Repose

I kicked the tar out of that last exam in mil-history. In retrospect, it might've been a better use of my time to sit on my ass in a beanbag chair eating cheetos rather than studying.

Holy dear frick, I'm done third year already...

Pretty damn soon I'm going to have to become an adult and (oh crap) go and get a job. And then it'll be fourth year, and then I'll have to go and find, you know, a real job.

Time to pack up and get my ass out of this place. Apparently, if I'm not out by noon tomorrow, they're going to send in union thugs and make me. I'm not making this up. I'm not allowed to make this up.

UPDATE: And heeeere come the pretzels!

Except by "pretzels" I really mean "high explosives".

Green roofs

CNN has an article on the environmental green roof - or, as a cynic in one of my classes pointed out, "the thing you put on top of the buildings to remind you what you build the buildings on."

It's a pretty neat idea. Apparently, China supplies 10% of its vegetable needs from rooftop gardens.

Two questions bother me: first, what happens in the winter? They look beautiful now, but so does everything. It's spring, after all.

Second, is it a needless waste of money?

Hoping to solidify the "spring break" economy

Everything's legal in Mexico! It's the American way!

Inside the mind of IAEA

Iran has enriched uranium, but never fear! The UN and IAEA have incontrivertible proof that this is only part and parcel of an extremely efficient reactor and not to produce a bomb. How can they tell?


Live and let live, man!

See? Peace sign! Only hippies and pacifists use the peace sign, right?

The fuss over McGill

More censorship for what is in some circles a compliment.

I won't link to it (Google it yourself if you really want to see), but McGill's not the only Canadian shool whose participants were being photographed thus. Brock U and the British Columbia Institute for Technology (and others) had students who were featured. And I'm pretty sure none of them compared themselves to Kim Campbell. Maybe that's why none of the other Canadian schools raised the holy hell.

Maybe the nose-pinching baby has something intelligent to contribute

The Opposition fires back:

Ottawa – Opposition Leader Bill Graham today slammed the Conservative government for caving in to the U.S. government in agreeing to a softwood lumber deal that would see the Americans keep $1 billion of the tariffs illegally collected at the expense of Canadian industry, half of which will go to a U.S.-based lumber coalition.

“It’s a great day for American industry and American trade policy,” said Mr. Graham. “Unfortunately, it’s a disaster for Canada, for free trade, and for the Canadian lumber industry.

“This deal will mean a half a billion dollars going directly into the hands of a U.S.-based lumber coalition, who accuse Canada of destroying the U.S. lumber industry,” said Mr. Graham. “They will use Canadian money to continue their fight to impose unfair restrictions on Canada's lumber industry.”

Mr. Graham also denounced the fact that while these representatives of U.S. industry were apparently involved in the negotiations as early as Tuesday, Canadian industry, stakeholders and provinces were left out.

He said we will not know the full extent of the damage caused until we see the fine print of the deal.

“As in all agreements, the devil is in the details. And with clauses such as making the deal dependent on ‘current market conditions,’ we strongly suspect there are more devils in the details of this deal than the Prime Minister is letting on,” said Mr. Graham. “We expect to see draconian measures in this agreement that will punish our industry the moment those conditions change.”

Mr. Graham also pointed out that in the Conservative election platform, on page 19, it states, “A conservative government will demand that the Unites States government play by the rules on softwood lumber. The U.S. must abide by the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber, repeal the Byrd amendment and return the more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers.”

“By selling out Canadian industry with this deal, Prime Minister Harper is wasting years of work the Liberal government put into making sure Canada got the best deal and our lumber industry was protected,” said Mr. Graham. “If President Bush was ready to negotiate with Prime Minister Harper, it was because of the countless wins the previous government, in conjunction with workers and the Canadian industry, won.”

Mr. Graham said there can be only one reason why the Prime Minister would agree to this – Mr. Harper is more concerned with scoring political points by saying that he solved the softwood lumber dispute than he is in getting the best possible deal for Canada. This framework does not represent a solution for Canada – it represents our surrender to the U.S.

The good points in this thing are overshadowed by the Liberals' righteous indignation. It's really interesting.

To start, Graham calls a compromise in which we ostensibly get 80% of what we were seeking as a "victory" for the US which, I suppose, it could be. (To paraphrase Arthur Dent: this must be some strange definition of the word "victory" of which I was not previously aware.) (Fair notice: I think that Canada got off lightly, and that the $1 billion we have to forfeit is a small price to pay for a solution to this bloody mess. Cost of doing business, that kind of thing. Why am I so confident? Harper's not stupid. At the very worst, he knows he could have neglected softwood and gotten off as lightly as the Liberals had previously. So why would he present a halfassed deal when it might make more sense to present no deal at all?)

I think the funny bit comes from the penultimate paragraph. All these years of Liberal work wasted (!) because, well, Harper went ahead and got a solution! Like Ernest Lawrence at Oak Ridge, they kept promising bigger and bigger solutions. All supposed to work in theory (we swear it does, just have faith and believe), all requiring far more time and effort, when there are perfectly acceptable if less glamourous alternatives. Just have faith and believe that there's a more sexy and elegant way. Believe.

La pièce de resistance is where the Libs claim that the Conservative deal was simply because of Liberal work. Reminds me of when I met Bob Rae and he claimed the entire reason for the success of the Common Sense Revolution was in the groundwork he had laid as premier from 1990-1995. Heh.

Enter F. Scott Fitzgerald, who coined this little axiom:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

The Liberals, one assumes, must all be geniuses. Take a look at that penultimate paragraph again:

"By selling out Canadian industry with this deal, Prime Minister Harper is wasting years of work the Liberal government put into making sure Canada got the best deal and our lumber industry was protected," said Mr. Graham. “If President Bush was ready to negotiate with Prime Minister Harper, it was because of the countless wins the previous government, in conjunction with workers and the Canadian industry, won."

How can he accuse Harper of concurrently throwing out "years of [Liberal] work" by using the fruits of these "years of work" to cut a deal?

Talking out of both sides of his mouth, he is.

It's okay. Were I a Liberal, I'd be pissed off too about being whipped, tarred and feathered on this one. I betcha there are more than a few insiders going, "Shit, I guess campaigning on anti-Americanism might have consequences."

Or, if you're really conspiratorial, you'll argue that Bush had cut Harper a deal all along, and Harper, in true Karl Rovian fashion, released this prefabricated deal to the public to distract us all from the flag debate. (This, of course, is part of Harper's plan to control the media and send soldiers to go and die in a meat grinder for American oil. Or something.)

Heh. I guess Harper's so smart, he fulfills both the role of neocon puppet and evil neocon mastermind.

I love this Prime Minister.

Looks like I spoke too soon

Most of what I said before still holds, but I think I was overly pessimistic. Check it out:

As part of the deal, Harper said the U.S. has agreed to give Canada "unrestricted access" under the current market conditions.

"This means no quota, no tariffs," said Harper to the applause of his MPs.

Harper said the U.S. has also agreed to return at least $4 billion US in duties it has collected since 2002 to Canadian producers.

They responded, he said, with "a seven-year deal with a possibility of renewal."

Harper said the U.S. has also agreed to:

* A return to an exemption in duties for Atlantic lumber producers.
* An exemption for Canadian mills on the border between Quebec and the U.S.
* "Third country provisions" aimed at easing Canadian concerns about other countries gaining U.S. market share at Canada's expense.

The only caveat I see is the "seven year" bit. But wanna know what the best part is? It really is a good deal. You can tell because of the Opposition's response:

Liberal Opposition Leader Bill Graham, striking an angry tone, said the deal Harper struck with the U.S. is good only as long as present-day economic conditions last.

That's it?

It's interesting to see the Liberals criticizing the deal on the basis of hypotheticals. Especially the whole "lobbies control the US" stereotype.

To hell with the Grits and the NDP. Looks like the Tories are the ones who can "get results for Canadians."

Have I mentioned recently how much I love this government?

It'll be interesting to see what Libs and Dippers have to say. My guess is either a parrotting of Bill Graham or some vague platitude about how either a) this was already built on a Liberal deal and/or b) Harper sold out to Chimpy McHitlerburton's neocon cabal.

UPDATE: So... the obvious thing to ask readers is, Prove me wrong. The Liberals are unable to convince me with some vague discussion of possible maybehaps eventualities, and their "headline" bit of propaganda from their website is nothing more than approving what the Conservatives have presented.

The NDP also has nothing.

So, I'd like to know what the catches are.

Start with this one: it almost seems too good to be true. Canadian products are supposedly to receive preferential treatment to the detriment of other producers? Is this an incarnation of Badnarik's jab at NAFTA being to free trade what the Patriot Act is to civil liberties?

More importantly, what did we give up to get it? I can't find anything from the US Commerce Department.

UPDATE 2: The Bloc responds. Basically, they're saying that the Tories' deal is NOT the result of negotiations, that the Tories did nothing but cave into the US, and - check this shit out - their substantive grievances are:

« Conservateur où libéral, le gouvernement canadien aurait dû annoncer des garanties de prêts à la hauteur de ce qui a été confisqué par les États-Unis depuis longtemps. C’était un élément important de la plateforme conservatrice, mais Stephen Harper a renoncé à offrir de telles garanties à l’industrie, se privant du même coup d’un levier qui lui aurait permis de conclure une entente véritablement à l’avantage du Canada », a souligné Paul Crête

Le porte-parole du Bloc Québécois a par ailleurs dénoncé le délai nettement insuffisant que le gouvernement Harper a imposé à l’industrie. « Ces pressions inacceptables d’un gouvernement qui est supposé défendre les intérêts de son industrie ont contraint les entreprises québécoises et canadiennes du bois d’œuvre à faire de difficiles compromis.

Okay, quick translation of the bolded bits: first, that the Canadian government should have announced guaranteed repayments of the tariffs collected by the US, and second, that the BQ spokesman "denounced the clearly unnecessary delay that the government imposed on industry."

Heh. So the first is actually moot, because it was promised that the fees would be returned in the agreement. The second - they should've done it sooner. Heh. What, three months in power and they get a deal when Mssrs. Chretien and Martin (Martin alone was PM for more than 2 years) were clearly incapable of doing so.

I love it. The Bloc is attacking a rapid response by arguing it wasn't quick enough and trying to transmogrify the Liberal government's failures to the successes of the Conservatives'.

Heh.

Face it, guys. The Tories ran circles around you on this one.

Toothless watchdog ignored

You mean Iran ignores UN rulings? Shocker! Somehow I don't see lefties getting as upset over this as they did when, for example, the US objected to the UN's racism and therefore ignored it. You don't think there's a double standard, do you? Naw...

On the slightly-less-than-horrifying aspect of nuclear power, see what the Finns are doing with spent fuel.

New plans in the works

Hmm... Interesting. (Works just fine in BC, by the way.)

More interesting... although I wonder if this isn't a clever little strategy on the government's part. "We'll place nice, but first you have to obey." Or, if you're less cynical, "The Tories help those who help themselves."

A compromise is where neither side leaves satisfied

I'm with the Tiger, 100%.

This (I'll believe it when I see it, I should add) is hardly an ideal solution. But, all things considered, I'm pretty sure it's the best we can expect at this time.

Oh well. At the very least, the Tories could stick it in their cap and say, "We solved what the Liberals couldn't."

Heh. Yeah right. As if the Liberals wouldn't break out into a righteous fury about Conservatives selling out to the Bush Administration** and how if only they had been in power, this thing would've been resolved long ago, 100% in favour of Canada. (The Galbraith quote seems ever so appropriate.)

At the very least, I suspect most Canadians would immediately start to ignore it. I bet softwood's become one of those issues the public prefers to ignore because of saturation. We've heard enough about it, there's no position to change, so move on. Like Aboriginal issues. Anyone can be a big man on the hustings, but it takes real competence to sort out what is essentially an unspectacular (read: non-sexy) political problem. That is to say, everyone wants something to be done about it, but it's not the kind of thing that wins elections.

Speaking of Aboriginal issues... Did I not call it? Jim's fantastic.

**UPDATE: Did I call it or what?

F'n right

Got my first exam results. Turns out the halfassed essays I banged off in my exam for Luddism: Why Technology Be Bad US Tech history was enough for an A in the course. From a prof who's supposed to be a hardass. All hail the graituitious citation of authors' names as another academic shortcut.

Another A always helps the GPA. Problem is, with the way the courses are structured, the only grades that really matter are the ones over which I'm shitting bricks.

Wisdom of the Crowds

I need your help.

My brother got into the Yamaha National All Star Band this year for the nationals in Ottawa. Because MusicFest Canada is getting "bigger," they're paying for family members of the participants to stay in Ottawa if they desire.

This would be in about the third week in May.

My problem is, needing money, I need to work this summer. But, the 'rents are paying for the trip, which would last about a week.

So, I have a pretty good feeling about getting a job almost as soon as I get home. Say I get hired in the first week in May, and perhaps it takes up to a week to be integrated into the schedule.

Is it then passé to immediately take 7 days off on a paid vacation? I'm thinking it is, but I'd love a trip to Ottawa.

Sweet

For what it's worth, the Onion has two articles that are worth a look - one is an interview with Matt Groening, and the other is a list of everyday Simpsons quotes.

A Pleasant Surprise

So this is what they meant by actual results in an environment program. We'll see how it works out, but so far I'm impressed.

Incidentally, I should add that I think this "Made in Canada" rhetoric is a big mistake. Not only does it get into the same mindless jingoism that the Liberals did (what? Don't the Liberals respect Canada's abilities?), but I think it needlessly opens the Conservatives to criticism - like you see in the headline. Does it matter if it is a US-led plan? Well, to me, not really, no. But as long as we've chosen to make it an issue...

Anyhoo, despite CTV's scoffing, I think this is a good direction:

The pact, called the Asia-Pacific Partnership, is a loose agreement involving the U.S., Australia, India, Japan, China and South Korea. It looks at ways to develop technologies to reduce emissions, rather than setting specific reduction targets.

It is not legally binding, and does not set caps on carbon emissions. But Ambrose said its key principles "are very much in line with where our government wants to go.''

Jesus H. Christ, SOS, you mean they want to focus on how they can achieve the goals to begin with instead of just mindlessly setting targets?! How dare they figure out how to accomplish something?!

Some of the U.S. environmental initiatives the Conservative will adopt include:

* cutting tailgate pollution from diesel trucks with new requirements for low-sulfur fuels and cleaner engines
* cutting pollution from coal-fired electrical plants by 70 per cent

"So that black puff of smoke that you see coming out of trucks and farm equipment will be a thing of the past. (It's) a big deal," Connaughton said at Tuesday's briefing.

"Those are cuts in acid-rain causing sulfur dioxide which also produces refined particles that gives people with respiratory illnesses so much distress."

Ambrose says the Conservative environmental plan will also stress renewable energy.

Quelle horreur!

These are three steps are the first priorities I would've made. Aside from a plank from the NDP's environmental platform - tax credits for retrofitting buildings and making them more energy efficient - I can't think of much else I'd like to see taken as an immediate step of "broad" priorities.

But check out what the critics say:

The new ultra fuel sulfur gasoline, by our estimates, will cost an additional two or three cents a litre more than fuel presently costs.

Mmmm... okay, assume for a sec that we don't factor in the savings of the GST cut.

A whole two cents a litre extra? That's what, 1.9%? It's gonna ruin us!

John Bennett, senior policy adviser on energy to the Sierra Club of Canada, faulted the Tory plan to join a partnership which relies entirely on voluntary action and fails to set hard targets on reducing emissions.

Ah. I see. Unlike the Kyoto accord which .... relies on ... voluntary action and can set all the unattainable targets it wishes.

Nice.

The Timebomb

Two articles from Reuters on the demographic timebomb in Europe.

Germany, and France.

Worth a look.

Putting the "Party" in "Communist Party"

Why couldn't the CPC give us propaganda as cool as this for the campus clubs? The best they gave us was the guy with the mullet.

Sharing the love

Doesn't this just make you feel secure?

SURELY, SURELY the left still gives a hoot about the NPT?

Thought on question period

The Liberals are giving off a certain air of necrophilic fascination over whether or not the flag should be lowered for Afstan casualties.

Harper just pointed out that they're merely continuing Bill Graham's position.

This entire debate seems ... opportunistic and sick.

***

Also interesting, one Bloc member is attacking the Conservatives' Made in Canada environment plan as "centralizing".

Bizarre, huh? Especially considering the usual support for Kyoto.

***

Is Diane Finley a coke addict? Maybe she's just hung over? What's with the sunglasses in the house?

Heh

Right in the middle of a BBC forum on Chernobyl, there's an interruption in the standard "We must end the dependence "mankind the virus" has on energy" meme. And it goes like this:

20 years and still no super-heroes!

Why not?

Gary Bennett, London

Memo to the CBC

See this?

Bush orders probe into gas price-rigging for gas, offers no evidence.

Where does that last bit come from? "Cites no evidence" of what?

Either the CBC is just getting lazy in its ideology, or maybe they misunderstood what was meant by "price-fixing." Either way, they might want to consider justifying whatever potshots they take with a bit of content in the article. This is just weak.

Anyhoo, does this sound like a ruthlessly capitalist leader?

He said in the speech that oil companies are posting record cash flow and do not need some of the tax breaks they get. He said he looks forward to seeing the U.S. Congress cut $2 billion US in tax breaks over 10 years for such things as deep ocean drilling research.

Reminds me of that "You Might Be A Democrat If..." list.

See number four.

It's a paradox, it is

Thus spake the "activists":

“Israeli Zionists You shall pay! The Wrath of Allah is on its way! The mushroom cloud is on its way! The real Holocaust is on its way!”

So the question comes to me.

The standard line of argument by the likes of this side is that Israel's behaviour (to say nothing of its existence) is not legitimate because, they argue, the Holocaust never happened. By this declaration, we might assume, then, that the Holocaust is what justifies such things.

Let's just assume for a second that they're right and that the Holocaust never happened. Okay, so what now? Well, according to them, this seems to be an invitation to another (IE the "real") Holocaust.

So why in the name of the Green Hills of Earth would they then propose to give Israel a "real" reason to exist?

Something tells me these "Islamic thinkers" aren't.

***

Also in the realm of bizarre anti-semitism is this gem:

Myatt said recently that he had given up hope of a breakthrough by the far Right and believed that Muslims were the best hope for combating Zionism and the West...

“If these nationalists, or some of them, desire to aid us, to help us . . . they can do the right thing, the honourable thing, and convert, revert, to Islam — accepting the superiority of Islam over and above each and every way of the West.”

These neo-Nazis have unsuspected depth. Here I thought they believed in some complex system of racial heirarchies when all along it turns out they just hate joooooos.

It's almost a remarkable revelation of tolerance. Instead of hating groups of people, they only hate one specific group.

Tsk. This article is relevant once more.

Politics and the short memory

Heh

Coming up the rear

Others won't agree, but I think this is the best for the Greens.

It might ultimately prove decisive. The main contender (or, at least, the only one who's announced so far) is David Chernushenko. I've met him. He's bilingual, young, and very charismatic. Think like a far more rational Scott Brison with hair like Stephen Harper. At least it is when he's not being a grub and dresses nicely for televised debates. He might very well lead the Greens to take away enough votes from the disaffected voters from any party to seriously affect the results.

Remember the whole Watch Out for the Green Party thing?

If Chernushenko becomes leader, that statement'll surely more than empty prediction.

An observation

I think I've figured out why the Liberals and their acolytes were essentially all unapologetic unthinking supporters of John Kerry. Sure, maybe it's ideology or something obvious, but what about personality? This current leadership race has revealled something about leadership itself. Consider:

John "I voted for the Iraq War before I voted against it" Kerry.

Now look up here. We have:

Michael "I was for the Iraq War and torture before I was against them" Ignatieff.

Bob "I was for everything the NDP stood for before I was against it" Rae.

Joe "I was against gay marriage before I was for it" Volpe.

Though she's not running, there's Belinda "I was against the one-member-one-vote system of party organization before I was for it" Stronach.

My favourite has to be Scott Brison.

There's Scott "I was against Paul Martin and an ideologically bankrupt party before I was for them" Brison.

Then there's the Scott "I was for private health care before I was against it" Brison.

And there's also Scott "I was for the PC-CA merger before I was against it" Brison.

I guess it's dangerous to have any principles when you want to be a Liberal, but it sure makes things confusing.

Feel free to add your own on any of these or other candidates.

UPDATE: Add the Iraq War and Missile Defence and Gay Marriage and a host of others to the person they're succeeding, PM no-longer-the PM.

Brison

A couple of questions.

First:

"I will be presenting ideas throughout this campaign that can build a more economically competitive, socially progressive and environmentally responsible Canada," Brison told supporters as he made the announcement on Sunday in Wolfville, N.S.

Now, I know that the Liberal party does need new ideas, but so did the PCs when Brison was running to lead them. And he pushed the same gruel. In fact, I'm pretty sure he ran his campaign on how he was the one with the new ideas that would force Paul Martin to owe up to the fact that his party was ideologically bankrupt.

I suppose it's a good thing for this. Or it would be.

The other question I have is Brison's frequent reference to "Liberal" things.

I would not be where I am today without a Liberal Canada shaped by Liberal values," he said, noting that "Liberal social investments helped to give me a good start.

Isn't this some kind of incarnation of Louis XIV's famous, l'état, c'est Moi? Except in this case, it's something like, le parti, c'est l'état; l'état, c'est Moi.

I don't think too highly of this idea, myself. What strikes me as odd is just how often Brison repeats it. In the 'states, "liberal" has a very specific ideological connotation. Here, it alludes to the party - and certainly does in Brison's case.

Still, it is a clever way of framing your bid, even if the manner for doing it is sleazy.

Still kicking

Osama bin Laden ... urged followers to go to Sudan, his former base, to fight a proposed U.N. peacekeeping force.

He also appeared to be trying to drum up support among Arabs by accusing the West of targeting Hamas, a militant group that fights against
Israel and now heads the Palestinian government...

Israeli government spokesman Raanan Gissin said it appeared bin Laden decided to issue the verbal assault to deflect growing Arab animosity toward al-Qaida.

That criticism peaked in December when the leader of the al-Qaida in
Iraq group, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the bombings of Jordan hotels that killed many Arabs.

"This is something the Arab world can agree upon," Gissin said.

Bin Laden "has been criticized for the destruction and carnage he's causing the Muslim nation. He's looking for another justification," Gissin said. "Criticizing Israel sounds more politically correct."

Just in case you had your doubts that our side was doing something right.

It's all about Democracy, people!

Maybe it's strange, but I happen to hold a deep conviction that things like this are evidence of the kinds of coalition-building and compromise on which we base modern democracy. If anything, it's a good thing.

On a related note, this sounds like a good idea.

Forward-Thinking Leaders

It's nice to see that some of the globe's leaders are endorsing economically feasible, environmentally-friendly ideas:

'I strongly believe hydrogen is the fuel of the future. That's what we're talking about. Hydrogen is clean, hydrogen is domestically produced, and hydrogen is the way of the future.'

[He] is proposing to spend additional ... research dollars to help speed that process, but it still would be many years off.

Wait a sec, who said it?

Oh, never mind then!

In related news, the Harper PMO has released no statement on Earth Day. I guess lefties approve, because this means that Harper's not simply mimicking whatever Bush says. After all, the United States is our neighbour, not our nation, and anyone who approves of the way the US does anything means that they obviously hate Canada and all that.

Right?

My favourite's the first one...

Heh

In the spirit of things

Happy Earth Day.

See last year's.

Heh

Iowahawk has intercepted Zarqawi's hate mail:

Then there's the tardmail from my Daily Kos fanboys:

Hey Zarkman!
OMG u r teh ROXOR! Its like u r total Che Guervera and Fidel and Malcom X plus System of a Down!! Good luck against the Zionist neocon occupiers!!!! Ya,, SCREW those mercenaries!!! Everybody here at UCLA Ed school thinks u r total l33t HARDCORE!!!

Fight teh POWER bro!!!

Dr. Peter McLaren
Professor, Graduate School of Education
University of California at Los Angeles

PS - check out this awesome flash movie!!! Its Bush turning into a fukkin nazi monkey!!!! LOL!!!!

Yep. Welcome to my fan base, sunshine.

Freakin' right

Explain to me why I shouldn't like this guy?

I don't really care about hockey, but I love the little Prime-Minister-history-nerd thing he had going on.

Except he neglected to mention that the first games were probably played in frozen fields in France, with a stick known as "hoquet" - hence the name of the sport.

Well, that was a goddamn waste of time

Why in the name of the Green Hills of Earth did I study all that BS for the History of US Science class - you know, the Manhattan Project, the TVA, Admiral Rickover - when they limited the exam to 1920? Especially when 25% of the course is covering the Manhattan Project...

Bastards.

And we should get a free hot chocolate each day

I love BCTF propaganda. I'll just leave you with this:

Meanwhile, the BCTF is urging parents to pull their children from provincewide testing of Grade 4 and Grade 7 students next month.

The Foundation Skills Assessment tests, which have been used since 2000, are supposed to provide an indication of student performance, but have no effect on students' grade.

The union has sent out a pamphlet warning that some students could lose their motivation to learn if they don't do well.

It also raises the concern that the testing pressures teachers to "teach to the test" and ignore important aspects of the curriculum.

The testing is scheduled for next month.

Heh.

Okay, a couple of things. First, standardized tests are fine. If they "teach to the test," then what's the problem if that's really what you have to know? Take, say, the history exam. You can "teach to the test" all you want, but what does that mean? That you have to have a pretty good idea what Hitler did? Quelle horreur! How dare we make them learn things?! News for teachers: students "study to the test," no matter who administers it.

One other thing. I wrote the Fundamental Skills Assessment (FSA) tests. Know what makes students "lose motivation"?

Having one of the ten best math students in the province get his results back telling him he should stick with English, and having me get my results back telling me I was in the top 10% in math.

Edging them out

Is it me, or does Clement sound a little too vauge on this:

Canada's health minister says provinces are just around the corner from meeting wait time guarantees for patients, but Ontario's health minister says it will be years before his government is ready to make those kinds of promises.

"They're a mere hop and skip away from where the provinces and territories are right now, which is benchmarks," federal Health Minister Tony Clement said Friday after delivering a speech at a symposium in Toronto on the future of health care.

"Guarantees are inevitable and as I've said they're what the Canadian public wants."

Clement said he didn't know when patients can expect to see wait time limits in force at hospitals, but he said priorities would be hip and knee joint replacements, cancer care and cataract surgery.

Looks to me as though he's setting out this promise, and then arguing that it's up to the provinces to deliver.

It's either a no-risk strategy or an incredibly ballsy one.

Although given the way the rest of it's been handled, my first reaction is to blink and wonder.

Volpe In

Let the fun begin. I'm half tempted to join the LPC just to vote for the guy.

It needs to be said

Know what's so great about this? It's exactly why Harper is a good PM, and an awesome Tory leader. By the time September rolls around, he'll have been PM for a longer period of time than Charles Joseph Clark.

Flash back to the election of 1972: Bob Stanfield comes as close as he ever does to becoming "The Best PM We Ever Had" instead of "Never Had." And during an election with an inept Liberal campaign, full of momentum, the idiot LOST half of the party's seats in Quebec. The Quebec strategy from this genius was as follows:

Throw money at ridings and hope someone gets elected!

Say "me too" to whatever the Liberals propose regarding Quebec.

Recruit star candidate Claude Wagner to run.

Dalton Camp (!) thought that Wagner's presence alone would boost the Tories from 4 to 20 seats.

And you wonder why the PCs' unofficial nickname was "The Stupid Party," a holdover from John Stuart Mill.

So, aside from this cynical strategy, they also had an old Prairie bigot and former PM - Diefenbaker - in the PCs' ranks. Trudeau, John Turner et al heaped praise upon Dief because it created a split within the party, delegitimizing Stanfield.

The worst was when Trudeau et al would pass all kinds of superfluous motions on Official Bilingualism, partially to solidify the base in Quebec, but (and this was far more important) to make Diefenbaker and the rest of the mentally imbalanced bigots in the PCPC caucus go absolutely freakin' batshit.

Stanfield and the other Conservatives had decided that this was no way to win an election, so they decided that they needed to make an appeal in Quebec. Giving Quebec a reason to vote Tory would be a start.

And what did they choose? They planned to propose a semi-decentralized federation to capitalize on growing anger against Trudeau's centralizing approach.

But, things being what they were, 1974 came around, the Libs called an election, and the Tories decided to fight the election on inflation. And we saw how well that worked out.


***

What does this have to do with today?

Well, consider:

The Tories threw directed money into Quebec ridings, tried recruiting star candidates, BUT - and this is important - they changed their policy. Quebec is not the enemy. The Liberals are, for - you guessed it - treating Quebec like the enemy.

The key is that the Tories chose a strategy that would work in Quebec. It wasn't just "me too" to everything the Liberals or Bloc said. It was original.

Did you hear bigots in the party reaming on and on about how they hated those damned pea soupers? No? All of a sudden, Harper's "iron fist" seems a little more shrewd than tyrannical, non?

There are some people (Tories), surely, who are opposed to this. Fine. To them I say, you can choose between electing all the things you don't like (IE the Liberals, the NDP), including these kinds of policies on Quebec. Or you can vote for the guy who's still working with Quebec (although it is a friendly relationship now), BUT - and this is important - he's in power because of it. And thus we see Hamas and the Tamils recognized for what they are, and so-on.

Take what you can get. This guy could run circles around Clark and Stanfield.

We feel more like we did then

While we're dredging up the past, I have a question:

You know this recent kerfuffle over these supposed Emerson comments? (Of course, it's two or three levels of hearsay, but we can believe what a Liberal worker says about Harper, right?)

Anyway, the new criticism is, apparently, that Harper rules with an iron hand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that seen as one of Jean Chretien's trademarks?

Neocon Report Card

Heh.

Put on your tinfoil hats

Wow. Who knew that President Bush and Karl Rove were so evil and maniacal that they rigged Sesame Street to brainwash a generation of voters? Subliminal messaging much?

h/t

A thought

Given this recent nonsense over gas taxes, trying to resurrect something the Tories said in 2004, I feel that we might as well dig up some tombs as well. And then I recalled what Ralph Goodale said in response to just such a Conservative query. 'Cause I was there:

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices are set to soar over $1 a litre this summer. Much of the cost is to be borne by Canadians because the Liberals are charging GST on top of gas taxes. Between the excise tax and the GST, the Liberals are ensuring that they are squeezing Canadian drivers for everything they have.

Why will the Liberals not help Canadians by cutting this extra tax on gasoline?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government obviously shares the concern of consumers with respect to these higher prices.

In terms of the impact of the GST, I have had the opportunity in the last number of days to actually do the arithmetic. It would appear that because of the price increases of the last couple of weeks, the actual difference in GST paid is something in the order of 1¢ per litre.

That hardly changes the equation. I think we have to search conscientiously for more profound solutions, because 1¢ a litre will not make the difference that consumers would like to see.

Surely the Liberals have had a change of heart since then?

This is not what I voted for

Goddamn, Harper must really be stupid if he can't even follow through on his plan to destroy Canadian medicare:

The federal health minister [Tony Clement] is asking Alberta for assurances that its contentious Third Way health care reforms will not to violate the Canada Health Act.

...In his letter, the prime minister also raised strong objections to this payment option, suggesting it would mainly benefit those would could afford to pay for private insurance.

Or maybe this is the plan to destroy Canadian medicare.

Why the hesitation? Harper's had no problem [verbally] flipping off protestors, the Tamil Tigers, Hamas, the Taliban, so-called pacifists, and pretty much everyone else. (And, I should add, I've enjoyed every minute of it.)

Why back out now? Is it a simple matter of having too much on your plate, or is Harper trying to save an issue on which he can fight the next campaign?

Nose, say farewell to face

Venezuela quits Andean Trade Pact. Why? Because the US was involved. Seriously.

I like where this is headed

Why?

Because pretty soon, those same ten leftists who keep protesting Emerson won't know how to think.

If Emerson keeps this up, he'll be loved by leftists like Garth Turner after he had his own fits. And then said leftists won't know what to do. "Emerson bad, but the enemy of my enemy be my friend." Maybe the leftists'll fracture. Or maybe they'll try and be "inclusive" in their viewpoints:

"We love what you're doing, but can you still resign?"

I can't wait.

***

On a related note, this is looking more and more relevant.

Manufacturing problems

Do you ever get the feeling people are trying too hard? Mulroney's green gala award could prove awkward for PMSH. Why?

Organizers are unabashed in describing the Mulroney tribute as a reminder to Harper, who has omitted the environment from his list of priorities. Mulroney was named Canada's greenest prime minister in a vote last year.

"The most notable thing about the present Conservative environment policy is its almost total absence," said Toby Heaps, editor of Corporate Knights magazine, which organized the vote.

*blink*

Uh... huh?

It's a very bizarre kind of rationale that can justify creating an entire news story by arguing that there's a distinct negligence on the part of a body every time that body doesn't make Issue X an annotated priority. Which is why we saw CTV giving Concerned Christians groups and others like it carte blanche on the propaganda soapbox to argue that Paul Martin obviously hated the family unit because protecting it was not one of his five (or 183) priorities. In some ways, it's more reprehensible when you neglect an issue after setting out over a hundred that take precedence.

It's even more bizarre because they've chosen, almost apropos of nothing, to make an awards ceremony a place for a blatant partisan message. Next thing you know, we'll see articles about how the Junos are a perfect opportunity to remind the Tories that the funding of crappy "Canadian content" "musicians" was not one of the top five priorities.

I think the most amusing thing about this is how CTV is - get this! - getting postitively nostalgic for the Mulroney era!

Mulroney seemed to genuinely understand environmental issues, said May.

At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, she noted, Mulroney was the first leader to sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which led to the Kyoto Protocol.

He was first to sign the UN Biodiversity Convention intended to slow the extinction of species.

During Mulroney's era Canada hosted a conference which led to the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, perhaps the greatest success of international law in the environmental domain.

He placed acid rain at the top of the Canada-U.S. agenda and negotiated a landmark acid-rain treaty which sharply reduced sulphur emissions in eastern North America.

He launched the $3 billion Green Plan which gave a major push to environmental research and provided extensive ecological data that remains widely used over a decade later.

The National Round Table on Environment and the Economy and the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development are both creations of the Mulroney era.

Man, I'd love to see Brian Mulroney's face after reading that. He must be wearing a big shit-eating grin.

I wonder when CTV will remind us that Mr. Chin himself endorsed Stephen Harper...

Oooh, but here's the best bit of propaganda, masquerading as news:

Harper's record so far is one of cutting programs rather than proposing new ideas.

Last week, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn announced he was axing 15 climate programs deemed ineffective, while promising to proceed with a "made-in-Canada" clean air plan.

Despite frequent references to the "made-in-Canada" plan there has been no hint of what it may contain.

It's nice to see that CTV reveals its priorities: cutting ineffective programs is bad; keeping ineffective programs good if they look nice.

Isn't it wonderful to see how they conveniently notice empty rhetoric a few months into an administration? When was the last time any MSM decided to poke through the absent policies of M. Martin?

Tempest in a teapot

I think Harper's handled this badly in not just drawing everyone a picture... because it seems like everyone else is splitting hairs on the issue to try and discredit the Tories without really thinking of the substance.

What does it matter whether or not they remove the GST on the 15-25 cents per litre of gas, or whether or not the GST is reduced on the price in toto? I could understand the difference if gas were significantly above 85 cents a litre, but at this point it really seems irrelevant.

Apparently, however, this means "we will remove the GST on gas":

"There [are] discussions about that right now, and we have a budget coming and we're getting all kinds of submissions ... on what to cut and what not to cut," said MacKay.

Now, I wonder why they chose to indicate a division between Harper and MacKay...

UPDATE: Try some math:

Say gas is $1.00 a litre, and that someone buys $100 worth.

So, under the plan proposed when in opposition, he'd remove the GST on the price above 85 cents. Which means, that you'd save 7% on the $15 worth for which the elimination is intended... or $1.05.

Under this current plan, if he reduces the GST by one point - and only one point - then this reduction is applicable to the entire price. In other words, 1% of $100 is $1. Or, almost the same thing.

So let's remember that Harper plans to cut the GST by 2%, not 1%.

2% of 100 is $2. Compare this to the $1.05.

In other words, people (including some conservatives) are objecting to what is - for now - a superior plan. What we have here are some true believers. I suppose it's inevitable. You expose yourself to the other side for long enough and some of it sticks.

I really wish people would at least think this through. Gah.

Follow Harper

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Harper breaking the ice, but we are, for once, looking like leaders.

Fighting the terrorists

Check out this article from Reuters on training before heading off to Iraq.

Looks like they've learned from past mistakes.

One Newfoundlander and Labradorian has a bad memory

Did anyone else see this on the CBC's front page?

Respectfully, Mr. Elms, you must have been living under a rock.

Feel free to add your own recollections in the comments.

I'm not so sure it's an East-West thing so much as a Left-Right thing. I remember getting into a debate with the head of the campus Grits, and he responded to some of my ideas with something like, "Oh, that's an awfully Albertan idea."

It was as though "Albertan" was supposed to be such a pejorative that I could never, EVER endorse a position that (GASP!) ressembled the assumed opinion of a collective province!

Ah, at last

I'm done this essay. Handed it in at 2, walked away and spent the next five hours making deadly perogies and cleaning the house. Because having an essay due isn't, apparently, a good enough reason to ask someone else to do chores too.

But, anyhoo... To celebrate, here's a tasteless (yet topical) graphic I've been meaning to post for a while.



It's horrible, I know.

Okay okay, seriously, this is super-topical:

Germany opens Holocaust archives.

FINALLY. You know, according to Richard Evans, who's just about the most important (or at least prolific) historian of modern Germany today, there're still plenty of gaps in the study of Nazi Germany and, particularly, the Holocaust. Interesting. Unfortunately, my historical cups of tea are like, so passé.

Of course, knowing the denial literature I've read, I know what they'll say about this stuff:

"The documents of all 17 million people were forged, quite obviously!"

It's quite funny. You'd expect that they'd have better excuses than that, but they really don't.

Three to leave you speechless

1) F'in' right.

2) And people wonder why my side doesn't really see the point of the UN anymore.

3) Yikes...

Almost done

I could finish this historical theory essay on Holocaust denial right now and be done with it. But I'm having fun, in a sick kind of way, mocking the sophomoric techniques that the guy uses to make his case. Saying that such-and-such a piece of information is irrelevant because it comes from "Jewish and Communist sources" is hardly an argument.

I wasn't able to incorporate any bizarre flash cartoons this time, but I did manage to refer to this post David Friedman's blog to explain a point. (This particular denier always gives the benefit of the doubt to the Nazis. He is the 0.6 in the equation. Therefore, all points of contention are immediately judged in favour of the Nazis. This leads to Nazi propaganda is believed over anything else.)

BUT, what I did do - and this is brilliant precisely because it's topical - is include this image as an appendix. My prof has a sense of humour. He'll get it.

The apocalypse is now

Professional video gaming is going to become a pro sport, with televised events and everything:

The upcoming televised series will aim to engage viewers with not only with the game play itself -- featuring top players of "Halo 2" on Xbox and "Super Smash Bros. Melee" on Nintendo -- but also sports-like commentary and profiles of the players.

Among them: Bonnie Burton, also known as "Xena," a 15-year-old from Pennsylvania who is the only female in the pro league and one of the best "Halo2" players in the world; and Tom Taylor, who's known as "Tsquared," an 18-year-old from Florida and budding entrepreneur whose Gaming-Lessons business has already helped hone the video-gaming skills of numerous celebrities and star athletes.

Cripes. I used to play a lot of, like, Civ2 and USNF and stuff... but ... gah!

That being said, there's something inexplicably hot about female gamers.

Surprise! AP pessimism on Iraq

The body count's falling, but that doesn't matter to them:

The attack in Ramadi was the biggest since April 8, when insurgents besieged the Government Center until U.S. jets blasted several buildings used by gunmen to fire on the Marines.

U.S. officials had been encouraged by what they described as a relative lull in Anbar, suggesting it was a result of weariness among ordinary Sunni Arabs who were turning against al-Qaida-led insurgent groups.

Last week, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told reporters in Baghdad that insurgent attacks in Anbar were down to an average of 18 a day — compared to a daily average of 27 last October. At the same time, U.S. deaths for March numbered 31 — the lowest monthly figure since February 2004.

However, U.S. deaths have been rising this month. Of the 47 American service members reported killed in Iraq so far in April, at least 28 have died in Anbar.

Doesn't this imply that the "heroic Iraqi resistance" has been forced to consolidate into key locations? I would think that more localized fighting, being restricted to key strongholds, was a sign of progress.

Bombing was "justified"

I love how the left misreads Canada's withdrawal of support for the PA as some kind of "democracy-on-our-own-terms" hypocrisy. Perhaps we can draw them a map?

Hamas, responsible for dozens of suicide bombings in recent years, has largely observed a 16-month truce with Israel. Yet in a sharp departure from previous government's immediate condemnations of such attacks, Hamas leaders defended the bombing.

Get it yet?

I'd expect that they would at least argue against violence from both sides.

Tips for tourists

Heh.

A sample:

Think as big as you like but talk and act smaller. (In many countries, any form of boasting is considered very rude. Talking about wealth, power or status - corporate or personal - can create resentment.)

One way you can help avoid “boasting” is avoid throwing money around like a big shot. Tip very meagerly, if at all. Your foreign hosts, taxi drivers and concierges will appreciate your humbleness and lack of braggadocio.

Just sayin' is all

I took a mini-break to read some blogs, and I ran into this post at MyBlahg. McClelland sees fit enough to draw a distinction between "Israel" and "The Zionist Regime".

Fair enough, but I think it's more than a little dishonest to feign ignorance and pretend that Mr. Kookoobananas means something different, especially in the context of the other statements he's made.

So I shrug it off and go back to my research, and on the very next page of Arthur Butz's Holocaust denial book, p. 114, what do I find?

Ditto. Things about how Hitler's statements could be interpreted as anti-Zionist, which is perfectly legitimate (because the UN says so!), and how Zionism is not necessarily Judaeism.

News for you both: it doesn't matter if you can draw the distinction between the terms. What matters is whether or not they can demonstrate that ability.

*sigh* Blogging was supposed to take me away from this kind of bullshit.

The most scathing criticism

Robin Williams, like all celebrities, doesn't like right-wingers, so Stephen Harper came as a shock to him. What's his biggest grievance?

When the federal election was held in January, Williams was in Toronto shooting an American political satire, Barry Levinson's Man of The Year. Williams paid attention and even watched one of the televised debates. [Good for him! It shows he's a big boy! - Ed]

"No. 1, there was no personality that I could latch on to," he said of the difficulty of sending up Harper.

Ah... hah.

Blair won't back strike

If it were Bush and the other way around, the title for this story would be something like, "he doesn't care about international community" or "he will ignore international opinion on Iran." For propaganda.

TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.

Hm...

Most of the rest of the article is quite interesting and well worth some reflection. I just don't know whether or not Blair's policy is ultimately the right one.

I suppose I should say it...

Happy Easter!

I'm planning to make my mom's special perogies because I can't be home for Easter Dinner.

That is, I'll have time to make them if I get get enough of this essay done.

Ah, crunch time...

"No, really, take me seriously!"

I'm poking around on the Institute for Fascist Nonsense Historical Review's webpage for work regarding this essay, and I got on to their author bios page. (Not linking because these slugs don't deserve any traffic.) Just in case you wonder how many seemingly intelligent people could believe that the Holocaust was perpetrated by an international conspiracy of Bagel Vendors Jooooos!

Anyhoo, aside from all the boasting whenever one of their members has a degree, I thought this preamble was kind of funny:

Mark Weber is an accredited historian. He is currently the Director of the Institute for Historical Review.

Given the nature of this group, I suppose they'd want to stress that. Sorta like the NDP in the last election flaunting candidate Gregor Robertson because he actually owned a business!

Funny, yes? No?

Also amusing: look at the content to which they link.

I have to say, I don't think the great majority of the left is actually anti-Semitic. But by the same token, exposing myself to this kind of racism (I keep telling myself, "You're doing it for research, you're doing it in the interest of knowledge...") leads me to one conclusion. These cartoons are looking more and more relevant:




Not exactly, but the general idea.

One final note: IHR seems quite anal about bandwidth consumption. If you want to do them a dirty deed, go over there and download a few big files.

Pyramids in Bosnia?

I usually don't blog at the whims of whatever people ask, but this looks too interesting to pass up.

A question of academic ethics

So... I was continuing some research for a paper on Holocaust Denial when I was directed to A.R. Butz's debunked piece of nonsense, The Hoax of the 20th Century. You can guess what it's about.

Anyhoo, because it's discredited (as well as published by the infamous Jew-haters at the so-called "Institute for Historical Review" - google them if you want to see what they're about, because I refuse to link to them here), they've kept it locked up nice and safe down in the basement, with the "archives" and "special collections." Like I said, the whole feeling of holding a banned book.

While it's frustrating because I won't have access to that book again until the day my essay is due (and I only got through a small portion of it), I can see why they might lock it up down there. Any idiot first-year could pick it up and read it and think that this was legit stuff.

But, then I got to thinking... what about other Holocaust deniers and debunked academics?

David Irving used to be a hugely important figure in the study of Nazi Germany until about the late '70s or early '80s, when he was exposed for the bigot that he was. His works have been largely discredited as hopelessly biased in favour of Hitler, manipulating or fabricating sources to support his points. But a quick search of UVic's database shows no less than 18 works by Irving. While I'm not sure if all have been proven to be nothing more than fabricated nonsense, I do know that this is the case with works such as Sikorski and Dresden.

I suppose the university likes to keep Dresden on hand. Fascism's exaggeration of the effects of the bombing plays nicely into the hands of the masochistic left.

Well, what about others? The university carries just as many works by famed faux-Indian Ward Churchill, despite the fact that he's a proven liar who has alleged that sources say the exact opposite of what they do.

Chumpsky? An even hundred, although many are on linguistics. (That may be, but YOU take a look at the titles listed.) Doesn't matter how often he replicates the tactics of David Irving, he's still an Oracle here.

***

So, the academic question becomes simple: should the university not carry the books of proven liars and frauds, or are they themselves important for someone like me, who's studying the ways in which they deceive? But then, are we comfortable having books which are outright wrong being on shelves with what we presume to be factual books?

Do we trust that students are smart enough to figure out what the truth is?

If we do, then how come only Butz's book is stashed away in the basement, instead of proudly on display with the rest of the University's "fraud" collection?

UPDATE: I realized the links to the library pages won't work. Click "Start Over" and search the names for yourself.

A campus run by progressives!

I was walking back from the library and I found something that I've noticed several times, though I've never had my camera on hand:


(Click to enlarge)

Lemmie set the scene for you:

It's after a series of cloudy, cool days. You can't see it, but it was lightly spitting rain as I took this picture.

Those are evergreens in the picture, they are.

And here's this oh-so-environmental campus, watering them.

Now, as if that's not bad enough, they're really not watering these trees, as you can see. They're watering an empty parking lot.

I've seen this kind of thing on campus more times than I can count. At the Student Union Building and elsewhere.

Now, I'm merely a simplistic neo-con, and therefore an uneducated rube who likes to kill baby seals for sport (or employment), and a guy who's not yet convinced that there's any real problem with drilling for oil either in ANWR or off the coast of BC.

But even I can look at this and go, "Wow, this is retarded." In a city for which drought becomes natural during the summer, when there're constant warnings about the reservoir being depleted far too quickly, and on a university campus where save-the-whales Kyoto-is-our-God "extreem [sic] greenism" rules the day, it occurs to me that there's a better use for this water right before drought season than watering pavement.

But, like I said, I be but one dumb neocon. I'm sure these enlightened progressives of the "rich white university kid" variety of marxism have some cunning plan. Maybe they hope to waste our water, have it evaporate, and transport itself magically to those places it - in the spirit of communal resource sharing. I suppose now the only way to get their attention is to point out that a drop might go to the US in the form of water vapour. If there's a better way to spring them into action, I'd like to hear it.

They care! They really really care!

I received in the mail today a survey commissioned by the CPC from Lethbridge Community College asking delegates to the Conservative Party's 2005 Convention about a variety of things.

Maybe it's just the way I'm reading (and answering) it, but I'm impressed with the kinds of options they're exploring. Aboriginal self-government, the place of private money in health care, the status of Quebec, decrim of marijuana, western separation, the whole shebang.

Interesting...

What he said

Joel Fleming has a pretty concise post about Darfur. Everybody sucks. This, in particular, is telling:

No, Mr. MacKay, blue helmets are not the solution. China is deeply dependent upon Sudan's oil, is Sudan's largest weapons supplier and has a vested interest in ensuring that state sovereignty continues to trump internal human rights concerns. They will veto any Security Council resolution authorizing UN intervention in Darfur ... What the fuck gave MacKay the idea that the UN offers a plausible solution to the Darfur problem?

What does it say about us when even the Conservative Party seems to worship at the altar of the UN?

See, lefties? THIS is why Stockwell Day would've been a better foreign minister.

I, for one, have been growing less and less impressed with Peter MacKay because of things like this. I suppose it looks good for feel-good, "We love the UN" backpatting, but that's not why I support the Conservatives. If I wanted mindless, optimistic statism I would've voted Liberal.

Free TVs for all!

Man, if there's a more cynical vote-buying scheme out there, I'd be really interested in hearing about it.

Maybe the Liberals should consider adopting it as a part of their next policy revision.

"Tory ministers face punishments for verbal gaffes"

CTV has an extended article on Harper trying to rein in less prudent speech.

Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, has given colleagues in ministers' offices stark warnings about varying sanctions for cabinet members who either embarrass or contradict the government in public, sources say.

The worst of those penalties - being dumped from cabinet, shuffled to another portfolio, or barred from official trips - have not been imposed yet.

But the lesser punishment of public embarrassment has been swiftly levelled on at least two cabinet ministers and one B.C. MP.

All have been forced to publicly swallow their words in pride-pummeling mea culpas within hours of causing unwanted headlines.

"It's constant," one government official said of the pressure on ministers.

"The message comes from the top: if you (mess) up you will publicly and embarrassingly retract - no 'ifs,' 'ands' or 'buts.'

Sounds ominous, don't it?

But then we get into details:

Industry Minister Maxime Bernier became the latest victim this week. Bernier told a radio interviewer that Canada could lose its legal battle against the U.S., and that taxpayers shouldn't be left covering loan guarantees for the softwood industry.

At the urging of the Prime Minister's Office, he issued a press release to declare that his remarks on lumber did not reflect the views of either his government or even his own department.

"Mr. Bernier clarified his position," was all Harper said about his minister's comments.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay has been on the job for just two months but has already been compelled to hold a news conference and issue a press release to clarify a pair of statements - one about hostages in Iraq and another about aid for the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

B.C. MP Colin Mayes quickly issued a press release to "retract without reservation" his suggestion that journalists should be jailed if they write misleading stories.

Okay, I have to declare first and foremost that I believe what M. Bernier said is correct. Of course, thinking further, is it not a sign of weakness from our government to have him say such things? What if the US Commerce Secretary mused about the effect of future losses on this issue? How would we view it up here?

So while M. Bernier is the only individual with whose comments I agree, I can understand the rationale.

As for the other two, MacKay speculating willy-nilly on the state of a hostage in the hands of terrorists was just irresponsible. And as for Mayes ... well, that's just what the left would like to see, isn't it? A Colin Mayes who doesn't have to worry about the fallout from what he says.

Given the seating arrangements in Parliament, it's pretty clear to me that Harper's managed to put as many of the controversial MPs as possible waaaay in the back. Sure, there are some Garth Turners, but there are also, well, the Colin Mayeses of the caucus. They've been symbolically sidelined in their seating placements (more evidence, I'm sure, that Harper has a hidden agenda because he hasn't done anything wrong yet), and I don't see why that trend should stop at public comments.

Funny, though, how Garth Turner appears to have been untouched in all this. Perhaps because he hasn't sung a different tune on government policy per se?

But then again, here's the ultimate rationale:

Tories have watched the Liberals use a different style - and they have learned from their opponents' mistakes.

They watched Liberals self-destruct as MPs commented publicly on private meetings, staffers leaked confidential documents and the party fail to launch critical elements of their platform without journalists beating them to the punch.

The one that always sticks out in my mind is Frank McKenna making affirmative noises for BMD shortly before the Liberals pulled the plug on the whole thing.

Ah well. I suppose it works as long as Harper keeps himself together. If he starts losing it mid-campaign like Paul Martin did in the 39th General Election, we might very well see Conservative MPs pulling Keith Martins and calling their leader an idiot.

Just another chapter in Harper's long line of pragmatism-that-looks-bad-from-a-pr-point-of-view in politics

The real "Best PM we never had"

Read this MacLean's interview with Preston Manning. He's like the real "best Prime Minister we never had." For one, he's full of ideas in his elder years. Check this out:

The environment for the last five years has shown up as the No. 2 issue, right behind health care in Alberta. Secondly, the growth of these environmental groups -- and these are not all left-wing extreme groups, many of them are very conservative-type groups -- and the numbers of them, the budgets of them, the meetings, the attendance at their meetings, exceeds those of all the provincial parties put together. The fact that the Green party, without much money and really much of a campaign at all, gets 3,000 or 4,000 votes in my old riding, finished second in Wild Rose federal riding, which is one of the most conservative ridings in the country, these are all signs in the wind. And also when I speak to younger audiences -- as I do particularly at the universities -- one of the few issues that seem to motivate younger people to actually consider getting involved with either interest groups or political parties is the environmental one. The example I used at the Tory convention was the ranchers in southwestern Alberta. These people are, as I say, rock-ribbed fiscal and economic conservatives, they've resisted government intervention in their industry more than any other portion of the agricultural sector, and yet they love that land, they're committed to preserving the eastern slope rivers. I say the key question isn't are they red Tories or are they blue Tories, I think they're green Tories, and if someone could articulate that, that's an idea I think whose time has come. And again my question, more to Albertans, was, "Would you be interested in pursuing and refining and developing that idea?"

He goes on to argue that he's had more new ideas in the last month than the Alberta Liberals have had in the last thirty years. Cocky, but justifiably so.

Thursday Night Hodgepodge

I'm spent. Here're some short ones

Malkin has two lengthy posts on South Park's showdown with the networks... I particularly like the AllahPundit logo, myself.

US troops slap antiwar politicos: "The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan." You know you want to read the rest.

Hmm...

The Tiger flirts with the logical conclusion to current crypto-isolationism. "Fuck the rest of the world, let's sit around and make movies and sell magazines to everyone else"

Innit strange how bluntness might become the new gimmick for politicos?

"Don't pay attention to the doomsday crowd"

Fox News has an article on the US debt. Worth a look.

I feel like I need a shower

For an essay I'm writing on Holocaust Denial, I spent a few hours in the basement of UVic's library reading offending works. I feel dirty.

There's just something surreal about the place. In contrast to real history books, which are placed in the stacks in an open, well-lit area, where you're free to take things out as you will, the contents of the "special collections" are carefully guarded.

It's a little disconcerting. The archivists control access to materials, bunkered away in the basement. You request such-and-such a work, proven to be full of anti-semitic fabrications and bullshit, and they get it for you. As you sit there and read cunningly-contrived nonsense, you wonder if those looking at you think you're a racist. It's extremely draining, reading these innocuous-looking books.

Heh

Check out Rick Mercer's sugar bushing with Rona Ambrose.

I love her to bits, but I'm not sure what to make of her performance.

"I got smacked good"

SA has a pretty funny collection of "Kids say the darnedest things" anecdotes from the forum goons. Worth a look.

A question of large-L Liberalism

For some reason, this mode of excuse has been popular with Liberals as of late:

The reason I treat SSM as black and white issue is it is a rights issue and individual rights, especially from minority groups who have traditionally suffered discrimination is one area I won't compromise.

I encountered a similar rationale in a history class, when a Liberal argued that the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords didn't have enough democratic representation, and they should've been rejected on that basis, but the Constitution Act, 1982, was just fine. Does it matter that it was imposed in a wholly undemocratic fashion?

"No, because it's okay when the government is GIVING rights to people." (Evidently, this guy was unfamiliar with S. 15 (b) of the Charter. It's amazing how supposed civil libertarians managed to turn the issue of rights into a zero-sum game.)

It's a curious exception to supposedly etherial rules. "The double standard is acceptable because..."

So let's apply this a little further.

Remember in the second English debate, where Harper said that he'd enshrine property rights into the Constitution à la Diefenbaker? Does this mean, using this line of logic, that Harper can do it, damn everyone else, because he's giving people rights?

Let's apply it a little further.

The mission in Afstan is seen as a facilitation of the development of a democratic, somewhat liberal society, hein? So, in effect, the government's mission is helping give Afghans rights. Afghanistan has many minorities, and the entire nation has been oppressed frequently.

Doesn't this mean that the mission in Afstan is also justified on Liberal grounds and therefore doesn't need any façade of democratic approval?

Oh man, I could have fun with this.

That's the funny thing about individuals with no principles. When they choose those which suit them at the moment, they don't see internal contradictions.

A time and a place

There's a mini-feud going on between readers of Savage Love, a relationship / sex advice column.

Basically, the issue is that Dan Savage, the author of this column, has started to intermingle sex advice with frequent, crude potshots against conservatives, Republicans, and the like. Some readers say Savage should stick to sex:

I have a hard time believing that a cynical guy like you doesn't occasionally see some actor on TV yammering about his politics and think, "Stick to what you're good at and shut the fuck up about politics." You're becoming that actor. I don't give a fuck about your politics, and I don't want to read about them every time I look at Savage Love.

Keep It To Yourself

Savage and his acolytes basically say that sex and politics are intermingled because of the Evil Conservatives, so they're forced into it.

The sad thing is that both sides are entirely right.

Savage is perfectly permitted to write about whatever the heck he wants. If his publishers don't have a problem, then all he needs to do is keep readers. It can be annoying to read this guy's perpetual hate-ons for anyone right-wing, but ultimately it's a choice that readers, as consumers, must make.

But the critic I quoted above also has a point. Savage's political sensibilities are rough and unrefined. I figured maybe there'd be something more to his thought processes if he had a chance to hash out his opinions, but his guest blogging at Andrew Sullivan's place was disappointing. I understand Sullivan was partially trying to make a statement by appointing Savage as a guest blogger, but I hoped he could've found someone a little more couth than that. Nothing more than the addition of rhetorical flourishes to supplement thin gruel.

That's one issue that I have with Savage's side - Savage has become that intolerable celebrity in the mould of Pamela Anderson and Paul McCartney. The only difference is that he appears to demonstrate somewhat more knowledge about this area totally out of his realm than did either of the other two.

The other issue - and I think this is telling - is that his politics aren't kept even. Surely, that's to be allowed, too. There's no crime against being biased.

But I do think that for all his talk about sexual rights, Savage betrays his true agenda in his political talk. I don't remember a single time he, for example, pointed to the execution of gays in Iran and called for any lobbying to stop this.

Occasionally, Savage's logic extends to an almost farcial level of selectivity. Shari'ia, female circumcision, honour killings, the execution of gays - all these extreme aspects of the non-secular Islamic world - were ignored. Savage's priority was to make sure that, for example, a university's students' society was giving out free condoms. Somehow, the sexual rights for which he fights become more and more petty when we get closer to the US.

Like I said, Savage is perfectly permitted to write about whatever he damn well pleases. But I'm finding it hard to take his dedication to sexual freedom seriously when he decides that Senator Rick Sanotorum should be mocked for homeschooling his kids (I wonder if he would've done that for a Democrat?) at the same time that international barbarism, actually relevant to his supposed raison d'être, goes on without comment.

An observation

When Victoria brought in an American ad expert in the '60s to figure out how to revitalize the town, the answer was one word: "Britain". Make the town the "most British" in North America, and you've got yourself a tourist destination. Double-decker busses, old-style buildings, and tofu burgers with your afternoon tea at the Fairmont Empress.

It's all fine and dandy to try and sell faux-Britannia until you have to amuse a Cambridge med student for a couple of days.

Apparently, though, North Americans do "Irish" far better than the Irish.

Heh

I particularly like the faux-inspirational image. Gotta get me one of those.

I guess being a Liberal mandates it

Michael Ignatieff's descent from etherial academic arguments to hopelessly insufficient political rhetoric continues:

When presented the scenario that Harper could possible be in control for the next several years, or later form a majority government, Ignatieff said he feels "shivers up my spine."

"I feel confident that in the Jan. 23 election, the Canadian public didn't exactly give Mr. Harper a thumping vote of confidence. They want to see what he can do, and Mr. Harper's entitled to try to do something good for the country, but I think people have had long-term historical confidence in the Liberal party. I feel sure their confidence in the party would return, and I'd love to have the honour to lead it," he said.

Ignatieff said Canadians should be wary of Harper's "right-wing government."

"It's going to start cautious, and as it gathers steam, it's going to propose a more and more right-wing agenda and I think as that agenda is presented to Canadians, I think they're going to back off, they're going to think, 'Wait a minute, that's not really what we wanted,' so I feel confident that as the Harper government goes forward, it's going to get into more trouble," he said.

So... I suppose that could be summed up as,

"Harper is entitled to try to govern, but it doesn't matter because only Liberals really lead the country, and Harper's a scary right-winger anyway, in spite of the bang-up job he's been doing. He'll try something scary in a second, just watch and see."

Honestly, Stéphane Dion is looking pretty good in comparison. He seems like the only Liberal in the running who doesn't have to rely on mindless rhetoric to make his point. While you'd expect me to endorse some incompetent joker candidate, I realize that there's a very good chance that whoso wins the leadership race will become PM. Not only is Dion competent, but he's tolerable and won't substitute substance for glitter, glitz and glamour. That makes him very appealling to me. Unfortunately, this probably puts him at a disadvantage, given the nature of some Liberals.

UPDATE Question: Does Ignatieff speak French? If he doesn't, how come it was never cited as an issue?

"Harper Cleans Up"

Just like it was promised.

On War [In Afghanistan]

I wrote the following in a comment at Langhjelm Letter (edited for context), but it's worth reposting in an expanded form.

I asked,

So, please explain to me which aspects of the Afghanistan war (other than those which are protected as official secrets per military operations) are somehow hidden from Parliament in the status quo.

To which the response was,

I think parliament has the right to know what the goal of the mission is, how long they plan to be there. This is vital information that the public ought to know. To say that once we commmit to the war, we must shut up is highly undemocratic. It is ironic those who claim to want to bring democracy to Afghanistan don't want it at home.

So here's what I have to say in response:

You could at least answer my question. It's really that simple. The first reason that was cited was to let "parliament" [sic] know what was up. This is a ridiculous straw man. The goals of the mission have been clearly stated in every. goddamned. press conference. ever. Either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you just don't care enough to pay attention to information session where people don't wave placards and wear homemade tinfoil hats.

It's not as though Canadians won't know anything about it if Parliament doesn't discuss it, and it assumes that this sort of thing isn't available in Defence Committee hearings.

In short, there been no actual rationalization for why there needs to be a debate, beyond some vague appeal to democracy (which is already being served, by the way).

What's the second demand? They want to see a timetable for troop commitments.

This has to be the most ridiculous demand I've yet seen on this issue. Does anyone actually buy into this? I don't mean to say it this way, but I really thought people were smarter than this. There are actual, intelligent people who supposedly earned university degrees (including one "Dr. Jack! Layton" telling us that a timetable is necessary without perhaps the vaguest idea as to which end of a gun is the dangerous one.

Here's a very simple analogy. Maybe you can grasp it:

Would you only give funds to cancer or AIDS research on the condition that researchers give you a timetable for the cure?

As someone whose primary specializiation is military history (which includes military theory), lemmie give you a little insight: NO war, ever, has been won according to a strict timetable. Yes, there are goals and expectations that you hope to be finished Operation X by such-and-such a date realistically, but nobody says, "We're going until this time, and then if it's not done, fuck it."

That's how you lose.

Name any war, and you'll find that there was no set timetable in the sense the left is proposing today. Even those campaigns which were basically turkey shoots (the German campaign against Poland, France/Low Countries campaign of 1940, the June-December portion of Operation Barbarossa, the US occupation of Iceland, or hell, even Gulf War I) there was no set timetable. When Churchill came to power in 1940, he didn't tell Parliament, "Okay, we hope to win the war by 1945, and if not, we surrender."

It was, "here's the plan, we'd like to get step one done by such-and-such a time (often before unsuitable weather sets in), and after that objective is complete, then we move on to the next one." Wanna know why it's done that way? Because that's how wars are won.

There are two influential causes for the loss of wars: the first is various military fuckups, and the second is a loss of public support.

I'm not saying, "Support the troops or else" or anything like that. But I would hope that those so ardently doubting the war realize that this kind of thing is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the case of some MPs, I have no doubt that this is their ultimate strategy.

The bottom line is that this matter is not really as academic as the left is trying to make it out to be. This isn't a grand mystery of the universe that will be solved through the magic of Wisdom of the Crowds (IE 308 MPs all in agreement). This is a very simple issue, which happens to come right down to the heart of Clauswitz's famous axiom about war being the extention of policy by other means. In this case, the Canadian commitment to Afstan is an extention of the will of the Canadian government.

So the major question you need to answer becomes very very simple. But I'll bold it for those who might not understand:

Do you agree with the goals of the Canadian Military in Afstan, or do you not?

Your answer determines whether or not you're in favour of the war. Tout simplement. Yes, there are other questions to consider (such as the means by which these goals are achieved, the cost-benefit considerations of exerting this force, etc), but basically, that's it. It all really boils down to that question.

If you don't agree with the goals, fine, say so. Canadians have not had any problems with giving opinions on other military actions, but I suppose this one is different. Perhaps it's because those reasons cited in other cases are fulfilled. Afstan was harbouring terrorists, so we can't cite the lack of evident terrorists as an excuse for nonintervention. We have to think of something else to justify our isolationism.

Or perhaps it's because we don't know where to stand in the case of a split in public opinion, especially since the Vancouver City Council hasn't yet passed a motion one way or the other. It's often hard to decide for yourself when there's no majority opinion behind which you can hide in lieu of having an actual opinion.

So like I said, if you don't agree, just say so. But don't insult my intelligence by dancing around a bunch of irrelevant issues to try to instill opposition through the back door. You simply look foolish.

Once more, history is ignored

On the "debate" over Afghanistan:

NDP defence critic Dawn Black was careful to emphasize her party isn't necessarily against the mission, saying the NDP supports the troops.

Black repeated her party's criticism that the mission is supposed to be operating under a NATO command, not under the umbrella of the United States.

A couple of things:

1) The NDP appears to have been suckered into its own caricature of Bush and, by extention, our conservatives. It's as though they think "supporting the troops" has to be a prerequisite for the legitimacy of any side in a debate, even though we already assume a priori that they "support the troops." It's weak lip service to weak rhetoric.

2) The mission in Afstan is already under NATO.

3) What's wrong with aligning one's self with the US on any issue? Does this mean World War II or Korea or Kosovo or GWI were fine, but we should've just not fought alongside the Americans?

4) Any substantial military action will have such extensive US participation that it will ipso facto be "under the umbrella of the US." Regardless of the international body heading it (like the "UN" mission in Korea), you're going to have a substantial US commitment. Period.

5) Had Ms. Black understood her history, she'd've figured out by now that her [party's] stance is contradictory. Yes, NATO was formed as a means of coordinating European defence, but US participation was considered (and was) integral to that alliance. Still is. And, if you want to take a cynic's view, the formation of NATO was simply a tool by which the US could further its own interests. JCS documents argue that the protection of Europe is "vital to American [security] interests".

Why can't we just move away from rhetoric and discuss issues? The Bloc seems to have the right idea.

You know you have an enemy when...

...instead of just doctoring news, the MSM doctors photos as well.

Listening to the experts

Ah, scientists!

Gotta listen to the experts, you know ;)

There've been quite convincing studies done that suggest that air pollution helps block out sunlight and therefore cools the earth (obviously saying something about the state of our air), but I'm not so sure. After all, nobody's been able to explain why they've charted global warming on Mars.

I'd also want that kinda money

You know what would look really good?

Limiting salary increases as a part of the accountability package.

French government springs into action, surrenders

All you need to know:

Union and student leaders said it was a "great victory" but it is not clear if protests set for Tuesday are still on.

UPDATE: Heh. The only Chamberlain joke that beats this is Monty Python's sketch on Joke Warfare, in which the "Peace For Our Time" newsreel clip was shown with the narration describing it as "Britain's Pre-War Joke".

Any questions?

Taliban spokesman admits strategy depends on weak will of domestic populace.

Do you need me to draw you a friggin' map? Lemmie go through slowly:

The Taliban want an isolationist Canada. They want the Canadian public to doubt the mission in Afghanistan. You know that old theme? "If you do/don't do X, the terrorists win"?

This is one of those times.

Do you ever wonder whether or not you're a pawn in someone else's manipulation scheme? Now would be the time to take a good long look at both sides.

Ideas from Mario Dumont

Thinking about Quebec politics for a history class, it occurred to me that while there are no BC or Ontario Premiers who strike me as terribly interesting, it seems like all prominent Quebec politicians merit a lot of further reading. Chapleau, Taschereau, Godbout, Duplessis, Lesage, Johnson, Bourassa, Lévèsque... They're all fascinating.

With that, I give you an article written by JH on the visit of Action Démocratique du Québec leader and ex-separatist Mario Dumont to Laval University. The French is in the link, so here's the translation:

I covered Mario Dumont's lecture at Laval University for Impact Campus ...

Lecture by Mario Dumont at L.U.
The Big Challenges for Quebec
By Jonathan Hamel - Current Events

Settling the Constitutional Question, offering a larger autonomy of thought to individuals and redefining the Quebec model. These are the big challenges for Quebec that the leader of Quebec Democractic Action (ADQ), Mario Dumont, highlighted in his lecture presented at Laval last Wednesday.

In opening, Dumont sketched a portrait of a Quebec which gives credence to many of its hopes: abundant natural resources, powerful, renewable hydroelectric energy, numerous schools and universities supplying economic, cultural and scientific development. "Quebec has every reason to be first," says Dumont, visibly optimistic.

But in spite of that, Quebec is often last in the pecking order in these domains, according to him. So, aside from being crushed by a debt of $120 billion, the prvince has to face up to its aging population and a system of health care showing cracks everywhere. Thus, Mr. Dumont estimates that it's time to consider those plans which really take all of Quebec's context into a realistic account: "We've chosen to mortgage the next generation to win the next election," he says.

The Constitutional Question

According to Mario Dumont, it will first be necessary to remove the province from the cul-de-sac of the Constitutional Question. He indicates that everyone understands the importance of giving more autonomy to Quebec, the province that has less of it today than it did in 1976, largely to the two failed refenda. "Can we perhaps stop banging our heads against the wall and look for real elements of consensus on which we can make some progress?" he asks.

In addition, Dumont beleives that Quebec doesn't need to see itself constantly reaffirmed as a distinct society. "As a people, Quebec is a unique society, by virtue of its language and its culture. Nobody needs to keep telling themselves this anywhere else in the world, in Saskatchewan or elsewhere. Everyone else knows what they are. We should know what we are, and that we're recognized everywhere in the world," goes his analysis. Thus, according to him, "From this moment, we have to guarantee that we control our economy first of all, and that we have greater powers in Quebec, and that we decentralize this federal arrangement.

Redefining the Quebec Model

Dumont also remarks that it is now the time to start killing off some of Quebec's "sacred cows". For example, he cites a health system "which is not run according to expected results, particularly in the realm of things like wait times," or a system of daycare "which has pummelled the birth rate." To this, he adds also the Quebec Model, in which 42% of people pay no taxes, which brings greater poverty.

The solution? According to him, we have to add elements of competition, take away monopolies and eliminate "wall to wall" government programs. "We're a creative, innovative people, capable of great feats of entrepreneurship," argues Dumont. He believes therefore that the Quebecois have abandonned the first objective of equality by giving too much credence to so-called "equality." The ADQ boss is equally ironic on the egalitarian pretentions of those who seek to defend the status quo in health care. "It's awful, but it's awful for everybody equally, therefore it's good!"

Autonomy of thought

Moreover, he hopes to see a heightened autonomy as a vision for the regions, for schools, and for individuals. "There are some political parties which have for their vision the role of government restricting people's freedom of indivudual choice," he chides. In this manner, Dumont contends, large social programs such as the daycare system remove possibilities and opportunities from some and create a mill which leaves those outside the system perfectly well off.

"We think that the role of government is to enlarge freedom of choice in its citizens," he says, remarking that the checks on individual autonomy are equally found in the paternalism of the state and in poverty. According to him, keeping the economy working at its full potential is the best means of tackling the obstacle of poverty. "To share wealth, you have to create wealth," he adds.

Nevertheless, these changes will not be easy. "One of the reasons it's so difficult to change things in Quebec is because Quebec, unfortunately, bases many policies on the desires of special interest groups. There's no voice for the collectivity of those who use services: the citizens."

Published in "Impact Campus"

***

Before you accuse me of not having conducted objective journalism, I want to say that I hold no membership in either the ADQ or the Liberal Party of Quebec.

Yes, but compared to who?

There's a MacLean's survey in which a substantial majority of respondents agree that Bush is the "worst president in the last 100 years."

Uh... huh.

I wish we could see those voters' own response to a follow-up question: who was the president 100 years ago?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

Without getting into my own opinions on the matter, I'm wondering how many people remembered Richard Nixon, or even friggin' Gerald Ford.

I'd personally argue that Bush is better than this clown.

What about Warren Harding? Herbert Hoover?

I'm not even arguing about a revised or updated version. I'm just talking about popular perception.

And I walk around imagining "neocon" over my head

This seems bad. This seems very bad.

And I say this as a hawk who has a thing for Brzezinski and Kissinger.

There's a certain two-fisted logic to it. Hit before they can use it (hopefully?), show you're serious, and maybe try and intimidate them into stopping. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening, and I don't agree with it.

Personally - and I'm quite influenced by the writings of Kissinger and Teller on the matter - I think they should adopt the same policy that got them through the Cold War. Realistically, I'm not sure anyone can stop anyone from secretly building a nuclear program. Unpleasant, but true.

I can't think of a single regime that was "stopped" from having a nuclear program. Brasil, Israel, North Korea, South Africa, France ...

Non-proliferation's only successes have been with countries like ours, which chose not to have nukes to begin with. (Tactical nukes owned by the US army for use by Canadians in Europe doesn't count.) The only up side I can see is that Iran's technological development does not appear to be indigenous, in spite of all their claims to the contrary.

So what happens if the US strikes Iran? Well, basically, there's no incentive to stop. There's almost an incentive to strike first. After all, if the US is going to do something regardless, you might as well get your money's worth. (It's like the old lawyer joke about being sued for a million bucks because of coffee that's too hot. You punch the lawyer out, so that spending a million bucks is worth it.)

It's not just for its benign nature that the US has (or had) a "no first-use" policy with regard to atomic weapons. It makes good strategic sense.

So what solution do I have?

Exactly what happened with the US in Europe. Point to your ally and say, "You touch my buddy, your entire country turns into one big glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot."

Build a missile shield. Include Israel. In fact, I'd be very surprised if they haven't already, even covertly.

But if Iran is really willing to use its weapon... well, its government is responsible for the lives of its civilians.

A bunch of short ones

"Bush can be hung," says Ben Affleck. Of course, human beings are "hanged" when we're talking about a kind of execution. Even though he doesn't speak the English language, we here at KerPlonka! do not hesitate in giving credence to Mr. Damon's expert legal opinions. After all, he seemed like a pretty smart guy in Good Will Hunting, right? And he knew all sorts of legal things in that movie, right?

At long last, the Tamil Tigers are recognized for what they are. Given their dubious record, as well as recent stories (rumours? accusations?) about the Tamils extorting Sri Lankan communities in Canada, I'm willing to make an exception to this infringement of freedom of association. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" doesn't apply here.

Harper's planning to compensate Chinese-Canadians, because the Liberals proved unable to. I'm betting the Tories won't be so crass as to unilaterally funnel this money into an organization closely connected to The Party. Hopefully, we can finally restore this damned festering wound.

Tempest in a teapot

There certainly seems to be an air of "you're either with us or you're against us" logic from those making an issue of this story.

Hmm..

I sure hope he's noticed

I just finished a re-reading of Richard Evans' monumental bitchslap against convicted Holocaust denier David Irving. (Proof that Evans has a sense of humour: in the reviews on the back, he included Irving's!)

A few things (aside from the frequent explanations of "It's all the Joooooos" conspiracy theories) bothered me:

1) Evans is rather critical of those who had applauded David Irving's work in the 1960s and 1970s, which is a bit unfair. Irving was an authority in that field of history at that time, before he had [openly] become so virulently anti-Semitic and therefore, before anyone had any reason to put him under closer scrutiny than any other historian. It's not that such views shouldn't look silly now; it's that Evans shouldn't be so smugly critical with the knowledge of hindsight.

2) I take exception to Evans' insistence on making sure that all "right-wing historians" who ever made such comments about Irving's work (typically made before Irving had been exposed for the lying racist piece of shit that he is) are identified as "right-wing". Only rarely does he take such liberties with left-leaning historians.

3) In this vein of thought, Evans rightly criticizes a journalist's point ("Irving's paying for his views, but Eric Hobsbawm's apologism for the USSR is rewarded") for both misidentifying the award and for the fact that Hobsbawm has never been accused of fabricating facts.

That's fair enough, but the general point (which he ridicules) is a good one. I've personally caught a few Marxist "historians" applying those same faulty processes employed by Irving to re-inforce their own agenda. Part of the reason is the type of history. When your theory presupposes such-and-such about the economy, it's not hard to see how easy it might be to cherry-pick or fabricate evidence.

4) There are at least two instances in the book in which Evans' logic is antithetical to the point he's trying to make.

5) In one case near the end, Evans makes a blatant factual error in the middle of a sentence on the presence in Irving's works of blatant factual errors.

"Attack American interests"

Any questions?

Clothes make the leader

I'm quite satisfied with the way our Prime Minister is handling himself, but others aren't. And it looks like there is a lot to criticize. Take, for instance, this article written by the pseudo-intellectuals here at UVic:

Fox, Bush and Harper are all standing together for the shot, and both Fox and Bush look like leaders. Harper, on the other hand, has on what is possibly a two-piece fishing vest and probably the most stupid looking outfit since the Village People. While style is by far not the most important quality a leader can have, I’d feel much more pride in being Canadian if our chief didn’t dress like Krusty the Klown on vacation.

This is about the most tolerable point in the whole piece.

So, if I understand Mr. Reis' article correctly, Harper's lack of charisma shows a distinct lack of leadership, which is bad for humanity.

Ever get the feeling you're supporting the right guy?

Rain on the parade

The economy's booming, but of course, certain elements of the left refuse to let it go by:

Canadian Labour Congress economist Pierre Laliberté acknowledged the "all-round good news report" but said the weakness in manufacturing "brings some questions as to the sustainability of the current situation."

Pardon me, but don't Greens label manufacturing as "unsustainable" by its very nature?

Isn't manufacturing supposed to be the industry of the previous generation?

Looks like I'm not alone

Audrey Hepburn is once again the most beautiful woman of all time. I think this explains it well:

With her elfin features, and tall and slender to near-androgyny, Hepburn arrived at a time when to be a star meant curves, curves and more curves - "Jell-O on springs," as Marilyn Monroe's character in Some Like it Hot was memorably described.

That movie's director, Billy Wilder, was also in thrall to the willowy Hepburn, Monroe's polar opposite: "After so many drive-in waitresses becoming movie stars, there has been this real drought, when along come class; somebody who actually went to school, can spell, maybe even plays the piano."

After watching Some Like it Hot, a friend commented to me, "You know, Marilyn Monroe's kind of an idiot."

You can't say that about Audrey Hepburn. There's more to just beauty than the physical.

Friday morning insanity

I honestly hope someone was shot for this video.

If only they knew

My last Can-history class today was spent listening to and giving agonizing presentations ("Take a party that lost an election, explain why, explain how it could have changed"). One of these days, I'm going to look back on that time and wish for those hours back. Two things struck me as amusing:

1) Those groups other than ours which presented on the 1972 election argued that Stanfield should have been kept and simply made more charismatic, completely unaware that they had tried this in 1972 and had failed.

Those same groups argued that the Progressive Conservatives just needed to change to an anti-inflation policy and harp on that.

Yeah. Because we saw how that worked out.

2) Paul Hellyer (pronounced by the students as "hell-yur"). Nuff said. People kept bringing him into this. I'm pretty sure one group wanted him to have a higher-profile position.

Incidentally, this was the same group whose Pearson impersonator did a seig heil salute at the end of a mock debate.

Why the hell am I here, again?

Oh... right!

This came to me when I read the "one member, one vote" quote, too, but I was a little hazy on the details. Turns out my suspicions were correct.

Perhaps Belinda can excuse this flip-flop by once more comparing herself to Sir Winston Churchill.

On Belinda

Pretty much.

By the way, I'm thoroughly annoyed that those who're choosing this opportunity to mock Belinda's complete inability to speak French also choose this moment to fill their posts with faux-French. Unless you're being ironic, in which case I don't get the subtlety of your humour, you're being retarded.

Her French is worse than Bob Stanfield's (about 8:20 in the video), but that's not saying much.

We need a national education strategy

To help those Liberals who are seemingly unable to understand a very basic point:

Opposition leader Bill Graham criticized the Tory plan to give parents a child-care allowance, saying there's no way to guarantee the plan will create a single daycare space.

Huh?

It was never supposed to.

The plan to facilitate the creation of child care spaces was supposed to create child care spaces. PERIOD. People who mislead on an issue like this lose not only what goodwill I had, but also make me wonder why we should elect them. After all, if they can't understand very basic concepts enumerated in very plain English (and French), why should we trust them with the levers of government?

Harper interview

Just watch it.

h/t

Maybe this is why the NDP run deficits

Bob Rae can't count:

The popular former New Democrat gave up his NDP membership in 1998 and hasn't been a card-carrying member of any party since then.

"I chose to be non-partisan for 10 years and now I've decided to become a partisan again. It is a big deal. It's a big decision for me and one that I didn't take lightly and only after a lot of reflection," he said Wednesday.

Um... Bob? It's 2006.

Ten years ago, it was 1996. Not 1998.

Profitable to be green

PJM directed me to this article on large businesses (BASF, Dow Chemicals, DuPont) who are looking into the potential for the zero-energy home. Everyone wins. Companies get to develop and sell new products, people consume less energy (and make a "profit", long term), and we consume less.

Interesting. Give it a read.

"Saddam met with nuclear group, 2002"

Hmm...

American school caves

A California school has banned red, white and blue clothing. Why?

Some students are using the garments and flags to taunt classmates

Um, okay? Does that mean we should ban exams? I know I used to taunt students with my superior exam marks. I can feel these students getting into this whole totalitarian thing already.

Harper caves

They're going to hold an aesthetic debate on the Afstan mission.

I don't want to say anything, so I'll just post this image:

Smartalecky comment post

I couldn't resist:

This is such a shame. Smashing a Pugeot is probably not a crime anywhere other than France.

Archives!

The CBC's archives don't credit Robert Stanfield for being the second voice on this clip...

Wonder why...

Also, check out this debate on the voting age between John Diefenbaker and Agnes MacPhail.

Ah, le beau pays des progressistes!

Doesn't this sound like a country far more socially advanced than us?

Organizers, who said the turnout was in the hundreds of thousands, hoped it would exceed the 1 million who marched last week. The afternoon march in Paris promised to be the biggest, and the city deployed 4,000 police to avert violence that marred previous protests.

Police actively looked to thwart troublemakers. At Paris' Saint-Lazare station, riot officers with weapons and a police dog pulled over train travelers disembarking from the suburbs, searching their bags and checking identities.

Tourists, meanwhile, stood bewildered before closed gates at the Eiffel Tower. Parisian commuters flattened themselves onto limited subway trains. Garbage bins in some Paris neighborhoods stood overflowing and uncollected by striking sanitation workers.

Irish budget airline Ryanair canceled all its flights in and out of France.

On a related note, take a look at what the Biased Beeb says on De Villepin:

He eloquently stood up for France against the might of the US superpower and its Anglo-Saxon ally Britain. It not only won him the rare distinction of applause at the UN but widespread admiration, even adoration, back at home.

His speech to the UN became such a symbol that it was set to music in his honour.

Where activism goes wrong

Nuclear engineers are in hot demand in Germany because of the unpopularity of nuclear power. And Germany is working hard to solve the problem because, quite frankly, there are few nations in the world with a reputation of efficiency and safety greater than Germany. This is a huge competitive advantage in a field where safety and efficiency and safety and also safety are key.

Read the article. It's quite interesting.

For my part, I actually believe in nuclear power. When it's done properly, it's extremely safe. Hence the title of this post. Activism has merely scared the world's leaders away from a place they're needed. And of course, activism against nuclear energy made me want to find out more, so I do my own research. Honestly, the more I read up on nuclear power, the more I'm in favour of it. It should definitely be made more efficient, but that's something that will come if we don't merely use technology from the 1960s.

As for Chernobyl... some of this just sounds suspicious to me. Not everything seems to add up.

Another two

Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff have thrown their hats in the ring.

I'm not too disappointed by either of them. Okay, that's not quite true. I'm very disappointed in Michael "Torture is okay so long as you're not a politician" Ignatieff's flip-flop. It's not even that he flip-flopped per se. It's more the fact that he goes from a rational, reasoned position to just consciously endorsing the status quo because he realizes he's a politician. In trying to remain uncontroversial, he's trying to negate much of the substance that makes him what he is.

BUT, does this mean what I think it means?

Ignatieff gave a speech at the University of Ottawa last Thursday. In it, he laid out his thoughts on issues like Quebec, international affairs and decentralization of the Canadian federation.

What did that speech say, exactly? Did he merely lay out his thoughts on "decentralization," or did he actually endorse it as a model?

It's interesting that at the same time as the NDP sounds like the Conservatives of more than thirty years ago, the Liberals are also considering plans in the Conservatives' cards twenty five and thirty years ago... Hm....

I'm quite pleased with the direction M. Dion proposes, too:

Dion is currently serving as the Liberal foreign affairs critic.

The policies Dion plans to tout are sustainable development and creating a "super-educated" workforce to compete in the global economy.

It's not only that I like eggheads - although there is a bit of that - it's that I actually am impressed with this kind of thinking. Back in December, I met with a local dignitary who complained that he had not heard of a "vision for Canada" from any leaders. They'd discuss their platforms, sure, but it wasn't meant to be grand. There was no "vision" of Canada, if that makes sense. M. Dion appears to be on the right track with something like this. I particularly like the last half, a super-educated economy. I confess, I'm more and more interested in this position due to Bob Rae's visit, but I've felt this way for a good long while.

I feel either of these two would be tolerable as leader of the Liberals. They wouldn't have that bald-faced black-hole-hollow rhetoric that Paul Martin had. Fundamentally.

And I can't see Stéphane Dion arguing that the loss of the Liberals would lead to the breakup of the universe, or that Stephen Harper would legalize child labour. Both Dion and Ignatieff are far too calm to have a nervous breakdown on national television over seven or eight weeks.

This seems excessive

I wonder if he looked up at the plane and said, "Wow, that banner makes a good point"?

"They see that they have a very small voice. We only get to elect one member of Parliament, and when that one member of Parliament crosses the floor, the value of our vote becomes zero."

Huh?

All you do is vote for the person who you feel best represents your views. And s/he does whatever the hell s/he feels is best. It's terrible, yes, but that's the system of government we have. The same thing applies to other actions. If I vote Conservative in the expectation that, say, Gay Marriage will be opposed and then the MP supports it, that's not a valueless vote either. I simply voted for the person I felt would best represent my views.

Emerson's growing on me. And not simply because he's become an indirect cause for the arresting of stupid people. I feel like I've been driven to supporting him by leftists who insist that Emerson's defection was "unethical" or a massive scandal or some such nonsense.

Foreign information

Check it out.

I've already submitted a profile of my hometown.

Fools abound

In the same class that contains individuals unable to spell complex words like "trade," I was today subjected to numerous mock-campaign leaflets for some Prime Minister named "Lester B Person".

So I come home, ready to spill this to my roommates, thinking that this'll just be outrageous. But the English major came home with a story from her class on The Canterbury Tales. They were discussing the Nun's Tale (in a nutshell, "The Jooooooooooooooos are evil and eat small children") and a girl in the group didn't see why this story made others uncomfortable.

"Why is this unjustified? The Jews killed Christ."

Someone finally responded, "Christ was Jewish, you 'tard."

To which she responds, "See? They'd kill their own people!"

"Maybe," I asked my roommate, "She meant to say something about how the context of Christian thought at this time..."

"No. She meant it. Jews killed Chirst, so they are evil."

"Are you sure?"

"I don't think she's even heard of the word 'context'."

Somehow, mispelling a name no longer seems to be the most incredible indicator of stupidity.

Defending opulence

I love Garth Turner's excuse for a stupidly expensive pad in a place that really DOES have a killer location:

Mr. Turner's apartment has a fabulous view of Ottawa's Byward Market. It also contains the typical high-end finishes, including granite counters and a marble floor in the kitchen, and hardwood floors set off by thick elegant baseboards throughout.

Mr. Turner thinks quality of life is important for a politician, noting that constituents don't want a "grumpy MP."

Milliken

No real surprise there.

It's good for a strategic point of view. One less Liberal in the house.

Plus - I'll admit it - I like Peter Milliken. I know hardcore partisan Conservatives who like the guy.

The issue you fall on

Not bad, Harper's speech...

There's one big problem I have with it:

Assuming that this is the issue on which the government has chosen to stake its claim, I'm wondering whether or not it'll be effective. Who doesn't like law and order? Who doesn't like cracking down on criminals?

The problem, as I see it, is the inclusion of provisions like the "re-criminalization," so to speak, of marijuana. This isn't about whether or not you like the idea. From a purely strategic standpoint, that's what's getting the press. The problem is simply that it's not a decisive issue.

Know what else was included in the law and order approach? Cracking down on murders. Cracking down on child porn. I understand that the Tories want to avoid a "Paul Martin Supports Child Porn" incident like that of 2004, but it seems to me to be bad politics. On all the issues that you've chosen to take a stand, you choose something that doesn't have unanimous support from anyone.

It's not that they've changed priorities or given one priority over another. It's that in trying to cover so many issues like this they have given opponents an opportunity to frame the debate on a question of legalizing or criminalizing marijuana. Do you want to defend cracking down on pot, or child porn?

Does that make sense? Maybe I'm missing something, but in a minority situation, it seems to make more sense that you would pass laws with which EVERYONE can agree. Especially given recent controversial court rulings.

Let Canada's official bloodsport commence!

I'll be busy, but you can watch the opening of Parliament right here.

Iran fires state-of-the-art missile

Naval missiles have been a point of neglect for the USN for years, and it looks like they might be in danger because of it.

Is Iran buying this technology from the Russians? Maybe the French. This sounds remarkably similar to a Russian prototype sold to the Chinese...

Harper: Constitutional Changes Needed

This was met by me with a tad of alarm - I spent most of yesterday blitzing through all the reasons Meech and Charlottetown failed.

BUT, I think it's a good idea. It'll very possibly end up getting the triple-E senate, a reform Canadians have been denied since BEFORE July 1 1867.

Here's my basic interpretation for what he's doing:

1) Constitutional reform proves he's pro-active, far more than the Libs were.

2) This can leave a definite Conservative legacy.

3) Senate reform - pleases Maritimes and West.

4) Address fiscal imbalance - pleases Quebec and Ontario

He's doing this ostensibly to meet Quebec's position. With a friendly premier in place until at least 2007, and the ability to tie the remedying of the fiscal imbalance to the success of this reform, he has a decent shot at it. With separatism declining in popularity in Quebec and federalism screwed with a bad name, this might just work.

The West won't sacrifice it's "triple-E" Senate proposal to screw with Quebec and stop the redressing of the "fiscal imbalance," especially when they might benefit from it.

And here's the best Jack! Layton has to say:

Jack Layton said Sunday he wants to see that issues such as parliamentary ethics and the environment are also given top priority.

"The Conservatives are turning out to be just as bad as the Liberals," Layton told delegates at the NDP federal council meeting in Ottawa.

Umm... okay? How? By what measurement?

See, any leader with half a brain would say something about how the last time a Conservative government tried to screw with the Constitution, the anger ensuing from the failure almost tore the country apart. (Funny how today's Conservatives can be branded as a bunch of Reform-Alliance racist/sexist/bigot/fascist hicks, but as soon as it's convenient, they get tarred as Mulroney Conservatives... even though the former split from the latter because of those failures.)

Ah, well, nobody ever said Jack! Layton had a brain. If he only had a brain.

The Doors Are Open!

I'm quite surprised that King Ralph got as low a confidence vote as he did, but I'm not sure it's as significant as some are making it out to be. I can certainly understand the rationale. I've not been terribly impressed with the Albertan government on a great many issues.

The main problem, as I see it, is that there is as of yet nobody to exploit these gaps left in the Tories' lines. The example I gave to a friend the other day is the Alberta Liberals. Despite the unfortunate name, they have a chance to make some real gains. And I think they will make gains, only nothing as impressive as Lougheed's Tories did in 1971.

Any self-respecting party would do an electoral blitzkrieg though the PCs, hammering at their weak spots. But if War on the PCs is like World War II, Alberta's Liberals have done the equivalent of throwing a massive Zapp Branigan-style assault against the Maginot Line and ignoring Belgium. They've launched a foolish attack against a strong point.

Question: why would you attack Klein on health care, arguing for the status quo, when health is just about the only area of policy on which the Tories have even faked any kind of dynamism? It doesn't even make sense! Were I living in Alberta, I don't know who I'd vote for.

French government springs into action, backtracks

Even some members of the governing party remained critical.

Tsk...

Liberal hopefuls getting help from Joe Trippi

The same Joe Trippi that lost Howard "All Republicans are scary white men who vote multiple times to manipulte polls" Dean the nomination to John "I voted for the war before I voted against it" Kerry.

This should be cool.

First Lesson: Teaching potential candidates how to do a Dean Scream.

Considering leadership hopefuls, I, for one, would love to hear Scott Brison do a Dean Scream.


YEEEEAAAARRRGHHH!!!!!

April Fool's Classic

I don't observe April Fool's, but when I woke up this morning and looked out the window I saw one of the cars parked outside my building covered in 1970s-era porn. With a used prophylactic on the antenna. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to take a picture and post it. I can only hope, however, that the guy who owns the car has to go somewhere in a hurry later today.

The best you'll get from me is this: BBC documentary on spaghetti crops in Switzerland.