truth" movement within the Green party, it may seem that Elizabeth May really isn't trying to excise that particular demon at all.

From any mainstream party, this would be shocking. Fortunately, this is the Green party we're talking about here. One thing about being a fringe party is that eventually you have to embrace fringe politics, in one way or another.

Pressure's On Jack Layton

2008-09-07T16:06:00.000-07:00

Potential leadership challenger Michael Byers waiting in the wings

In 2006, NDP leader Jack Layton led his party from a meagre 18 seat caucus to prey upon Liberal weakness and return 29 Members of Parliament.

The eventual by-election victory of Thomas Mulcair in Outremont -- a Liberal stronghold riding formerly held by Pierre Trudeau brought the NDP up to a respectable total of 30 seats.

With the 2008 federal election now underway, however, it seems the pressure on Layton could be as intense as ever. If he fails to make further gains or (worse yet) loses seats, it seems the NDP's candidate in Vancouver-Centre, Michael Byers, may decide to make a run for the NDP leadership.

According to the Georgia Strait's Charlie Smith, the entrance of BC Liberal MLA Lorne Mayencourt as a federal Conservative candidate may have put Byers in the driver's seat in Vancouver-Centre.

Mayencourt, currently representing the provincial riding of Vancouver-Berard, may siphon enough conservative Liberals discontented with the carbon tax to potentially unseat Hedy Fry.

According to Smith, if Mayencourt manages to attract as much as 20 percent of the ridings voters -- based on appeal to pro-free enterprise gays and lesbians and the law-and-order vote -- and Green candidate Adrianne Carr (formerly a provincial Green party leader) can attract 15-20% of the vote in the riding, either Byers or Fry could claim a victory with just over 30% of the vote.

Smith predicts that Byers could do even better than that, winning 35% of the vote if Jack Layton runs a good, solid campaign. Even if Layton doesn't run a good campaign -- and there's no reason to expect he won't -- Byers is still a definite contender in the contest.

Byers seems to understand this, as well. Byers didn't even wait for the campaign to begin before taking the fight to Hedy Fry.

Certainly, a successful campaign by Layton would benefit Byers at least in the short term. However, such a successful campaign could only put off any leadership amitions Byers may have.

However, should the NDP campaign flounder federally, Jack Layton will almost certainly find himself subject to a leadership review. Should disgruntled New Democrats decide to ouster Layton as leader, a Byers victory in Vancouver-Centre -- toppling the giant killer who once slew Prime Minister Kim Campbell -- would make him a tough opponent to beat.

Not that the NDP is guaranteed to be well-served by Byers' leadership. He has a tendency to make narrow ideological foreign policy statements that fail to stand up to scrutiny.

But if Byers wants to follow Michael Ignatieff's lead into federal politics, he may as well do it in style. And while it may be unbecoming for Byers to be keeping his fingers crossed for the failure of his party leader, one can't help but wonder if that isn't exactly what's on his wish list for the 2008 federal election.

David Skillicom: Republicans Least, Most Deceptive

2008-09-07T13:00:00.000-07:00

Queen's U prof finds John McCain to be a straight talker

As human history progresses, computers are doing more and more incredible things.

One day, some fear, computers may destroy us all. But until Judgement Day arrives, computers will remain our faithful servants, bound to do all kinds of nifty things for us.

Like analyze political speeches. Queen's University computer science professor David Skillicom has announced that, using a computer, he's analyzed the speeches from the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention, and essentially discovered that, essentially, Republicans are among the most and least deceptive of the speakers.

By analyzing the language of each speech, Skillicom has produced a list of the speakers, and ranked them from the least deceptive -- those that employed the least "spin" in their speech -- to the most. He ranked the speakers as follows:

1 (least). John McCain - Republican
2. Mike Huckabee - Republican
3. Joe Biden - Democrat
4. Joe Lieberman - Independent
5. Sarah Palin - Republican
6. Michelle Obama - Democrat
7. Barack Obama - Democrat
8. George W Bush - Republican
9. Bill Clinton - Democrat
10. Hillary Clinton - Democrat
11. Fred Thompson - Republican
12. Rudolph Giuliani - Republican
13 (most). Mitt Romney - Republican

As one can see from this list, four of the five least deceptive speakers at the conventions were either Republicans, or independents supporting Republicans (Joe Lieberman, who is supporting John McCain).

Meanwhile, three of the most deceptive speakers were Republicans. The other two were Bill and Hillary Clinton.

If one can put any significant amount of stock into Skillicom's new tool, this could revolutionize political analysis. In fact, politics will probably never be quite the same again.

Of course, there remain significant limits to what a computer can do. And until the day that they grow to the point where they can wipe us off the face of the Earth, the necessity for human intuition and judgement will always remain.

Harper to Opposition: "Let's Get it On!"

2008-09-07T10:41:00.000-07:00

It's official -- federal election set for Oct 14

"Between now and Oct. 14, Canadians will choose a government to look out for their interests at a time of global economic trouble," Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today, shortly after asking Governor General Michaelle Jean to dissolve parliament.

The move came amidst questions over whether or not such an election call would be illegal according to Harper's own fixed date election law.

In calling this election, Harper has pulled the trigger on what he's predicted will be a "nasty" election.

"To be really honest, I anticipate a very nasty, kind of personal-attack campaign," Harper mused. "That's just what I'm anticipating; that's what the opposition's done in the past. I think that whether Canadians agree with what we're doing or not, I don't think they're going to believe the kind of personal attacks and scare tactics that we've seen in the past."

For his own part, Liberal leader Stephane Dion has already started the partisan ideological wrangling typical of his party at election time.

"Stephen Harper formed the most conservative government in our history," Dion insisted.

Which, unfortunately for Dion, is historically untrue. In terms of conservatism, Harper's government could never hold a candle to the government of William Lyon Mackenzie King, among others.

Certainly, Harper's government has been the most Conservative seen in more than fifty years, but that's really only in contrast to what many would consider the runaway statism of previous governments -- including previous Conservative (Progressive Conservative) governments.

Jack Layton, fresh off his visit to the Democratic National Convention, has taken a page out of Barack Obama's playbook and promised to be the candidate for change.

"I'll act on the priorities of your kitchen table not just the boardroom table," he promised.

Last (and least) Elizabeth May portrayed her party as an alternative to the three national parties that have actually managed to -- you know -- actually elect Members of Parliament.

Her race against Deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay will be one of the key battlegrounds in the election. Ironically, she'll be depending on heavy support from partians of one of the mainstream parties, as the Liberals will not run a candidate against her.

Many Canadians likely find themselves somewhere between disappointed and angry to be facing an election right now.

However, there is one bright side to this election. Not only will Canadians elect their leaders before the Presidential race is settled, one can safely assume that Michael Moore will be keeping his mouth busy with American politics for the duration of the Canadian election.

Thank god for small favours, one supposes.

John McCain's Speech to the RNC

2008-09-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

McCain performs well with "workman" like speech

As John McCain took to the stage at the Xcel Energy Center in St Paul, Minnesota, he certainly had an uphill battle to fight.

Barack Obama's speech at the Pepsi Centre in Denver, Colorado a week before had been masterful. The Republican faithful were counting on McCain to deliver a speech, if not quite the equal of Obama's, at least one fairly competitive.

In his own way, McCain did precisely that. Although he didn't perform quite as spectacularly as many Republicans must have hoped for, he may have done even better in a way few would have expected.

McCain had many questions to answer at this, the acceptance of his nomination for President. One way or another, he answered them all.

McCain continued his perplexing strategy of moving closer to George W Bush by thanking him for his leadership during "dark times".

McCain promised Obama not only a contest, but also his respect and admiration, insisting that being American has imbued them with more similarities to unite them than differences to divide them.

McCain continued to promise reform in Washington, and introduced Palin as the Vice President who would help him control special interest groups. He also promised to wrangle corrupt politicians and pork blatant barrellers, promising to "make them famous."

"You will know their names. You will know their names."

McCain's list of political enemies is one that may not necessarily endear him to either extreme of the political divide in the United States: Tobacco companies, trial lawyers and union bosses, only to name a few. But at least the American people can say with some degree of certainty exactly who the "special interests" he plans to corral really are.

McCain pledged to take "the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan back to the basics." In the name of this, he played to some typical Republican cards, promising to cut taxes, cut spending, and warning against socialized health care.

Some of McCain's promises seemed vaguely contradictory. He noted that while Obama wants to bring back lost jobs by "wishing away the global market", McCain's government would help workers who have lost jobs that won't return by helping them find new jobs "that won't go away".

Of course, in guarantee to ensure those jobs "won't go away", McCain would essentially have to "wish away the global market."

Most strikingly, McCain promised a national project that would stop the Americans from "sending $700 billion annually overseas to countries that don't like [them] very much" with an ambitious new energy plan. New oil developments (presumably including drilling in currently protected Alaskan fields), nuclear energy and clean coal would be coupled with electric and hybrid vehicles to make the United States more self-sufficient in terms of energy.

On the foreign policy front, McCain spoke of Iran as the top state sponsor of terrorism and the reemerging Russian colossus. While promising to maintain good relations with Russia, he promised to stand up to Russian aggression and expansionism, such as that recently seen in their invasion of Georgia.

For the good or ill of his candidacy, McCain once again reiterated his commitment to the war in Iraq. But dismissed by many as a hawk, McCain established solid credentials as what Fear's Empire author Benjamin Barber would instead describe as an "owl" -- an individual not predisposed against the use of force, but wary of the potential consequences.

"What matters is not that you can fight, but what you fight for is the real test," McCain insisted.

McCain only reiterated his awareness of the consequences of armed conflict when he spoke of his childhood years spent being raised by his mother while his father fought in WWII, of the death of his grandfather (of exhaustion) during the war, and of lost friends in Vietnam.

McCain also spoke of his own time as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam. He spoke of how mistakes made as a fighter pilot led to his capture in Hanoi, and spoke of the strength and solidarity he found in his fellow POWs.

In the end, he said, he emerged not as his own man wrought with "selfish indepenence", but rather as his country's man.

For a man with a war record as pronounced as McCain's (as well as that of his family) it may be fitting that fighting was so thematic of McCain's speech -- fighting corruption, fighting irresponsibility, fighting America's enemies.

Fighting to regain America's trust.

McCain's speech provided a remarkable contrast between himself and his Democrat opponent: Obama's speech was filled with passion, enthusiasm and emotion. McCain's, by contrast, was calm, collected and confident. Obama came across more as a man who has yet to make his case for the Presidency of the United States. Meanwhile, McCain came across as a man who is confident that his case has already been made.

Certainly, McCain's speech was less than spectacular. But that very well may be the point: McCain's candidacy isn't about grand spectacle -- it's about doing the business of the United States of America. Part of McCain's plan for doing that business involves change -- or reform, if you will -- but McCain is the businesslike candidate in the race.

Unsurprisingly, McCain promised a bi-partisan administration, reaching out to both Democrats and Republicans.

Which is precisely what he'll have to do if he wants to be President.

Define "Strong", If You Will...

2008-09-06T18:07:00.000-07:00

Counter-branding effort begins

In the 2005/06 federal election, many people hoped Jack Layton and the NDP would play softball with the Liberals, hardball with the Conservatives, and keep Stephen Harper out of office.

Instead, the NDP focused their efforts on the Liberals, shrank the Liberal caucus returned to the House of Commons, and -- some say -- helped Stephen Harper get elected Prime Minister.

Of course, Layton understood well what he was doing when he targeted the Liberal party -- he was attracting disaffected soft Liberals to support the NDP instead.

Now, less than a day before the call of a 2008 federal election, the NDP has once again chosen to err on the side of the opposition, releasing a new attack ad against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Following a trip to the Democratic National Convention, Layton seems to have decided to adopt the kind of strategy that helped deny Al Gore the White House in 2000 -- portraying the two mainstream parties as lacking in meaningful differences.

The ad takes aim at the Conservative party tax cuts (taking note of "$50 billion in corporate tax cuts" while strategically ignoring the tax cuts for middle- and low-income Canadians), and taking a page out of the old Liberal party playbook by complaining about child poverty.

The ad addresses one in five Canadians who reportedly don't have a family doctor and, predictably, the Fort MacMurray tarsands.

This ad follows a recent round of branding ads by the Conservative party, and are thus an excellent example of an attempt at counter-branding. In this case, branding the party as bad for low-income Canadians, cutting corporate taxes at their direct expense.

However, those who pay close attention to the ads will notice something else: a striking resemblance to the infamous 2006 Liberal attack ads, including the one that helped sink their entire campaign, featuring heavily drum-laden music and even the same woman providing the voice-over.

In the end, Jack Layton appears against an NDP orange backdrop, and concludes that Canadians need "a new kind of strong". "The new strong is about fighting for what's right for you," Layton says. Presumably, the kind of strong leadership that will be provided by Jack Layton and the NDP.

Of course, this depends all on how one defines "strong", and perhaps that's the real genius of the ad -- challenging what many people consider to be "strong" leadership, and taking direct aim at the legion of polls that find that Canadians regard Harper as the best of the country's federal political leaders.

It's an interesting mix of political strategy: simultaneously attacking the Conservatives' biggest weaknesses and what many consider to be their greatest strength.

With Liberal spots sure to hit the air within the next couple of days, this impending election is apparently going to start hot.

All we need now is an election call.

Why Won't Stephane Dion Answer This Question?

2008-09-06T10:38:00.000-07:00

Foresight missing in Dion's Green Shift plan

Yesterday, Liberal leader Stephane Dion kicked off his party's national campaign at the University of Alberta.

His speech (which will be covered in detail here at The Nexus) was followed by a Q-and-A townhall-style meeting, in which he answered a variety of questions. Some questions -- obvious softballs -- were handled fairly effectively and predictably.

Some weren't -- including a question asked about hypothetical post-Green Shift Canada, which envoked a rather perplexing non-answer:

First, the question:

"If your Green Shift plan is implimented, and is successful, inevitably what we're going to see is a decrease in the taxable greenhouse gas emissions. What I'm wondering is what would a Liberal government do to make up that lost revenue?"

And the distinct non-answer:

"If we decrease the level of emissions, then the revenue of the tax will go down.

I pray it will happen!

And at that time, you know what? We'll have our revenues coming from the green economy we'll have created. Good taxpayers and good companies that will not exist in a small number. They'll be everywhere in the country.

I will give you an example: Denmark.

Denmark at first it suffered a shock. They were closing the country on weekends. I mean that you had to drive elsewhere on Saturday and Sunday. They decided to come to tax on fuel. And increase the tax on fuel. It was controversial. At that time they were 99% dependent on oil. Today, they have 0% dependence on oil. They have full employment, and this small country is exporting to the world a third of its windmills. If it's possible there, why not here?

I hope that the carbon tax one day will not exist because we'll have so few greenhouse gas emissions. It's not for tomorrow. Today, we are the worst among the world for greenhouse comissions.

We have a lot to do and it's not possible to do effectively if you don't put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. We come with good programs, good incentives, with education.

For a significant rsult, you put the price greehouse gas emissions and reduce the tax on your income, your investments, your savings and, if you're in business, your profit."

So essentially, one of two things can be taken away from Stephane Dion in this distinct non-answer:

Either Stephane Dion has no plan for the future -- no post-Green Shift plan to restore the inevitable lost revenue due to decreased taxable greenhouse gas emissions -- or he imagines that all this lost revenue will essentially be made up by exporting windmills. Somehow.

If Stephane Dion indeed has no post-Green Shift plan, one could at least applaud his honesty if he were to clearly and openly admit so.

But the alternative explanation, sadly, does not hold water. After all, even if Canada does experience the Green industry boom that Stephane Dion imagines, one has to remember that, under his Green shift tax plan, the profits of such companies -- and the incomes of their employees -- will be taxed at a lower level. The likelihood of such revenues making up for the lost revenue from decreased greenhouse gas emissions isn't terribly likely. It simply isn't mathematically feasible.

Considering that Dion's post-Green Shift numbers just don't seem to add up (at least not in any realistic fashion) the only real alternative seems to be a post-Green Shift tax grab -- increasing tax rates (even if only to 2006 rates) in order to recover the lost revenue.

After all, Stephane Dion is the individual who has spent the last 18 months decrying the lost revenue from the Conservative government's tax cuts.

Someone in the Liberal party needs to remind Stephane Dion that it will take more than prayer to make his Green Shift plan successful. It will take an eye to the future.

If Stephane Dion really has no post-Green Shift plan, big questions remain about whether or not Canadians can trust him to impliment it.