Thank you, USA

Thank you for a wonderful game that had us scared right till the very end.

But what really made me proud was when the Vancouver crowd cheered for American goalie Ryan Miller as he received his medal. And when the Canadian crowd cheered the American women's team as they received their medals. It's wonderful when your athletes do you proud, but it's even nicer when your people do you proud.

And having watched these Olympics from the US, may I say I was very impressed by NBC's coverage. It was done with a warmth and a generous spirit that I really enjoyed.

Canadian or not, it takes the Olympics though to make me watch two hockey games in one week. I watched the Canada-Russia game and the gold medal game and they were well worth watching.

Aggressive ignorance is hurting the American image and a lot more than just image

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Unless it’s aggressive stupidity coupled with power. For this reason, aggressive stupidity exercised by Americans in positions of power is arguably the most dangerous in the world. Obama’s much-vaunted promises of change have unfortunately not taken effect. We still are faced with high-ranking American officials whose ignorance of the outside world and their own portfolios is absolutely devastating.

Take Janet Napolitano, Secretary for Homeland Security, for example. (You may have guessed that’s who I wanted to talk about all along.) She has gone on record equating the Mexican and Canadian borders, for starters. That’s not even comparing apples and oranges. That’s comparing Blackberries and oranges. The problems to the North and to the South are vastly different. To the South you have illegal immigrants flowing in; to the North you have congestion slowing down the world’s most vigorous trading partnership. Canadians are not crossing the border in isolated places hoping to find a better life in the US, at least not in numbers significant enough to matter. And those are probably neatly counter-balanced by illegal American immigrants in Canada.

On Monday, Ms. Napolitano took her foot and stuffed it into her mouth all the way up to her hip.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

Just what does that mean, exactly?

Even Rush Limbaugh knows better. For the record, the 9/11 terrorists all had papers in order, issued to them by the American government, and not one of them entered the US through Canada.

She has since retracted the statement, claiming she was misunderstood. Judge for yourselves.

The furor began when Napolitano was asked to clarify statements she had made about equal treatment for the Mexican and Canadian borders, despite the fact that a flood of illegal immigrants and a massive drug war are two serious issues on the southern border.

"Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on, it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," she said.

"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

When asked if she was referring to the 9-11 terrorists, Napolitano added: "Not just those but others as well."

Misunderstood, eh? How many ways are there to understand "just" and "as well"?

Is it any surprise that Canadians are upset?

In February, the former Arizona governor--criticized as weak on security along her state's Mexican border during her term--ordered a review of 49th parallel security, saying the terrorist threat was greater there than on the Mexican border. Last month, she said Canada should be treated the same as Mexico--as if there were any real similarities.

As long as she repeats this rubbish, the corrections that follow are unpersuasive.

Canadian Ambassador to the U. S. Michael Wilson does his best to sow truth in hard soil, but this needs to be dealt with at the top. It is now for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to deal directly with Obama, to ensure the border remains open to visitors and convenient to trade.

Unchecked by higher authority, Napolitano's vaulting ignorance is capable of serious harm to Canada.

American friends have sometimes asked me where Canadian anti-Americanism comes from. There are a lot of answers to that question, some of them not too flattering to Canadians, but Napolitano’s shenanigans are an example of the kind of thing that creates a lot of ill will.

Will somebody please send the woman home to Arizona and find somebody competent to replace her? (So much for the stereotype of Republicans being rubes, and Democrats being urbane and sophisticated.) Anybody who believes for ten seconds that the Mexican and Canadian borders are in any way equivalent has no credibility. And she’s had considerably longer than ten seconds to catch on to that fact. If it hasn’t dawned on her in the months she’s held her position, there’s no hope of her ever understanding. This is a fundamental reality that she should have grasped at her very first briefing. It is one thing to be ignorant; it is another altogether to cling to that ignorance in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. And it is sheer insanity to give this kind of person the authority to act on their ignorance. The damage she can do to the American-Canadian trading relationship - and thus to the American economy - is unthinkable. We are, after all, the USA’s biggest trading partner, far eclipsing Japan, the European Union, and even China.

Yeah, I'm steamed. Sorry. And when you find somebody else, make sure it's somebody who has actually crossed the border at least once? Napolitano has flown over it, but has never set foot, or even car tire, in a Canadian border crossing. For crying out loud...

Stephen Harper must be looking over his shoulder

I told myself I wasn't going to post on politics anymore. Yeah right.

It's Michael Ignatieff's fault. A speech he gave in Regina this week really underscored how dangerous he is to the Conservatives.

Michael Ignatieff says it was western Canadian rage which -- in part -- convinced him to back away from a proposed governing coalition with the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois.

...

"You are, after all, looking at someone who turned down the chance to become prime minister of Canada, and I did so, in part, because I felt that it would divide the country," said Mr. Ignatieff. "I want to be someone who unites the country, and that includes the West."

Westerners probably had trouble believing their ears. After Pierre Trudeau's open contempt for Westerners sunk the Liberal boat for decades anywhere west of Thunder Bay, the concept of a Liberal leader who actually cares what they think (or at least says he does) must be positively intoxicating.

Now, Ignatieff is probably making a virtue out of necessity, but having been raised in the West, I can imagine how delighted his listeners must have been. A Liberal Party that is intent on becoming a national party in fact and not just in name is a real threat to Harper's Conservatives, and I'm sure they know it. Western alienation is a force that they've tapped very effectively and if Iggy can compete in that arena, they risk seeing one of their strongholds crumble.


Technorati tags: Michael Ignatieff

I never would have thought of this on my own

but it's so true.

KFC’s Colonel Sanders Logo Totally Looks Like Environmental Activist David Suzuki



In case you're not Canadian, David Suzuki is a virtual institution in Canada. He's been hosting TV shows longer than most of us can remember. And the resemblance is such a delightful irony.


Technorati tags: David Suzuki, Colonel Sanders

How did Harper miscalculate so badly?

Stephen Harper is known as an accomplished political strategist, his ability so great as to overcome an almost total lack of personal charisma and make of him the most formidable opponent on the Canadian political scene. I will confess to being highly amused at the way he ran circles around the opposition parties in his first mandate, taking maximum advantage of their aversion to a new election. The improbable knots they had to tie themselves into to avoid triggering election calls rivalled anything a Chinese circus can display. Petty of me, I know, but one has to admire talent when one sees it.

I had my thoughts on why his normal perspicacity had abandoned him, and then I stumbled across this article from the Globe and Mail which articulated very nicely what I had suspected.

It is one of the habits of truly great leaders to surround themselves with people who compensate for their own weaknesses. Harper might be forgiven for not recognizing his, because they have been very useful to him, particularly his ruthlessness and tendency to go for the jugular of his political foes. He over-reached a time or two in his first federal campaign, and learned to moderate the tendency a bit. But it remains a besetting sin for the Prime Minister, and one which he hasn't sufficiently guarded against.

What he desperately needs is a powerful advisor who lacks that trait, who is capable of respecting the opponent and who does not mistake political bluster and posturing for reality. And this, he does not have. Instead, he has Guy Giorno.

Caught in a political echo chamber, he made the very dangerous mistake of underestimating the opposition, calculating that they would run away from a game of chicken. Not. This is what Michael Valpy and Daniel Leblanc said in their analysis:

... Mr. Harper's determination to destroy the Liberals borders on the pathological.

It has become a blind spot in his judgment, with no one in his office to put the brakes on his impulses.

His chief of staff, Guy Giorno – once chief of staff to Ontario Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris and one of the icy architects of Mr. Harris's Common Sense Revolution – is not the ying to Mr. Harper's yang. Rather they are two yangs together.

Mr. Lyle recalled Friday the story told of Clifford Scotton, who was a key aide to Manitoba NDP premier Howard Pawley. Mr. Scotton's job was to say four words to Mr. Pawley whenever the need arose: “I think not, Howard.”

Mr. Giorno is not the Prime Minister's Clifford Scotton, said Mr. Lyle.

It sounds like Harper's advisors are politically inbred, with all the inherent weakness that implies. It's time for some fresh blood.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Guy Giorno

The Canadian crisis for Americans

Seeing as so many of my readers are Americans, I thought you'd appreciate this little article on our defused crisis from Neil Macdonald. Macdonald normally gets on my nerves, as his anti-Americanism is frequently painfully obvious. (Which made him the logical choice for the Washington correspondent, right?) He didn't do too badly here though, and there's enough humour to make it go down rather nicely. It's a couple of days old, so it doesn't take into account the actual decision made by the Governor General.

If anybody's interested, I might do a post someday on where that anti-American attitude comes from. I've never been a fan of bigotry of any sort, but sometimes you have to acknowledge the roots of an attitude, if you're going to understand it.

Michaëlle Jean proves her worth

I'm so glad there was an adult in the house who sent the kids to their rooms to cool off. I sincerely hope that Prime Minister Harper has learned a valuable lesson on playing nicely with others, and that the other parties have time to see that manufacturing a crisis out of what is merely an unpleasant situation, at least here in Canada, does not win them points for audacity, but rather disdain for their presumption. At least that's the way the early polls are tilting. It's certainly the way I feel.

I'm not sure that it was necessary to suspend Parliament all the way till January 26th, but at least we are guaranteed not to have election lawn signs competing with Christmas lights this year.

Will the Liberals be able to hold their own party together until then, let alone their coalition? Early signs there are not encouraging for them. It only took a couple of hours after Parliament was suspended before Liberal MPs began breaking ranks. Scott Simms and Keith Martin are two other MPs questioning the wisdom of pursuing the coalition's agenda.

May cooler heads prevail. While I think that Stéphane Dion gets some unfair press too, it should be painfully clear that his leadership abilities just aren't up to snuff. This is not the hand I would want to see on the tiller right now.

And, if anybody from the Conservative party is listening, please cut the hyper-partisan swagger. That plays well only to hard-core supporters. The rest of us are sick to death of chest-thumping and spin doctors and arrogance. You'd be much more attractive without it.


Technorati tags: Crisis in Canada

Surrealism in Ottawa

I haven't commented on the shenanigans in Ottawa yet, because they struck me as so surreal that I couldn't believe it was anything more than hot air. I did comment on the Conservatives' ill-advised and quickly withdrawn proposal to cut public funding of political parties, but the possibility of changing governments mere weeks after an election seemed too preposterous to be real. I had trouble processing it. Surely this was just political posturing.

Well, now I've processed it. Trying to explain it to American friends has been challenging. A legal coup, stable instability, what do you call it? I'm having trouble finding any good guys in this story. They're all nuts.

First of all, I think the Liberals and the NDP are just plain wrong. The cautious, stay-the-course economic strategy of the Conservatives may not have been sexy, but given our position of relative economic strength, a very wise one. It's like steering on ice, the last thing you do is jerk the steering wheel around. Bringing down the government over this issue is insane, and could cost Canada dearly. (In passing, why do parties criticize each other most loudly about the things they're doing right? It makes me despair of ever seeing rationality in politics.) (OK, so I'm not that naive. I gave up on that years ago. But I keep trying anyway.)

Of course, it will likely backfire on the coalition in the long term if they actually take power. They will get blamed for the mess, and they will probably deserve some of that blame, although by no means all. I doubt this has occurred to them.

And it is really not clear to me just who the prime minister will be. Stephane Dion is a lame duck. Is he still planning on stepping down as Liberal leader, or will they relent in their desire to have his head on a platter after he engineers a successful power grab despite their worst showing at the polls ever?

It is also rather dishonest, given the Liberals' repeated election promises not to form a coalition with the NDP. I suspect it might take me more elections than I had foreseen before I'll be able to stomach voting Liberal again.

On the other hand, the Conservatives' stance of offended virginity is a bit much. And trying to turn this into a Canadian unity issue is disingenuous. The Bloc Quebecois is very pragmatic about all this and much too comfortable in Ottawa to seriously want separation. They'll support the coalition the same way they often supported the Conservatives, with no more negative impact on national unity. Trying to demonize them to score political points is arguably much more damaging.

And Ed Schreyer is unfortunately right. What the coalition is proposing is entirely legal and within the rules. While Jean may grant the Conservatives a brief prorogation of Parliament, ultimately the other parties are fully within their rights to bring down the government and propose themselves as an alternative and she should give them the chance to try. They are playing by the rules, much as it galls me to admit it. I think it's political insanity, and rather reprehensible, but they have the right to do it.

You know, I'd been telling people that I couldn't vote Liberal for a while because they had dug themselves such a deep hole that it would take a term or two or three before the Conservatives had dug themselves deeper. Well, the Conservatives were digging, all right, but now the Liberals have pulled out a shovel of honking big proportions. The only thing that could possibly redeem them is if they shock me with astonishingly adept governance. I'm not holding my breath.

And when I'm finished being really, really mad at the Liberals and the NDP I'm going to be furious with the Conservatives for bringing this on themselves with their partisan arrogance.


Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion

Ah victory

There is the normal partisan bluster, but the Conservatives are backing down. Public funding of the parties will continue.

In passing, somebody should put a muzzle on Pierre Poilievre. Pugnacious spin doctors probably come out somewhere below used car salesmen in the level of public respect they inspire. He is reputed to be a hard-working representative for his riding, and is pleasant enough in real life, but seems to believe that public obnoxiousness is a positive political trait. It isn't.


Technorati tags: Party funding, Pierre Poilievre

Cynical political opportunism?

I'm not naive. I know that politicians can get petty. I know political parties can get petty. My persistent case of chronic idealism makes me keep thinking that every now and again politicians can surprise me and act for the common good, or in defense of principles, instead of merely jockeying for political advantage.

So I would really like it if the Conservatives backed away from their current fit of pettiness. The proposed cutting of public subsidies to political parties based on their share of the popular vote looks more like an attempt to kick the Liberal party while it's down than an attempt to save money.

Heaven knows I have been no fan of the Liberals in recent years, and I am still of the opinion that a few more years in the political wilderness would do them a world of good. They'd had a free ride into government for too many years and they stank to high heaven and it's going to take a while longer before the lingering stench has been washed away. But they did do a couple of really praiseworthy things while they were in government that strengthened popular democracy in this country. Drastically reducing the permissible size of political donations was one of them; its corollary of funding parties from the public purse was another. Both worked against their own partisan advantage, which is why it amazes me they ever did it at all, and I applaud them for it.

Now I would like to applaud the Conservatives for resisting the temptation to dismantle this excellent system. Why do I think it is excellent? Firstly, because it helps diminish the political power of deep pockets. Secondly, because it increases the financial viability of small parties. It might seem strange that I care about this, seeing as I almost never vote for them. But they have a very important contribution to make to political discourse, sometimes popularizing issues enough that the more powerful parties take notice. That alone would be sufficient cause. But they also help prevent a two-party system. The last few years of observing the American system have been enough to convince me that a two-party system breeds social polarization and blind partisanship. I don't want us to fall into the same cesspool.

Which is why I also fervently hope the Liberals will rise again, hopefully with a little less arrogance and a few more principles. A centrist party, flanked by viable opponents on each side seems to me to be a good recipe for moderation and stability. (OK, the NDP doesn't quite rank as viable, unfortunately, seeing as it tends to make the Liberals tilt more to the left to compensate for their weakness.) So please, let's not kick them too hard while they're down, however much they deserve to be down there.


Technorati tags: Canadian politics

Naomi Lakritz is my new hero

You may recall that I raised my eyebrows a wee bit at the reaction of the Luther College gunman's parents, who wanted to reassure the world that their son was a good kid. I grumped a bit about the uselessness of a word that can expand to include almost any behaviour.

Naomi Lakritz grumped at greater length and brought up some excellent criticism of the modern tendency to excuse all and avoid hurting the self-esteem of our precious progeny, starting with this:

If the 16-year-old boy in Regina who took 300 students hostage this week and pointed a gun at the school's pastor is a good kid, what does a bad kid look like?

The day after the incident ended with the principal wrestling the gun away from the boy, and his subsequent arrest, lawyer Brad Tilling passed on a message from his parents: "They would like people to know that he is a good kid and obviously there was some difficulty the other day."

A "good kid?" An armed hostage-taking is "some difficulty?"

Read the whole thing. She wrote it a month ago, but I suspect it was available only to subscribers before now.


Technorati tags: Naomi Lakritz, Self-esteem, Luther College

Aftermath of Luther College incident

Today's media offerings on the gunman incident at Luther College High School have mostly consisted of journalistic cud-chewing. However, I did find a couple of interesting things hinted at in today's CBC article.

Charges have been laid against the young offender, who obviously can't be named. True to form, his parents are shocked and say that their son is basically a good kid. Sometimes, the modern interpretation of "good" is so elastic that the word becomes essentially meaningless, seeing as it seems to exclude nothing. Granted, it's obvious the young fellow wanted to make a statement, rather than killing people, so he's not as bad as he could have been. But still... Not knowing enough about the whole situation, I won't say anything else. I know parents always want to believe the best of their children and it's pretty devastating when you are dramatically confronted with the proof you were wrong. Denial is perhaps necessary for emotional survival, at least in the short term.

Brad Tilling, the boy's lawyer, told reporters after the brief appearance that his client was calm and understood what was happening.

Tilling said the parents of the youth were shocked by the allegations against their son.

"They would like people to know that he is a good kid and obviously there was some difficulty the other day," Tilling said.

"There's apparently quite a story behind that," Tilling added and suggested that details would come at a later time.

"But basically they want people to know he's a good kid and this is an aberration," he concluded.

I have a hard time imagining a "story" that would justify the boy's behaviour.

The other thing that really caught my eye is that the College may have alerted the authorities in regard to this young fellow as early as last year.

Perlson (the College president) said the student was expelled last year, but declined to say why.

"I can tell you there was concern. And we expressed that concern to authorities."

Which raises the question: what concerns did they share with "authorities" and should the police have picked up on it? Or were they relatively inconsequential, putting the boy on a list with hundreds of others who seemed only likely to indulge in minor mischief? I'm not one of these people who expect authorities to have perfect foresight, but I'm also aware that they drop the ball sometimes, and the results can be fatal. I hope somebody is pressing the issue. If the boy had been intent on killing, things would have turned out very differently.


Technorati tags: Luther College

Gunman in my alma mater [Updated 8:05]

This makes it all come home, doesn't it? In the most literal way. When a gunman holds the student body hostage in the gymnasium of the high school you went to, all those school shooting stories take on a whole new reality.

The news is just breaking, but it appears to have had a happy ending. The gunman was taken into custody and no shots were fired.

Some classic elements are present from what I can see. An unhappy former student. Male. Probably young, so the chances of me knowing him are more than remote.

I am so thankful no one was killed. My adolescent memories are already going to have to deal with the images of a gunman in the halls. Peopling them with corpses would be unbearable.



Updates will follow if there's anything interesting.

If anybody from Regina has information that isn't hitting the national media, please let me know.

Updates
The gunman, still unnamed, is indeed young. He would have been part of the Grade 12 class had he still been attending Luther College High School. He approached the pastor leading the daily chapel service and required him at gunpoint to read a three-page letter. School officials managed to clear out most of the students, but the Grade 12 class remained. I'm having a hard time picturing how that went, but further reports should hopefully clear that up.

Reactions of students have been similar to mine: how could this happen here? A small, academically oriented, private school with church affiliations (not that you should conclude that the student body is particularly religious). It doesn't seem to fit. But then these things rarely do, do they? Both school officials and police are being very tight-lipped about the identity of the gunman and what exactly happened. Rumours say that there was perhaps some advance warning, that the gun was only an airgun and not a firearm. Is bullying the issue here?

The gunman had a pellet gun, not a real firearm. This has apparently been announced on the local radio in Regina.

From the comment trail on the CBC article:

Everyone... I was there. im a new student grade 9 in fact... we went into chapel like any other ordinary day when a guy came in. Blonde hair and a camo gun... a compact .22 or 355 magnum.. im not an expert so anyway... we were in the gym/chapel for about 40 minutes.... people were crying... we (me and my friends) thought this was a skit/drill.... Sadly, it was not... It was pure terror and fear... I can say one thing... i never felt so emotional about high-school shootings... But trust me. if it ever happens to you, you will be very scared.... the first thing i did when i was scared was turn my cell phone level to vibrate... i sent a text to my dad telling him there was a guy with a gun in the school... after, my mom called. i ducked behind a student and told my mom.... call the cops.... thaank her soul, she did... the cops were on their way.... Our principal, MR. Anderson taackled the gunman and we all ran out.... when we ran we all knew then it wasnt a drill... The police and swat were there.... and we ran to the daycare to escape the high-school... my parents later found me and about 30 - 1 hour after the incident. here i am typing... I want to get the word out... To everyone in highschool or not... please FEEL sorry for the victims... I never thought this would happen to me... Untill it did... I NOW know the feelings of people in High-school shootings..... MY feelings go out to them....

If youve read this I, Thank you...

The letter apparently contained a disjointed rant about the boy's expulsion last year.

One news report incorrectly identifies the school as Catholic. I guess the Chinese don't get the incongruity of a Catholic school named Luther.

The principal, Mark Anderson, intervened physically (either tackling him or just grabbing the gun, there are different reports) when he realized that the gun was not a firearm.

Another report:

The principal of the school says he wrestled away the gun from an angry youth who had barged into the school's chapel in the middle of morning prayer.

Luther College's Mark Anderson says he kept talking with the youth, who was holding the school's pastor at gunpoint and making him read a letter.

Anderson says he got close enough to see that the weapon was not a real handgun.

At that point, he grappled with the suspect and held him until police arrived and arrested him.

No shots were fired and no one was injured.

Police, who have a 16-year-old in custody, say the weapon was an air-driven pellet pistol.

Police, including a SWAT team, converged on the school after receiving calls about the incident.

More details:

While police set up outside the school, inside the gym, Luther's principal Mark Anderson noticed the weapon was not as serious as first thought, so he approached the suspect and tried talking him out of acting further.

Anderson said he got a hold of the boy, but the suspect wringled loose.

Other teachers closed around him and then the SWAT team members from the Regina Police Service took him into custody.

More than 400 students were in the gym when the boy first entered.

Anderson estimates about 250 were able to get out while he talked to the boy

And here's the bullying aspect:

Alex McNair, a student at the Luther College high school, said the gunman forced the pastor to read a letter about his expulsion. He said the letter was about how the gunman had been bullied.

More student testimonies here.

Further details from this afternoon's press conference. It includes praise for students and staff for keeping their composure and handling the situation well.


Technorati tags: School shooting, Luther College

But when you've got election blahs, there's nothing like aliens to spice things up

Because on October 14th, the aliens are coming. According to Australian author, actress and psychic Blossom Goodchild, a massive spaceship will hover over Alabama (???) for 72 hours starting on October 14, to silence naysayers once and for all. Not to worry. The spaceship comes from the Federation of Light. (Not the Galactic Federation of Light, as some have erroneously stated.)

Canadian UFOlogist Stephane Wuttunee has noted the the convergence of dates also. And he has an explanation.

To stir the waters even further, consider that the Canadian Prime Minister Mr. Stephen Harper in the last week has called for surprise federal elections to occur on (you guessed it) … October 14th, 2008. According to Mr. Alfred Webre from Exopolitics.com, world officials are taking the announcement of the arrival of an extraterrestrial spacecraft in our skies seriously, and plans may already be underway to pull public focus away from such a seminal event and place it on more domestic and political issues instead. In this case, the controversy generated by surprise federal elections would tie up Canadian airwaves quite nicely. If extraterrestrials wish for their presence to be known to the world on that day, they would need to account for this type of potential interference, along with one million other variables.

Of course, being highly evolved Beings, they (hopefully) would.

Well yes, because a Canadian election would certainly be a major distraction from an alien manifestation, wouldn't it? The global press will be massively present in Ottawa and completely unwilling to peel their attention away from the spectacle of Stephen and Stephane duking it out. And Canadians themselves will be too transfixed to notice anything else at all.

Works every time.

His article concludes with a fascinating little video that demonstrates how Goodchild's channeling of the term "snow cone" proves the absolute validity of the October 14th prediction.



Feel like you're entering another dimension? Yeah, I did too. But I haven't laughed so long and so hard in a while, so I am grateful.


Technorati tags: Aliens, Blossom Goodchild, Stephen Harper

Election blahs

With elections coming up both north and south of the border, I am finding great difficulty drumming up enthusiasm for either contest. Amba is even worse off:

I'm so disgusted all around that I'm teetering on that "UNDECIDED: whether to vote or not" precipice these days. Each campaign keeps going to extremes that drive me toward the other. Right now I'm feeling that the Republicans don't deserve to be rewarded for this kind of anything-goes campaigning. Yesterday it was Obama supporters' clueless arrogance that was driving me towards McCain.

It is rather a sad thing when you have to vote for whomever disgusts you least. Do all the nasty, sneering partisans not realize that they are driving undecideds further away?

Granted, the Americans have the disease of nasty partisanship worse than we do. Perhaps that is one of the inherent failings of a two-party system: it is so much easier to become polarized.

Still, there are plenty of Canadians who are afflicted also. Some of them, unfortunately, work for political parties. I suspect the puffin incident will blow over rather quickly, seeing as it was so quickly disowned by the Conservatives. People who are too young to remember kitten-eating aliens and the Charest Conservatives' attack ads sneering at Chrétien's facial paralysis and how disastrously they back-fired should not be put in charge of websites unsupervised.

I personally am trying to ignore political advertising as much as humanly possible. No one party excites me. Unlike Amba, I am not going to fall off a cliff. As a moderate, the smaller parties are unlikely to get my vote. Of the two major parties, neither one excites my admiration. But one has dug a larger hole in my esteem over the years than the other, so for this election, I'm probably going to vote for the one with the shallower hole. Not very inspiring, but a girl has to decide somehow.

If anybody can cite me reasons why either the Liberals or Conservatives deserve some admiration, I am willing to listen. I can think of a couple of things myself, but they neither one has enough positives to turn those holes into hills.

And if anybody wants to put a good word in for one side or another in the American race, feel free too. The operative term is "good word". I am sick to death of sneers and mud-slinging.

(Yes, I know my recent post about Jack Layton had a bit of a sneer to it. But just a bit. That level of political cluelessness is hard to ignore.)

Technorati tags: Canadian election

The Taliban just doesn't get public relations

Now they're trying to influence Canadian voters. They want us to vote for someone who will pull our soldiers out of Afghanistan. To make sure we get the message, they're stepping up attacks on our troops.

You've got to feel sorry for Jack Layton. Both Harper and Dion have made it clear that they are committed to staying in Afghanistan, and that they won't be intimidated by Taliban threats. The only major nation-wide party calling for a withdrawal is the NDP. By default, the Taliban is saying, "Vote NDP." Which puts poor Layton in the awkward position of trying to defend a platform plank that gets a stamp of approval from the Taliban.

Somehow I don't think they'll be mentioning this "endorsement" on the NDP website.


Technorati tags: Taliban, Canadian election

Jack Layton and Obama

Jack Layton, the head of Canada's NDP (New Democratic Party, for you non-Canadians) says he is "picking up" some of the energy of Obama's campaign and may "borrow" from Barack's playbook.

Well, colour me gobsmacked.

What Mr. Layton does not seem to understand is that the Obama campaign and playbook are founded squarely on Barack himself: the man, his words, and most importantly, his charisma. Pointing out similarities in environmental policies and photocopying campaign slogans are not going to make any of that fairy dust rub off on Layton.

How can a man lead a political party for so many years and be so oblivious? This is just making him look pathetic, like the kid in the background waving at the cameras when someone else is being interviewed.

Set up all the jars you like, Jack. You can't bottle lightning.


Technorati tags: Jack Layton, Canadian politics, Barack Obama

Sanity in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Waddah (Martin) Mustapha is not entitled to damages for psychological damages as a result of seeing a fly in his unopened bottle of drinking water.

I have long been amazed at what trivialities courts consider worthy of hefty damages, although amazed is perhaps too nice a word.

In a 9-0 ruling issued Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that his reaction was exaggerated and that a "person of normal fortitude, a more reasonable person, would have had a more reasonable reaction," the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported from Ottawa.

"[The court ruled] it would have been impossible for Culligan Canada, the supplier of the water bottle, to foresee this sort of extreme reaction that Waddah Mustapha had," Barton said.

The court decided the psychological damages suffered by Mustapha were "too remote" to justify more than $300,000 in compensation Mustapha was seeking, and ordered him to pay the company's court costs.

In this precedent-setting ruling, the Supreme Court has effectively and unanimously declared that psychological damage has to be foreseeable before someone can be held accountable for inflicting it.

A few more rulings like this and perhaps our legal system will actually speed up as the backlog of trivial cases is cleared out and genuinely important cases have a little breathing room.

Technorati tags: Supreme Court, Psychological damage

The General has a point

General Roméo Dallaire (that's Senator Dallaire to you civvies) is upbraiding the Conservative government over the case of Omar Khadr. (In all fairness, the Liberals didn't do any better when they were in power, which may be why Stéphane Dion is threatening to discipline the senator, in yet another stunning example of Dion's lack of political and good sense.)

Dallaire's central point - and whatever you think of the General or Khadr or any of the political parties, it's a very good one - is that Khadr was only 15 at the time he was taken into custody and sent to Guantanamo. Someone that young is normally considered a victim of indoctrination and/or intimidation and is rehabilitated, not charged. He asks what makes this case different. And he's right. You cannot have two sets of standards, applied according to the political winds of the times. Either we stand for human rights and justice equally applied, or we don't.

Dallaire said Canadian soldiers have helped rehabilitate more than 7,000 child soldiers in Afghanistan. None of them have been prosecuted, he said.

"What is the political reason? What makes [Khadr] different from the others?" said Dallaire.

Technorati tags: Romeo Dallaire, Omar Khadr

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Sept. 23

Weekend Fisher has a great post on the shortcomings of pop spirituality. It's so nice to hear someone saying out loud what I've been thinking for a long time.

David Akin, on his blog On the Hill, has been commenting quite a bit on Tom Flanagan's new book Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power. This, from Flanagan's "Ten Commandments of Conservative Campaigning" caught my eye:

4. Incrementalism: We have to be willing to make progress in small practical steps. Sweeping visions have a place in intellectual discussions, but they are toxic in practical politics.

I am so glad to see someone on the Canadian right finally articulating this. History teaches us that sweeping changes tend to get rapidly swept out the door. People resist large-scale change, viscerally and actively, unless their present reality is so dire they want out. Many good ideologies make no headway because their proponents perceive accepting incremental change as moral compromise. All or nothing usually leads to nothing.

Talk talk talk has on-the-fly notes about the Ontario political leaders' debate. Seeing as I missed it, this was helpful to me. A strong anti-McGuinty bias is quite obvious but I guess I can live with that. ;o)

Technorati tags: Tom Flanagan, Pop Spirituality, Ontario Election