Many Canadians by now have heard of this alleged hate crime in BC - 3 white men attacked a black man.
Now, normally there wouldn't be much to comment on, but I did have to wonder...
... Where are the Toronto Star columnists (e.g. something like this) and Liberals (e.g. Wally Oppal here, or Irwin Cotler here) jumping to these guys' defence?
After all, it's entirely possible these three gentlemen will be charged with a hate crime. The major distinction between this and a 'normal' crime is really just a stiffer sentence which, if we are to believe the aforementioned individuals, does not work to deter crime. Even the harsher stigma of being convicted of an official hate crime is itself a tougher punishment than the stigma of being convicted of a 'normal' crime.
Shouldn't these aforementioned individuals, were they to be intellectually honest (or at least intellectually consistent), be clamouring against hate crime designations? Shouldn't they be screaming in the media against these three twentysomethings being charged with hate crimes? Perhaps even FOR an even lighter sentence than they might otherwise get?
After all, if tough sentences don't reduce crime (I'm merely accepting this theory for the sake of argument), it follows that supporting tough sentences for hate crimes takes a position which necessarily discourages the abatement of hate crimes themselves.
Bonus points to any major media columnist who suddenly finds it in his/her heart to continue to argue for forgiveness, second chances and the like.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Proud about Parades
I've been remiss in updating but I think that it's worth making a comment or two about the recent gay pride parade kerfuffle.
The first thing is that I think I should, as always, show my cards at the outset: I'm a heterosexual guy in a heterosexual relationship. I enjoy going to pride parades, and I think they're a lot of fun. My support of gay rights is sourced in my belief in individual liberties, and not e.g. political causes. Ditto for my significant other. (For my arguments that the Tories could at least endorse pride parades for more cynical motives if not true moral support, see here.)
Basically, I think the critics have a kernel of validity to their arguments, but for different reasons.
See, I get that people don't want public funds dedicated to activities they personally find morally reprehensible. When I was an undergrad, I was forced to pay all kinds of student fees to a student union which pledged to speak for me by protesting CSIS, calling the military a bunch of war criminals, campaigning against freedom-loving political parties, and - perhaps most relevant to this debate - publishing pro-choice literature while condemning pro-choice sides and muzzling them. The Catholic and other pro-life students, understandably, were a bit upset with this. Their cries that they were in effect being forced to support a cause with which they did not morally agree fell on deaf ears.
The problem is, as sympathetic as I am to that argument in principle as a libertarian, I'm not sure how to make it the basis for good policy. The reason is that it's so easy to turn it to extremes or examples which I doubt many of us (otherwise sympathetic to such a 'hands-off-my-X' position) have contemplated. I might raise the example of Jehovah's Witnesses and faith healers feeling morally offended that large percentages of their tax dollars (or the taxes paid by any business with which they have dealings) go towards funding health care and the blood transfusions which come with it. There are a number of pacifists which have engaged the same argument insofar as it applies to funding the military. If you believe the Forces are all criminals, you'd object to your money funding them.
But doesn't it seem instinctively as though the examples of the Forces or of health care are different than the case of, say, the Pride Parades, or maybe the anti-abortion campaigns on campuses.
The distinction, as I see it, is sourced in public function. National defence, health care, these are functions and purposes more traditionally associated with the role of the state. There is a necessity there, both in the status of the function AND the necessity of state funding that simply doesn't exist in the case of the pride parade, or any other such event. The state's role is not to fund floats, just as it isn't to hand out free little Canadian flags - paper stapled on to cardboard - at $45 apiece.
The involvement of the state is particularly unnecessary when Pride is an incredibly successful event which local businesses have a major interest in promoting. If I may analogize to another event, Vancouver's annual fireworks festival, the Celebration of Light, draws millions of spectators and generates considerable revenue during the evening. Notably absent from their list of sponsors is any major governmental involvement.
But given that I can't influence funding from my little perch here on the interwebs, I'll still go and enjoy it at any rate. Vancouver's pride day is August 2, for those interested. Vancouver's Celebration of Light shows taking place on the 22nd, 25th, 29th and 1st.
The first thing is that I think I should, as always, show my cards at the outset: I'm a heterosexual guy in a heterosexual relationship. I enjoy going to pride parades, and I think they're a lot of fun. My support of gay rights is sourced in my belief in individual liberties, and not e.g. political causes. Ditto for my significant other. (For my arguments that the Tories could at least endorse pride parades for more cynical motives if not true moral support, see here.)
Basically, I think the critics have a kernel of validity to their arguments, but for different reasons.
See, I get that people don't want public funds dedicated to activities they personally find morally reprehensible. When I was an undergrad, I was forced to pay all kinds of student fees to a student union which pledged to speak for me by protesting CSIS, calling the military a bunch of war criminals, campaigning against freedom-loving political parties, and - perhaps most relevant to this debate - publishing pro-choice literature while condemning pro-choice sides and muzzling them. The Catholic and other pro-life students, understandably, were a bit upset with this. Their cries that they were in effect being forced to support a cause with which they did not morally agree fell on deaf ears.
The problem is, as sympathetic as I am to that argument in principle as a libertarian, I'm not sure how to make it the basis for good policy. The reason is that it's so easy to turn it to extremes or examples which I doubt many of us (otherwise sympathetic to such a 'hands-off-my-X' position) have contemplated. I might raise the example of Jehovah's Witnesses and faith healers feeling morally offended that large percentages of their tax dollars (or the taxes paid by any business with which they have dealings) go towards funding health care and the blood transfusions which come with it. There are a number of pacifists which have engaged the same argument insofar as it applies to funding the military. If you believe the Forces are all criminals, you'd object to your money funding them.
But doesn't it seem instinctively as though the examples of the Forces or of health care are different than the case of, say, the Pride Parades, or maybe the anti-abortion campaigns on campuses.
The distinction, as I see it, is sourced in public function. National defence, health care, these are functions and purposes more traditionally associated with the role of the state. There is a necessity there, both in the status of the function AND the necessity of state funding that simply doesn't exist in the case of the pride parade, or any other such event. The state's role is not to fund floats, just as it isn't to hand out free little Canadian flags - paper stapled on to cardboard - at $45 apiece.
The involvement of the state is particularly unnecessary when Pride is an incredibly successful event which local businesses have a major interest in promoting. If I may analogize to another event, Vancouver's annual fireworks festival, the Celebration of Light, draws millions of spectators and generates considerable revenue during the evening. Notably absent from their list of sponsors is any major governmental involvement.
But given that I can't influence funding from my little perch here on the interwebs, I'll still go and enjoy it at any rate. Vancouver's pride day is August 2, for those interested. Vancouver's Celebration of Light shows taking place on the 22nd, 25th, 29th and 1st.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
An almost-election note
(Yikes. Work and life and things take over, and all of a sudden it's been weeks since you've posted.)
I've wanted to make a couple of comments about the Ignatieff election standoff thing, and I don't think that the fact it's completely old, nor the fact that everyone's said everything on it, should keep me from doing so ;)
So, the first thing is that I'm not in favour of an election six or seven months after the last one unless there's an extreme reason do so so. I don't think Iggy had a good reason. Harper was pushing his luck in the summer of '05, a year or so after the previous one, and many Liberals at the time said that was too soon. Paul Martin certainly argued that between 2003 and 2006, he didn't have enough of a fair shake to accomplish his goals.
But more important than that, selling the election to the electorate would be downright impossible. I would distinguish Harper's reasons in '05 from Iggy's reasons now. Harper's argument had a moral aspect to it - the government is [allegedly] corrupt, it lost a motion in the House regarding the moral (if not actual) confidence, the government therefore needed to call an election to reaffirm its mandate in such circumstances.
Iggy, on the other hand, justified his position by arguing that Harper didn't support his EI and stimulus program, and then that when Harper did, that Harper wasn't doing it quite fast enough. He basically argued that he could do it better. In other words, Iggy's reason for trying to call the election was the entire reason any nongovernment political party exists on a day-to-day basis.
Now, don't get me wrong. I fully support Iggy's right to pull the plug on the government. That's the great thing about holding that controlling bloc of votes. I just don't think that it'd be appropriate to call an election in these circumstances.
Now, some people have said that Iggy overplayed his hand. No arguments here. Long-time readers of my blog know that I'm a big fan of Clausewitz, Thomas C. Schelling and the like. Iggy's inability to follow through on his threat makes him look like a goof. This wasn't even staring down the other guy and blinking first. This was blinking as you're walking up to the guy you want to stand down.
It's not just that he had to backtrack. It's that he lost all his momentum. A few months after taking over the Grits' reins, Iggy bust into town like a really angry John Dehner, letting everyone know that he was the new boss in town and that Harper's government only lived or died as long as he said so. And when he proved unable or unwilling to back up on his threat, arguably more important than his credibility, Iggy accidentally revealed that he is NOT, in fact, in control of the entire life of the House. Initiative reverts back to Harper. Whoops.
The thing about doing this is that it's a costly mistake. This was bad. This was like launching a frontal assault, failing, and then deciding to pull back and try again later, exactly the same way. Playing Zapp Branigan with your credibility in a political situation isn't exactly the best way to win a standoff.
Now, to be fair, Iggy was facing a problem. He couldn't keep supporting Harper until he was (not) ready, just like his predecessor did. You get stuff like this. But we know now that an election wasn't in the cards.
If you ask me, Iggy didn't think his actions through too thoroughly. I have this sneaking suspicion that the thought process consisted of nothing more than Step 1: Threaten election. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit!".
What he should have done was take a page out of Harper's book. He should have put his cards on the table ("this government must fall, we will never support it"), and left it up to the NDP or Bloc to support the Tories to prevent an election. Not that I particularly want Iggy to win, but this seems like a really amateurish error for so smart a man.
Also, to my fellow right-wingers: did you notice that little tingle in your belly when Iggy started threatening an election? When he acted like he meant it? Yeah. THAT's what Liberals felt in '05. That's the feeling of having your entire basis for governing be "not that guy".
I've wanted to make a couple of comments about the Ignatieff election standoff thing, and I don't think that the fact it's completely old, nor the fact that everyone's said everything on it, should keep me from doing so ;)
So, the first thing is that I'm not in favour of an election six or seven months after the last one unless there's an extreme reason do so so. I don't think Iggy had a good reason. Harper was pushing his luck in the summer of '05, a year or so after the previous one, and many Liberals at the time said that was too soon. Paul Martin certainly argued that between 2003 and 2006, he didn't have enough of a fair shake to accomplish his goals.
But more important than that, selling the election to the electorate would be downright impossible. I would distinguish Harper's reasons in '05 from Iggy's reasons now. Harper's argument had a moral aspect to it - the government is [allegedly] corrupt, it lost a motion in the House regarding the moral (if not actual) confidence, the government therefore needed to call an election to reaffirm its mandate in such circumstances.
Iggy, on the other hand, justified his position by arguing that Harper didn't support his EI and stimulus program, and then that when Harper did, that Harper wasn't doing it quite fast enough. He basically argued that he could do it better. In other words, Iggy's reason for trying to call the election was the entire reason any nongovernment political party exists on a day-to-day basis.
Now, don't get me wrong. I fully support Iggy's right to pull the plug on the government. That's the great thing about holding that controlling bloc of votes. I just don't think that it'd be appropriate to call an election in these circumstances.
Now, some people have said that Iggy overplayed his hand. No arguments here. Long-time readers of my blog know that I'm a big fan of Clausewitz, Thomas C. Schelling and the like. Iggy's inability to follow through on his threat makes him look like a goof. This wasn't even staring down the other guy and blinking first. This was blinking as you're walking up to the guy you want to stand down.
It's not just that he had to backtrack. It's that he lost all his momentum. A few months after taking over the Grits' reins, Iggy bust into town like a really angry John Dehner, letting everyone know that he was the new boss in town and that Harper's government only lived or died as long as he said so. And when he proved unable or unwilling to back up on his threat, arguably more important than his credibility, Iggy accidentally revealed that he is NOT, in fact, in control of the entire life of the House. Initiative reverts back to Harper. Whoops.
The thing about doing this is that it's a costly mistake. This was bad. This was like launching a frontal assault, failing, and then deciding to pull back and try again later, exactly the same way. Playing Zapp Branigan with your credibility in a political situation isn't exactly the best way to win a standoff.
Now, to be fair, Iggy was facing a problem. He couldn't keep supporting Harper until he was (not) ready, just like his predecessor did. You get stuff like this. But we know now that an election wasn't in the cards.
If you ask me, Iggy didn't think his actions through too thoroughly. I have this sneaking suspicion that the thought process consisted of nothing more than Step 1: Threaten election. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit!".
What he should have done was take a page out of Harper's book. He should have put his cards on the table ("this government must fall, we will never support it"), and left it up to the NDP or Bloc to support the Tories to prevent an election. Not that I particularly want Iggy to win, but this seems like a really amateurish error for so smart a man.
Also, to my fellow right-wingers: did you notice that little tingle in your belly when Iggy started threatening an election? When he acted like he meant it? Yeah. THAT's what Liberals felt in '05. That's the feeling of having your entire basis for governing be "not that guy".
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
A break from my deficit apologism
Now, granted, I've been quite forgiving on the fact the feds have run up quite the deficit. Part of the reason for that is because it's my reaction against the reasons of partisans seeking to blame this as bad on the Tories in se. And it's not. BUT, I should clarify, just because I don't hold them AS accountable for the deficit in the same way that the Grits and NDP might doesn't mean that the Tories suddenly have a license to rack up the nation's credit card. It doesn't.
The bottom line is, Tories' fault or not the Tories' fault, it's the Tories' baby and they need to take care of it. To approach the deficit as okay because it's not one's fault is a little like letting the basement flood in your house because it wasn't you who failed to inspect the pipes. All the innocence in the world doesn't absolve a terrible thing.
Okay, so the government has racked up quite the bill. And with no end in sight, those reassuring articles in MacLeans about how it's the length, not the size, that matters... well, they become a little disheartening.
Canadians generally don't like deficits. They haven't since the '80s or so. If the Tories just try and let it ride, they're trying to redefine what Canadians like. More fatally for them, they're foregoing one of their consistently advantageous credentials (the economy). No matter how nefarious or 'mean' the Tories were alleged to be, no matter how many leather vests Harper wore, voters consistently put their trust in the Tories on the economy. Now, due to the economy and the deficit, the Tories are really putting that advantage in jeopardy.
Here're a couple of suggestions:
1) Call Iggy on his bluff. Call an election. The way it looks now, Iggy has freedom of action. He can claim the government only stays in power by virtue of his good graces, and he can claim the government spends too much and not enough as it suits his purpose.
Make the election about the deficit and the economy. Take a position, for or against, define the election thus, and force Iggy to fight on those grounds. At the very least, it'll define the mandate of the government. If the Tories decide deficits are necessary in these economic circumstances (or always or whatever their new policy happens to be), it's a very easy task to campaign against the Liberals and NDP on that basis. "We're trying to help you out in a recession, which means we have to borrow money. Iggy wants to cut off the tap and make it worse!" or something like that.
2) Either way, the Tories should release a plan on how to cut the deficit. The way it looks now, the Tories really are channeling their Progressive Conservative and Trudeau-Liberal roots in a terrible way, as though assuming someone else several elections later will come up with a solution, is not terribly reassuring in any great measure.
I think the Tories should come up with a plan - cut spending this much, assume these kinds of growth numbers, whatever, - and explain it to the country in very small words during very valuable primetime hours, address-to-the-nation style. It'd be somewhere on the level of Trudeau's wage and price freeze address, and certainly more important than recent addresses to the nation.
It'd give the government a clear position, reassert the government's authority over the economy, and (if done properly) would kneecap the Opposition's ability to criticize in any real way. (Can you imagine an Iggy-style webcam-to-the-nation disputing the nuances of trying to urge a 5% spending efficiency in arts subsidies?)
The bottom line is, Tories' fault or not the Tories' fault, it's the Tories' baby and they need to take care of it. To approach the deficit as okay because it's not one's fault is a little like letting the basement flood in your house because it wasn't you who failed to inspect the pipes. All the innocence in the world doesn't absolve a terrible thing.
Okay, so the government has racked up quite the bill. And with no end in sight, those reassuring articles in MacLeans about how it's the length, not the size, that matters... well, they become a little disheartening.
Canadians generally don't like deficits. They haven't since the '80s or so. If the Tories just try and let it ride, they're trying to redefine what Canadians like. More fatally for them, they're foregoing one of their consistently advantageous credentials (the economy). No matter how nefarious or 'mean' the Tories were alleged to be, no matter how many leather vests Harper wore, voters consistently put their trust in the Tories on the economy. Now, due to the economy and the deficit, the Tories are really putting that advantage in jeopardy.
Here're a couple of suggestions:
1) Call Iggy on his bluff. Call an election. The way it looks now, Iggy has freedom of action. He can claim the government only stays in power by virtue of his good graces, and he can claim the government spends too much and not enough as it suits his purpose.
Make the election about the deficit and the economy. Take a position, for or against, define the election thus, and force Iggy to fight on those grounds. At the very least, it'll define the mandate of the government. If the Tories decide deficits are necessary in these economic circumstances (or always or whatever their new policy happens to be), it's a very easy task to campaign against the Liberals and NDP on that basis. "We're trying to help you out in a recession, which means we have to borrow money. Iggy wants to cut off the tap and make it worse!" or something like that.
2) Either way, the Tories should release a plan on how to cut the deficit. The way it looks now, the Tories really are channeling their Progressive Conservative and Trudeau-Liberal roots in a terrible way, as though assuming someone else several elections later will come up with a solution, is not terribly reassuring in any great measure.
I think the Tories should come up with a plan - cut spending this much, assume these kinds of growth numbers, whatever, - and explain it to the country in very small words during very valuable primetime hours, address-to-the-nation style. It'd be somewhere on the level of Trudeau's wage and price freeze address, and certainly more important than recent addresses to the nation.
It'd give the government a clear position, reassert the government's authority over the economy, and (if done properly) would kneecap the Opposition's ability to criticize in any real way. (Can you imagine an Iggy-style webcam-to-the-nation disputing the nuances of trying to urge a 5% spending efficiency in arts subsidies?)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Miscellaneous Linkfest
1) Der Spiegel knows the Taliban:
2) Time Magazine has an interesting article about how India's communists are losing ground in the face of an economy which is benefiting from a move to the right on the part of the governing party.
3) Does anyone else think it'd be funny as heck to see these people praising Sonia Sotomayor as a courageous and intelligent pick for the SCOTUS suddenly do an about-face when they find out she's likely not even liberal on what are likely to be two of the most important issues to the pro-Sotomayor side.
If We Now Kill Schoolgirls, You Shouldn't Be Surprised
2) Time Magazine has an interesting article about how India's communists are losing ground in the face of an economy which is benefiting from a move to the right on the part of the governing party.
3) Does anyone else think it'd be funny as heck to see these people praising Sonia Sotomayor as a courageous and intelligent pick for the SCOTUS suddenly do an about-face when they find out she's likely not even liberal on what are likely to be two of the most important issues to the pro-Sotomayor side.
On The Deficit
Okay, look:
Deficits are evil, ugly things. I don't want my taxes in years hence to be paying off subsidies for Little Mosque on the Prairie or whatever. BUT, I can only get minimally angry at Flaherty running an enlarged deficit. Jim Travers repeats Liberal talking points with things like, oh, say, blaming the GST cut for the deficit and throwing around words like "incompetent". For what it's worth, I think Walkom has it right generally by pointing out the Opposition wants to have it both ways - the Tories are spending too much and not spending enough.
Allow me to add a few things to the Walkom side of the argument.
First, we'll presume that the Liberals and NDP have no probelm with increased spending, as that's their current alternative platform to Tory governance. Now, the Tories have increased at unsustainable rates, this is true, but this is generally a Tory critique. If the Liberals and NDP have a problem with this, we might ask from where they wish to cut. Increased transfer payments, perhaps? Let the provinces sort it out?
Second, people don't seem to understand that this is fundamentally a revenue problem. And I don't mean 'revenue' as in the 'neocons cut taxes' theory that people've used (inaccurately) to tar Bush, Flaherty, and others. I'm talking about general revenues. It's so basic, and acknowledging it deflates the Opposition's main arguments: when economic activity declines, governmental revenues which depend on economic activity ALSO decline. Car sales are at generational lows, so all that GST people would have paid on cars is also low.
This is a global thing. The IRS is reporting revenues 34% lower than those obtained last year. (Incidentally, given that Bush's tax cuts raised revenues and that Bush holds the record for most revenue ever generated by an American administration, logically these same people holding Flaherty accountable for the deficit would also hold Obama and Geithener responsible for this crash of revenues. But they won't.)
Besides, the provinces are also all in deficit. BC has one, for instance, Nova Scotia is admitting it's a fact of life. I already addressed this criticism regarding Jean Charest over here.
Third, I want to point out that while, yes, if you believe in a rather static economy, cutting taxes is definitely a factor in the deficit, but it's irresponsible and silly to put too much weight on it. After all, as I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the Tories were running the largest surpluses in history after these tax cuts, in 2007. Before the crash.
Anyway.
Deficits are evil, ugly things. I don't want my taxes in years hence to be paying off subsidies for Little Mosque on the Prairie or whatever. BUT, I can only get minimally angry at Flaherty running an enlarged deficit. Jim Travers repeats Liberal talking points with things like, oh, say, blaming the GST cut for the deficit and throwing around words like "incompetent". For what it's worth, I think Walkom has it right generally by pointing out the Opposition wants to have it both ways - the Tories are spending too much and not spending enough.
Allow me to add a few things to the Walkom side of the argument.
First, we'll presume that the Liberals and NDP have no probelm with increased spending, as that's their current alternative platform to Tory governance. Now, the Tories have increased at unsustainable rates, this is true, but this is generally a Tory critique. If the Liberals and NDP have a problem with this, we might ask from where they wish to cut. Increased transfer payments, perhaps? Let the provinces sort it out?
Second, people don't seem to understand that this is fundamentally a revenue problem. And I don't mean 'revenue' as in the 'neocons cut taxes' theory that people've used (inaccurately) to tar Bush, Flaherty, and others. I'm talking about general revenues. It's so basic, and acknowledging it deflates the Opposition's main arguments: when economic activity declines, governmental revenues which depend on economic activity ALSO decline. Car sales are at generational lows, so all that GST people would have paid on cars is also low.
This is a global thing. The IRS is reporting revenues 34% lower than those obtained last year. (Incidentally, given that Bush's tax cuts raised revenues and that Bush holds the record for most revenue ever generated by an American administration, logically these same people holding Flaherty accountable for the deficit would also hold Obama and Geithener responsible for this crash of revenues. But they won't.)
Besides, the provinces are also all in deficit. BC has one, for instance, Nova Scotia is admitting it's a fact of life. I already addressed this criticism regarding Jean Charest over here.
Third, I want to point out that while, yes, if you believe in a rather static economy, cutting taxes is definitely a factor in the deficit, but it's irresponsible and silly to put too much weight on it. After all, as I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the Tories were running the largest surpluses in history after these tax cuts, in 2007. Before the crash.
Anyway.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Just in from the department of inevitable consequences to bad ideas...
Years ago, the BC Liberals voted themselves pay and pension increases. The BC NDP protested, screamed bloody murder, and then took said increases. There were two basic explanations for it: one, they were working people who deserved a pension for an honest day's work just like everyone else. When that didn't work, they fell back on the "we're taking it, but we're giving our increases to charity". And now, a couple of weeks after losing that election, the NDP has decided to dispense with the whole idea of being charitable.
Haha. Ha.
Just for the record, I'm faulting the NDP for the hypocrisy of their position... not only in the flipflopping as soon as it's politically appropriate (e.g. they take the pay increase as soon as the election is over), but also because I'm shocked - shocked! - that a category of people who by deliberate affiliation claim to have a social conscience while condemning the rich would not, once they become rich according to their own definition, extend the same charity to those less fortunate that they would have from others.
That's not to say that I'm opposed to the pay increases. In fact, I was in favour of it. A 29% increase is a rhetorical figure. It's not like the 34% pay increase the NDP's education critic demanded for teachers (in a recession!). 29% actually represents a 2.9% increase every year over ten years. And once you take out the annual rate of inflation between 1997 and 2007 (2.15%), that's a pay increase of a whopping 0.75% a year. And the best part about THAT is, when you factor in how rapidly higher incomes have risen in the last ten years, that increase is far less than the average increase for those who were in 1997 making $76,000 a year doing anything else.
Anyway.
Haha. Ha.
Just for the record, I'm faulting the NDP for the hypocrisy of their position... not only in the flipflopping as soon as it's politically appropriate (e.g. they take the pay increase as soon as the election is over), but also because I'm shocked - shocked! - that a category of people who by deliberate affiliation claim to have a social conscience while condemning the rich would not, once they become rich according to their own definition, extend the same charity to those less fortunate that they would have from others.
That's not to say that I'm opposed to the pay increases. In fact, I was in favour of it. A 29% increase is a rhetorical figure. It's not like the 34% pay increase the NDP's education critic demanded for teachers (in a recession!). 29% actually represents a 2.9% increase every year over ten years. And once you take out the annual rate of inflation between 1997 and 2007 (2.15%), that's a pay increase of a whopping 0.75% a year. And the best part about THAT is, when you factor in how rapidly higher incomes have risen in the last ten years, that increase is far less than the average increase for those who were in 1997 making $76,000 a year doing anything else.
Anyway.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Nailed it
Wells, at ~11:00 here:
...Everyone slags everyone, but it's not true that it always works. In 2006, we had a campaign where there was a minority incumbent Prime Minister who had nothing to say to the Canadian people except, 'That other guy is scary and you'd better not elect him'. And you had an Opposition leader who said, 'We all have important work we've gotta get on with, and don't let that shouting distract us from this project that I have,' and what I find interesting is that if you look at Stephen Harper in 2006 and Stephen Harper in 2009, he has changed sides in that debate, and now he's the guy screaming about what trouble the other guy's going to be instead of telling Canadians what he wants to be about."
Scandals: this is how we do it, baby
If you're not following the British press over this MP expense scandal, you really should. It's great stuff.
The Telegraph has a list of the best quotes, best excuses, full lists, etc.
If you pay attention, you'll notice that there are lots of aristocratic MPs claiming for things like maintenance expenses of their home, which includes e.g. the maintenance of a vast country manor. Not exactly a principal residence, not what was intended, but you'll still get MPs defending themselves on the excuse that, basically, they're entitled to their entitlements. David Cameron's doing a remarkable job given that his MPs are some of those under fire - he's threatening to kick MPs out of caucus if they refuse to pay back what they took from taxpayers, regardless of whether they're actually entitled to it.
The War Rooms in Canada should be paying close attention.
The Telegraph has a list of the best quotes, best excuses, full lists, etc.
If you pay attention, you'll notice that there are lots of aristocratic MPs claiming for things like maintenance expenses of their home, which includes e.g. the maintenance of a vast country manor. Not exactly a principal residence, not what was intended, but you'll still get MPs defending themselves on the excuse that, basically, they're entitled to their entitlements. David Cameron's doing a remarkable job given that his MPs are some of those under fire - he's threatening to kick MPs out of caucus if they refuse to pay back what they took from taxpayers, regardless of whether they're actually entitled to it.
The War Rooms in Canada should be paying close attention.
Miscellany
1) Biden's latest dumb statement was revealing where the VP's secret bunker is found. And then a lot of other key Democrats are joining him in saying equally dumb things.
2) Remember Mohammed El Baradei? He's back, pointing fingers.
3) French oil firm Total is convinced Alberta is the future of the world.
4) Air quality improved under Bush.
2) Remember Mohammed El Baradei? He's back, pointing fingers.
3) French oil firm Total is convinced Alberta is the future of the world.
4) Air quality improved under Bush.
Stagnant, make waves
Am I the only one who's getting disappointed with the Tories?
They seem, right now, to be stagnant, with almost none of the nimble energy they had in 2006. Their main priority seems to be attacking Michael Ignatieff, but it falls flat. Ooh, he was out of the country. Okay, I guess that's kind of bad, maybe, if you discount the fact he was, you know, teaching at Harvard. To be fair, the Tories are just framing it as Selfish Iggy, just as they successfully did with Dion being Not A Leader, but it's a bit of a stretch.
The problem I have with this is that it's being done almost to the exclusion of anything else. Certainly, I tend to agree that Harper's appropriately restraining himself from buying into whatever the Opposition wants, but on the business of governing, I see very little to admire. Others have noticed this, too.
Look, I'm a generally libertarian-leaning individual, but even I have to have a better reason to vote Conservative than the fact an Opposition leader was an academic outside of Canada for a long time. That the opposition is weak does not mean a thing in favour of the Tories.
They seem, right now, to be stagnant, with almost none of the nimble energy they had in 2006. Their main priority seems to be attacking Michael Ignatieff, but it falls flat. Ooh, he was out of the country. Okay, I guess that's kind of bad, maybe, if you discount the fact he was, you know, teaching at Harvard. To be fair, the Tories are just framing it as Selfish Iggy, just as they successfully did with Dion being Not A Leader, but it's a bit of a stretch.
The problem I have with this is that it's being done almost to the exclusion of anything else. Certainly, I tend to agree that Harper's appropriately restraining himself from buying into whatever the Opposition wants, but on the business of governing, I see very little to admire. Others have noticed this, too.
Look, I'm a generally libertarian-leaning individual, but even I have to have a better reason to vote Conservative than the fact an Opposition leader was an academic outside of Canada for a long time. That the opposition is weak does not mean a thing in favour of the Tories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
