Monthly Archive: March 2006

Update: Jason Cherniak responds. Apparently my post below was mostly crap, but at least one section did make Jason refine his thinking on one issue, so in that sense, my efforts were not wasted. My goal is always to get people to think about things, not necessarily agree with me. If I wanted people to agree with me, I'd just post anti-Bush anti-Harper messages laced with plenty of expletives on the rabble.ca message board. I still think there are unintended consequences bubbling under the surface of Jason's stated goal, and I still think he has to be careful of what other people might do to take advantage of what he is doing to advance their own agendas. But then I'm a conservative with my own hidden agenda, so of course I expect other people to be as devious and duplicitous as me.

Or is that slush funds?

From Jason Cherniak's blog:

Today I will obtain the final signature on the application to incorporate the list of Liberal Bloggers as an Ontario non-profit company. We have now approached the moment of no return, where I will begin paying the government to make this all official.

For those who do not know yet, this new organization has been created for two reasons. The first is to protect me from liability for what others might post on sites that the Liberal Blogs list will link to. The second is to create an organization that can receive donations and then spend excess money to help the Liberal Party.

Spend the excess money to help the Liberal Party? Like donations? Subject to the limit of $1000 per year for a corporation?

Well, after a flurry of comments such as this one...

Am I the only one who finds it odd that Chermiak [sic] decided to redirect blog donations to the Liberal party?

Aren't you just setting yourself up to be a fundraising wing for the party, not to mention all the objectivity issues it raises for you and the other Liblogs?

Or do the Blogging Tories do the same thing? Blogging Dippers? As far as I know, they are in no way associated with either of their "mother parties". With the financial relationship Cherniak has set up, I don't know he can say the same thing.

Maybe it's just me.

...Cherniak made it clear that the money raised would not go directly to the Liberal Party or any of its various wings.

And the comment was dead on about the Blogging Tories -- they do not collect funds and make donations as a group, though members are free to do as they wish as individuals.

So if the money being raised "to help the Liberal Party" is not going to the Liberal Party, where is it going? And how is it helping?

The main idea is to become a third party advertiser during elections. The other and less certain idea is to create a Liberal Blogger Scholarship.

Third party advertising is a choice fraught with danger during an election period. If the Liblog members combine into some sort of single entity under this umbrella organization, and then identify themselves as a third party, the group will have to be registered with the Chief Electoral Officer. Then each blogger will have to identify each pro-Liberal blog entry (and possible every anti-Conservative, anti-NDP, and anti-Bloc entry) as an ad authorized by the umbrella group. Presumably Cherniak would want to check each posting before granting that authorization.

Cherniak says that the purpose of the group is to protect himself, but now every Liblog is tied to every other like climbers on a rock face.

On election day, no new posts can go up. According to the rules, posts that have gone up prior to election day can stay, but they cannot be changed. I think that comments might be considered a "change", so comments would have to be turned off on the very day when election blogging would hit overdrive.

How about limits of election spending? As a registered third party, all the Liblogs would be required to submit to an audit run by an auditor appointed by Cherniak's umbrella group if the total money raised exceeds $5,000. How much does an audit cost? I don't know, but it's probably not cheap. Not to mention the irritation felt by all the Liblog members who are sucked into this. That means also tracking all the donations to make sure they aren't coming from non-Canadian sources.

Register as a third party advertiser? Unless Cherniak raises thousands of dollars, it hardly seems worth the trouble, and might chase more than a few good bloggers away from the Liblogs.

What about other uses for the money? Like this scholarship? Cherniak admits that's a long shot. Seems to me the real desire here is offset some of his own costs:

The main goal is to raise money to pay for startup and hosting.

Well, looks like he'll be lucky to hit that plateau:

We have now raised just over $100, but we will need at least $400 to cover all of the startup costs. As a result, all I ask is that Liberal bloggers donate $10 each to the cause. To do so, please click on the donation button to the right.

For me, the best help I can provide to the Conservative Party is insightful commentary and the odd investigative piece here or there. I can tell you that if I ever entered into a formal relationship including financial renumeration in either direction, the blog would be retired immediately. Blogging is, and should remain, the domain of unaffiliated observers. They should not be fronts for fundraisers and slush fund operators.

One more thing. There is a risk here that if Cherniak tries to take his blog and those of his Liberal friends into the some kind of formal relationship with the Liberal Party, people will think that other political communities such as the Blogging Tories and the Blogging Dippers are in similar cahoots with the political parties they support. At best, that will be a misleading impression that will colour the opinion of the reader of any blog. At worst, it could trigger some kind of regulatory interest in the Tories and the Dippers that rightly should be focused only on the Liblogs.

Ironically, during the last election, people at odds with the Conservative Party, disgruntled ex-Tories Carole Jamieson and Eugene Parks, tried to paint the Blogging Tories as some sort of arm of the Conservative Party of Canada and so subject to regulation. Frankly, I couldn't take it too seriously.

Why were the Blogging Tories targeted and not the Liblogs? Probably because the Blogging Tories were far more effective during the election campaign than either the Liblogs or Blogging Dippers as measured by the amount of interest garnered by the main stream media. Several stories first cracked by Blogging Tories were picked up by the main stream media and became part of the story of the campaign. And of course, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won.

Despite this, Elections Canada dismissed the attempt by Jamieson and Parks to muzzle the Blogging Tories via third party regulation.

I wonder if the real value of Cherniak's Liblog corporation, for certain people, will be to force Elections Canada to clamp down on all blogs. I'm not saying Cherniak is playing some sort of Ludlumesque double game here. But if I were a Liberal Party strategist looking for a way to shutdown, or at least severely curtail, the work of those meddling Tory bloggers, I might take advantage of a situation in which Elections Canada is forced to regulate my own Grit bloggers. I might make a big donation to Cherniak's fund to make sure his non-profit organization is formed and then registered with Elections Canada, even though I know that, in the end, it would be a major blow to the Liblogs. Being less effective than the Tory bloggers, that sacrifice would be minimal for the Liberals, but I could then argue that Elections Canada should regulate all political bloggers in the name of fairness, formal incorporation or not.

The Liblogs might be sacrificed as a weapon to knock down the Blogging Tories, in other words.

Too complicated? Maybe. But then people who play politics are too clever by half sometimes.

A cabal?

A cabal is a number of persons united in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church, state, or other community by intrigue. Cabals are secret organizations composed of a few designing persons. Its usage carries strong connotations of shadowy corners and insidious influence.

One famous such group was P2, or Propaganda Due (Italian: Propaganda Two). It has been alleged that P2 was involved in the murder of Aldo Moro, the Italian Prime Minister, in 1978.

A new cabal dedicated to the selection of Canadian prime ministers has been identified. Though the group has no formal name, they pose as reporters, and I have dubbed them the Zolfians!

Harper’s treatment of the media is that of an ingrate. The media made Harper. The media also first made Trudeau and Mulroney. Later, the media made both Trudeau and Mulroney and their parties suffer at the polls.

A similar fate awaits Harper if he doesn’t change his basic suspicion and hatred of reporters and news commentators.

Strangely for a cabal, this group of power brokers has been revealed not by the painstaking process of analyzing subtle clues hidden in historical documents and such, but rather by a widely published commentary by their leader, CBC journalist and commentator Larry Zolf.

I suppose shadowy intrigue isn't what it used to be. I mean, the whole point of being the power behind the throne is that no one sees you pulling the strings.

Unless, of course, there is another group behind the Zolfians, and the Zolfians are just dupes who don't even realize that they don't have the real power to choose a prime minister.

Could it be the voters of Canada?

Scary.

[Hat tip to small dead animals]

I guess the Conservatives will have to get used to this:

“Canada is blindly following the lead of Washington,” and of pro-Israel lobby groups, she said.

Yes, Stephen Harper does whatever George W Bush does. Typical neo-con. Can't be trusted to chart Canada's own unique destiny.

The problem with this statement of national vice-president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Wahida Valiante, is that it simply isn't true.

Canada has become the first country after Israel to cut funding and diplomatic ties to the Palestinian Authority over the new Hamas government’s refusal to renounce violence.

The Conservatives say they will still offer humanitarian aid to Palestinians through the United Nations and other agencies.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday that Ottawa cannot go farther.

"As you know, Hamas is a terrorist organization — listed in this country — and we cannot send any direct aid to an organization that refuses to renounce terrorist activity, refuses to renounce violence."

The first country after Israel. Doesn't sound like someone who follows. Sounds like someone who leads.

Palestinian leaders are shocked. I bet they are:

Ottawa has been sending $25 million a year to Palestine but the Liberals had planned hefty increases.

Instead, the $25 million will now be cut by $7.3 million to $17.7 million, said Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Marie-Christine Lilkoff.

The argument for not cutting off aid is predictable:

Cutting off contact will not help Palestine improve its democratic systems, Valiante says.

Rewarding terrorists is not likely to do much to improve democracy either.

The case of Abdul Rahman, the man in Afghanistan sentenced to death for the crime of apostasy, from both the Christian and Muslim point of view, and just how lucky Muslims are that the Christian view is very different.

I got this email, and I'll quote it without naming names:

Bill 602p is being ushered through Parliament at this time, it will give Canada Post the ability to levee a charge of 5 cents on every email that internet users get. The internet provider will be sent a bill from Canada Post and they in turn will bill the user.

I have emailed my MP Rona Ambrose to suggest that I did not vote for more taxation and told her if this bill gets passed don't come looking for my vote next time. How stupid do they think the Canadian public is that Canada Post can charge a service they don't provide

I thought to myself, how can there be any bills being ushered through Parliament? Any bills died when the election writ was dropped. Parliament hasn't been recalled so a new bill can't have been submitted. And the numbering is wrong.

So I did a quick check:

A new, localized variant of the venerable modem tax legend (a perennial headache for the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S.) has swept across Canada during the past week in the the form of a bogus email alert. The message claims that the Canada Post Corporation (the post office) is pushing legislation to impose a 5-cent surcharge on every email "delivered" to Internet users...

The bogus email is shown:

Subject: E-MAIL SURCHARGE

Internet Subscriber:

Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and continue using email:

The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of Canada attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation Canada Post will be attempting to bill email users out of "alternate postage fees".

Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every email delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Toronto lawyer Richard Stepp QC is working to prevent this legislation from becoming law.

<snip>

Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! Send this email to all Canadians on your list and tell your friends and relatives to write to their MP and say "No!" to Bill 602P.

Kate Turner
Assistant to Richard Stepp QC
Berger, Stepp and Gorman
Barristers at Law
216 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
MlL 3C6

There is no firm "Berger, Stepp and Gorman", and the postal code "M1L 3C6" is for Stellarton Road in Scarborough. There is a reverse search page for postal codes, by the way.

The page has more information about this hoax, the Australian and American counterparts, and how it has been rebutted over and over again. Like a rash, though it comes back. I suppose it depends partly on people having never heard of the hoax before. I hadn't. It was only my natural skepticism that kept me from reacting.

So if you get this email, ignore it. Don't write your MP. And if you are an MP or one of the people who writes responses to letters from constituents, be nice when you tell the person it was a hoax. It's easy to be taken in by these things.

A hypothetical question. If a family of 6 (husband, wife, and 4 young children) were looking for accommodations in or near Ottawa, is there anyone out there with a place to stay? These people are looking for free or near-free living for a few months or so in order to get established. Maybe you've got a big house and are entering the "empty nest" phase of life, and could use help with utilities and such. Let yours truly know if you can help out, and I'll pass it along.

I can't think of a better comparison that this.

From the right we have two of the finest minds in Canadian conservatism, Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin, authoring a blueprint for what conservatism has to do to become a force in this country.

If you haven't already bought their book Rescuing Canada's Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution, do so now. It's a bargain at twice the price. Just follow the banner at the top of this page.

In it, they review the history of conservatism, deal with how conservatism interacts with different institutions in this country (media, academia, etc) and make recommendations about how to improve those relationships, and then outline a number of policy platforms that would resonate with Canadians, re-invigourate conservatism, and cure a lot of problems in this country.

Two people.

Of course, on the left, it's very different.

This article in the Ottawa Citizen is interesting on two levels. First, on the story itself:

The federal opposition is sending signals it will block Conservative plans to impose automatic jail terms for a variety of gun-related crimes unless the stiff terms are watered down.

The opposition, while willing to deal with the governing party to fight a spate of gun violence in urban centres, say the Conservative penalties could run afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee that the punishment must be proportional to the crime.

Sue Barnes, the Liberal justice critic, suggested the Conservative penalties are "draconian" measures that would have to be diluted to survive a court challenge.

Strange that Sue Barnes had no comment on the Liberal Party election platform plank that called for law-abiding citizens to have their firearms confiscated. But a criminal, found guilty in a fair trial, and given the punishment already required by law as opposed to a retroactive punishment for a hithero legal activity, is going to win a Charter challenge?

The Liberals and the NDP have to be careful here. Canadians are in no mood to pander to criminals:

One factor working in the Conservatives' favour is that no party wants to be seen as opposing a bill on firearms crimes at a time when there is public concern across the country, particularly in such cities as the Liberal bastion of Toronto.

Of course, a Liberal bastion is the prison population itself, so the Liberals are in a bit of a bind here.

Funny how being in a minority government can actually make the Conservative position stronger. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Vic Toews take a strong position, guaranteed to anger the opposition. But can the opposition oppose? If they do so too strongly, they can bring the government down. The Conservatives are the only party in a position to fight back-to-back elections. Stephen Harper's approval ratings are sky high. The Liberals are broke and leaderless. And the Canadian people will crucify any party that forces a snap election so soon.

If they faced a Conservative majority government, the opposition could be loud and uncompromising. But now, they have to tread very carefully.

But aside from the issues of crime and punishment and of parliamentary strategies, it is interesting to note that the Ottawa Citizen tucks this bit of information in the very last paragraph:

There is a consensus among criminologists that minimum jail terms, which eliminate discretion for judges to impose sentences they see fit, do not deter crime.

I'm not going to discuss whether this is true or not, or if deterrence is the only motive, or even the most important motive, in setting sentences. But the fact that a newspaper left this to the very end suggests that the paper is not eager to criticize the Tory plan. It would seem that the Conservatives have some allies.

We've all seen gimmicks. We tend to dismiss them, because by definition, they have a childish appeal:

Finding a successful gimmick for an otherwise mundane product is often an important part of the marketing process. For example, toothbrushes are often given various gimmicks, such as bright colors, easy-grip handles, or color-changing bristles so they appear more exciting to consumers. This is often done when trying to appeal to children, who often get more excited about the gimmick than the product.

Who gets excited about typical leftie belly-aching about evil corporations, evil conservatives, evil this and evil that? Normally no one does. I mean, after a while, the sheer volume of evil is mind-numbing. More than a few people sympathetic to the left must begin to wonder just how evil these things really are -- I mean, the world manages to function reasonably well despite all the alleged evil.

And for those who think this works in reverse, remember that the right thinks the left is misguided, while the left thinks the right is evil.

With that, it comes as no surprise that the left resorts to gimmicks far more than the right. This can be burning effigies and flags, staging sit-ins and die-ins, or throwing pies and balloons filled with paint. The right rarely indulges in these sorts of theatrics. On Canada's web-based home for the left, rabble.ca, we see a new gimmick that tries to maintain the interest of the consumer:

The goal here is to make Stephen Harper disappear:

Depressed about the Conservative victory in the election? Wishing you could think of a way to get rid of Stephen Harper before he does too much damage? Now you can help us make that smirk just disappear. How?

From between $10 and $100, you can buy a 10x10 pixel spot on this banner showing Stephen Harper's face. The price is adjusted to reflect where on the banner you pick, the face being the priciest bits. On that spot you get a teeny tiny symbol and a link to your progressive web site. For instance, NDP MP Libby Davies links to her website from Stephen Harper's chin.

You're not actually helping defeat the Conservatives as such, but just indulging in a bit of web-based graffiti. The purpose is to generate cross-traffic and help build the ARRG:

Your pixel ad will help rabble build an Active Rapid Response Group (ARRG) that will be there every time the Conservatives try to cut funding, cut programs or do anything else to destroy what you care about in this country.

Sure. Whatever.

For example, did you know there was a vigil outside Sussex Drive the day of Harper's swearing-in to demand that he maintain the federal commitment on child care?

Um, no, so I guess it wasn't really effective. And since Stephen Harper's approval rating is now hitting the 66% range in British Columbia, where so many die-hard NDP-types make their home, ARRG seems to be off to a bad start.

That's the problem with gimmicks. They sound cute. They might even catch your eye. But in the end, they are shallow, and they certainly can't transform a fundamentally poor product into a good one. But they can help mask a poor product, which probably explains why rabble has a gimmick on their home page, while the home page of the Fraser Institute web site is filled with actual ideas.

But what if a right-wing web site decided to go with a gimmick? How about a Java-based game not unlike the old Missile Command from Atari. Instead of missile raining down on you, NDP talking points come out of the sky. More money for the environment. Higher minimum wage. Labour-friendly laws. Punitive taxes. Complete demilitarization. If one hits the ground, it means that the NDP has succeeded in causing you embarrassment on that particular issue. Your job is to shoot down each of these by sending up a counter-missile made up of money from your limited budget. Use enough money, and the NDP missile is eliminated before it strikes.

Sort of the way the NDP didn't seem to care about having a parliamentary debate and vote on the issue of Canadian troops in Afghanistan while the Liberals were in power as long as the Liberals were spending billions to incorporate NDP platform planks into an ad hoc budget. Now that the Conservatives are in power, however, having that debate has suddenly become the most important thing in the world.

Of course, we all know what the war in Iraq is all about -- oil, right? And the men and women in the coalition fighting it are murdering countless innocents who were better off under the gentle hand of Saddam Hussein.

Naomi Klein is one of those who knows better:

MONDAY FEB 21ST, 6-9PM
LA FUNDRAISER
NAOMI KLEIN
FREE IRAQ! From Killer Liberators and the Corporations They Serve

Venice United Methodist Church
1020 Victoria Ave. (at Lincoln)

Of course, for Naomi Klein, everything reduces to corporations.

So what happens when the brutal killers don't act in a brutal and murderous manner? The obvious thing to do is to ignore evidence contradictory to what you know to be true. This is the most common defence in the face of cognitive dissonance, the state in which a person finds himself or herself when two contradictory realities are perceived.

Of course, any conservative will tell you there is only one reality, and you have to face up to it. But for idealists, who fill the ranks of the left, there is the world as it is, and the world as it should be (that being defined differently by each person, of course). When they don't match, there is a drive to resolve the dissonance -- but very few adjust their ideals. Best to adjust the perception of reality.

For instance, coalition soldiers should be killers in the service of corporate interests because George W Bush is evil (or stupid, depending on which ideal reality you believe in).

But then we learn that soon after a number of Christian pacifists who have been highly critical of the coalition, who subscribe to the idea that all the wrongs of the world are the fault of the Americans, and specifically of the conservatives, were kidnapped by the poor oppressed people they came to help, those same coalition forces began planning the rescue of those pacifists.

This week, the rescue happened:

But, in the event, the coalition devoted huge resources to securing their release. The SAS, special forces from the US and Canada and military intelligence officers spent months trying to locate them.

A force consisting of SAS troopers backed up by about 50 paratroops and Marines spearheaded the task force that rescued them. US and Iraqi troops were also involved in the mission.

So the reality is that the evil corporate thugs risked their lives to rescue those who kept insisting to the world that these people were evil corporate thugs.

You'd think that revelation would require a major rethink. Of course, the simplest thing to do is to pretend that these brave and selfless men and women don't even exist:

NORMAN KEMBER, the freed peace activist, will arrive back in Britain today amid growing controversy over his failure publicly to thank the military forces who rescued him.

Neither Professor Kember nor the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) organisation for whom he worked have acknowledged the work of the soldiers who rescued him and two Canadian hostages on Thursday, or of the teams of military and intelligence officials who spent months trying to track them down.

General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army, expressed the unhappiness of the military last night when he told Channel 4 News that he was “saddened that there doesn’t seem to have been a note of gratitude for the soldiers who risked their lives to save those lives”.

This is to be expected. These pacifists and their kind have invested a great deal of time and effort in constructing a world in which the US is evil, all the world's problems are related to lack of access to abortion, that capitalism doesn't work, that recycling is the right thing to do at any cost (even if it costs more in energy and resources than making a new item), that the legends and myths of native people are inherently better at describing the world than Western science (unless those cultural beliefs lead those same native peoples to eat seals and whales, in which case another acute case of cognitive dissonance develops).

The problem with the case of the Christian Peacemaker Teams is that the press has not played its accustomed role. See, the way to avoid cognitive dissonance is to avoid data that contradicts your idealized world view. As long as the media continues to report on explosions in Baghdad and never reports on the schools, the hospitals, the rebuilt infrastructure, and so on, there is no cognitive dissonance.

But in this case, the media has let the left down. Not only did it report on the rescue, it compounded the problem by reporting on the amount of effort put into the operation and then made things worse by obliquely suggesting that the rescued hostages and their colleagues were wrong not to aknowledge their rescuers.

It's going to take a lot of marches, placards, slogans, and fundraisers by luminaries on the left to set the world right after this mess.

From Expose the Left:

President Bush spoke to military and civilian families in Wheeling, West Virginia this afternoon about the War in Iraq. As usual, he spent a long period of time with the audience to answer the questions they may have. One woman, a military wife, told President Bush about her husband’s career as a military broadcast journalist and the footage he got about how great things are going in Iraq. She told the President that many cable news channels are just not reporting good news and only the bad news. She wanted to know what people could do to see the good happening in Iraq.

The President's answer:

Help over there will ya? I just got to keep talking and word of mouth, there’s blogs, there’s internet, there’s all kinds of way to communicate which is literally changing the way people get their information and so if you’re concerned I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that got internet sites and just keep the word moving.

A video of the encounter is available there as well.

There is a message to the main stream media here -- control of the national agenda is slipping, and the administration is well aware of alternative ways to get information out and how to use these alternatives to frame the debate. In Canada too, the situation has changed. While in Ottawa, I spoke to several senior people in the Harper government, and each had the same thing to say -- the last election was the breakout election for the blogs. Blogs played a role larger than maybe is appreciated, and that role is only going to grow.

A story of kindness and generosity in Afghanistan stands in stark contrast for the calls of neverending emnity between Christian and Muslims issued by Osama bin Laden and the Islamists.

The Liberals are acting tough:

Opposition party leaders warned yesterday they are willing to bring down Stephen Harper's minority government if it does not change its course -- particularly on the Tory promise to provide a child-care subsidy to parents -- in the next two weeks.

In separate meetings with the Prime Minister, interim Liberal leader Bill Graham and the Bloc Quebecois' Gilles Duceppe reminded the Conservative leader his party is outnumbered in the House of Commons and urged him to compromise on the government agenda as he drafts his Throne Speech.

The speech, which will be delivered by Governor-General Michaelle Jean on April 4, sets out the agenda for the coming parliamentary session and will be passed or defeated in a confidence vote that could spark another election.

Mr. Graham insisted the Liberals are willing to face the consequences of a confidence vote even though they won't have a new leader until December and are still struggling with the fallout of the party's defeat in January.

He laid out his party's well-known concerns about the Tory agenda, including the fate of a $5-billion deal -- signed by the Liberals last year -- to improve living conditions for aboriginals, opposition to a cut to the Goods and Services Tax and Mr. Harper's promise to pull out of child-care agreements that were also signed by the previous Liberal government.

Strong words from a weak party:

Despite Mr. Graham's threat, his party is ill-suited to face an election until at least 2007. The Liberal executive agreed last weekend to hold a leadership convention in December to replace former prime minister Paul Martin.

Mr. Graham pointedly refused to say whether he was prepared to lead his party into an election if Mr. Harper's government suffered a quick defeat. He called one reporter's scenario "hypothetical."

One wonders just how many in the Liberal caucus are really willing to go into another election less than three months after the last election, which was preceded by an election only 17 months earlier. And that election in June 2004 was called early by Paul Martin in an attempt to win a majority ahead of the Gomery Inquiry testimony.

The last two elections saw the Liberals cut down from a majority to a minority, then from a minority to the largest opposition party. Continuing the trend means third party status or worse. Stephen Harper is doing well in the polls, better in fact, than before the vote on January 23. The Liberals are in debt and without a leader. In fact, they lack even a potential leader as all the big names have already dropped out. In Quebec, the Conservatives are likely to build on their success in the last election, while the Liberals are likely to fall lower, again based on the personal popularity of Stephen Harper.

Moreover, if the Throne Speech outlines the same five priorities, including the commitment to cut the GST and to replace the Liberal daycare program with direct payments to parents, then Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will be doing exactly what they've promised to do for months now. Promises that got the party elected.

I don't know what makes Bill Graham thinks that having a "do-over" on the last election so soon will accomplish. The Liberals have no new ideas. They don't even have a new face yet. The Conservatives are being consistent. Nothing else has changed. I suppose the fight for David Emerson's seat would be interesting, but that's about it.

Defeating the government now would be seen as a colossal waste of time by the electorate, especially if the government is defeated for doing exactly what it promised to do, promises that already won it an election. Stephen Harper would call for the shortest campaign allowed by law, arguing correctly that nothing has changed from the last campaign to justify anything longer. The Liberals would have no choice but to offer to Canadians a chance to vote for an interim prime minister, and then ask voters to trust the party to replace him or her with a new leader that they would like once the leadership convention happened.

Another unelected prime minister -- just like Paul Martin when he got the job. And look how well it turned out for him when he first went to the polls in June 2004.

For Canadians who cast their vote influenced primarily on who they think would be the best prime minister, the situation would be seen as ridiculous. And be certain that all the other parties would make hay on the fact that during a Leaders' Debate, the Liberal contender is just a placeholder, making any comments he or she makes essentially irrelevant.

I expect a few Liberal MPs would not even bother running for re-election, and that more than a few losers from the January 23 vote would decide to sit this one out. Donors would keep their checkbooks in their pockets, and I doubt the Liberal Party credit line with the banks would go very far right now. Could they even get an airplane this time around?

The whole thing is absurd. I don't know why the Liberals think making these sorts of wild threats will accomplish anything. Expect Stephen Harper to meet with the other party leaders, but in the end stay true to himself and his party platform. No one knows what will happen during an election, but at first glance, it sure seems like a bad idea for the Liberals.

Actually, the threat seems rather pathetic.

Indian affairs is one of the trickiest and thankless portfolios in the Canadian government. It looks like the Conservatives are off to a good start, though.

If this is what passes for insightful political analysis on the left, then I can sit back and do some serious relaxing.

Larry Zolf is an award-winning commentator and journalist and a friend of Canada's left. He is also considered a bit of a fool by some observers (see here and here).

Maybe I wil join that list based on this piece from the CBC:

Martin made one particularly fatal blunder. He could have visited the troops in Afghanistan over Christmas 2005, in the middle of the campaigning for the Jan. 23 federal election.

If he had, he would have been the hero of the troops and stolen the campaign momentum away from Harper's one-a-day policy announcements.

Instead, Martin did nothing, letting the Tory leader steal the momentum with military announcements and promises to deploy more troops.

Is this how the left sees an election campaign? As six weeks of campaigning that could have been ignored because the people of Canada would have been utterly captivated by a single photo-op? Canadians would have forgotten Adscam and the Income Trust Scandal and beer-and-popcorn and the non-confidence chicanery and the budget follies and the dithering because Paul Martin would have popped his head out of LAV III?

Is this the opinion the left has of the voting electorate?

Stephen Harper's visit was no stunt. It was a carefully crafted message about the importance of the military and of Canada's foreign affairs and interests. The visit was not driven by polls or by impending votes. In fact, the visit preceded polls that showed Canadians beginning to see the Afghanistan mission in a positive light.

The honesty and leadership Stephen Harper showed is resonating with Canadians and has set the tone for this new government. You can't fake honesty and leadership. The people would have seen through that. The troops would have seen through that.

That is, unless you believe Larry Zolf. If you do, then every Canadian in and out of uniform would have trumpeted the gutsy leadership of Paul Martin because he gladhanded some troops in a tent in Kandahar, despite the months of evidence to suggest he was no such leader, and the campaign would have turned around.

Larry Zolf has seen more campaigns than me. Maybe he's right. But I don't think so. Moreover, I think it reveals a lot about what the left thinks of the rest of us.

To be fair, Larry Zolf makes some other points in the article that make sense. But I can't get past this notion that Canadians would have voted the Liberals back in power if only Paul Martin had done this one photo-op. It makes us sound so...so...infantile.

I guess it's all part of the beer-and-popcorn mindset.

From CTV:

As his growing girth becomes the subject of endless speculation, Prime Minister Stephen Harper admits he is enduring an ongoing battle of the bulge.

"When I was young I was very thin," he told television host Claude Charron during an interview for Quebec network TVA Monday.

Well, given the choice between being chubby and smart, or skinny and stupid, I know which I'd rather be. Because I can always go on a diet.

That having been said, let's hope we don't spend too much time in the media worrying about weight and clothes sense and other fluff.

From the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives home page :

The CCPA is an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice. Our research and analysis show that there are workable solutions to the policy questions facing Canadians today.

Just how independent are you when you are on the government dole? The CCPA gets nearly a half-million in yearly funding from the federal government. Of course, that means the Liberal Party, which might explain these "policy" titles:

• Canada's Failure to Promote Collective Bargaining as a Human Right
• Budgeting for Women's Equality
• Foreign ownership of telecom puts Canadian culture at risk
• Canada's high-income earners are not overtaxed

Will the CCPA switch gears now that the Conservatives are in power? Not likely. More interestingly, will the Conservative government take away funding, letting the CCPA get funding from private supporters?

But then the fundamental working principle of the CCPA is that government funding is prefered over private sector funding, that somehow that makes a hard-left think tank "non-partisan".

Total nonsense, of course.

So the CCPA is fundamentally at odds with the the principles of small-c conservatism. But look to the CCPA to put the government on the defensive. Withdrawing funding is a partisan move. Never mind that right-wing think tanks like the Fraser Institute accept no funds from the government.

It leads to the question that can a small-c conservative party ever really be suited to government, given that government is antithetical in many ways to government function? I think the answer is yes, but then the details are likely to come out of the research from the Fraser Institute than from the CCPA. If the government has no intention of ever implementing, or even listening to, the ideas from the CCPA, funding them seems to be a waste of money.

And wasting money is another one of those things small-c conservatives hate to do.

Check out the Million Blogger Page for a new take on a blogger search engine:

I'm a Web developer and have been dreaming of building a better blog search engine. A kind of visual search that allows you to quickly browse thousands of blog profiles on one page, and discover interesting blogs not just popular ones.

It is true that in blogging, as with any complex system with distinct nodes, there will be nodes that for one reason or another become slightly larger than the others (in this case, blogs that are seen as being of somewhat higher quality). As the system evolves, these nodes become attractors, which means that any trajectory that comes close to that node ends up staying close even if disturbed. For instance, Instapundit is an attractor, since invariably everyone who gets into blogging puts Instapundit on their blog roll, and there it stays even if Instapundit goes on a three-month sabbatical. The presence of attractors makes it hard for other blogs to get noticed.

So any attempt to create a new system that allows people to avoid the attractors and find other blogs of interest is worth looking into.

Finally we can get on with business:

Canada's ethics czar has cleared Prime Minister Stephen Harper of any wrongdoing in his controversial decision to bring former Liberal David Emerson into the Conservative fold.

"My conclusion from the preliminary inquiry is that neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Emerson contravened any of the specific Sections of the Members' Code," federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro said in a report released Monday.

"I am satisfied that no special inducement was offered by Mr. Harper to convince Mr. Emerson to join his cabinet and his party."

As well, Mr. Shapiro said, there is "no reason, and certainly no evidence" to contradict Mr. Emerson's assertion that he accepted the Prime Minister's officer in order better serve his Vancouver-area constituents.

"I therefore find no reason to pursue these matters further," Mr. Shapiro said.

Moreover, the Commissioner agrees with me that cabinet appointments are a matter of judgment, not of ethics:

With regard to Mr. Harper, Mr. Shapiro found that he was "performing a constitutionally recognized executive function, and not an activity associated with his legislative duties or functions" and as a result was entitled to make the cabinet appointment.

For Mr. Emerson, he added, the higher salary and benefits afforded a cabinet minister can't be considered an improper inducement on their own.

"If it was, the appointment of any person to Cabinet could be considered suspect," Mr. Shapiro said.

Also true.

No reaction yet from the the folks who want to overturn the fair election of David Emerson. I'm willing to be they won't give up. This was never about ethics. It's all about politics and the chance to take a seat from the minority Conservatives and give it to the opposition.

Well, if nothing unethical happened, then clearly nothing illegal happened, and nothing is going to change. Emerson is in cabinet, and he's going to stay there. Another win for Stephen Harper.

Interestingly, Belinda Stronach should be concerned:

He also noted that if an opposition member were approached — or did the approaching — with the sole intent of changing their vote on a specific issue in the House, then such a move may be considered inappropriate and unacceptable.

Nothing will come of this statement in terms of an inquiry, but a subtle jab nonetheless. We might yet see this comment come up again during the Liberal leadership campaign if Stronach runs.

The first reaction is to laugh, of course:

Yesterday, Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac called The Daily News to say he intends to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

He also wants to run to bring his youth to the party and to end the "continuous mockery that's been allowed to take place of my party."

MacIsaac has mused about running for office in the past. He insisted yesterday that this time he's serious.

He will finance his bid by selling some art he owns. Leadership contenders must pay the Liberal party $50,000.

I'm not suggesting he is a likely to win, or that he will have any serious influence during a leadership convention, or that I would want any party, large or small, led by MacIsaac. But I think anyone who wants to serve his country in politics should be given the courtesy of consideration. He should be allowed to present his case and have it judged, but not pre-judged.

Making a major change in direction like this isn't easy. If he's serious, I wish him luck.

Update: It's been a week, and the Blogging Dippers are back on the blogrolls.

I don't like being the subject of the story:

Oops! It looks like that guy who was last seen cavorting with crooks had best get those enemy blogrolls off his blog before the Konservative Kops see it. So much for that “strict policy”. Once again, a Blogging Whorie is caught lying.

I'm "that guy". The crooks? I guess he means Conrad Black -- but I don't know why "crooks" is plural. I won't bother getting into the childishness of calling Conrad Black a crook before he has been found guilty.

Whatever.

What are the "kops" looking for? Whether or not I have other blogrolls on my blog. Apparently this blogger received an email that said in part:

we have a strict policy on multiple Canadian partisan blogrolls. If you'd like to be included on the Blogging Tories blogroll, we don't accept blogs that also have the green bloggers / progressive bloggers / blogging dipper blogrolls on their blogs

That's the first time I've ever heard of this policy. No one from the Blogging Tories has ever made mention of my blogrolls, and I take pride in maintaining links to as many Canadian political blogs as possible. I've secure enough in my convictions that I don't mind the shopper comparing my ideas with the ideas of others. I know they'll see the strengths of my arguments, moreso after having checked out the opposition and their penchant for name-calling ("Blogging Whories"??).

I don't know that the email is real. But I do know that I'm not about to change my blogrolls without good reason. The Blogging Tories have never indicated to me any reason to change, good or bad.

But the Blogging Dippers have provided me with a reason in the person of Robert McLelland. Throwing around the label "crooks" indiscriminately, suggesting I cavort with crooks because I was at a party at the same time -- I've had enough that. The Blogging Dippers are off my site until Friday. I doubt I drive much traffic to them, but then having them on my blogrolls was a symbolic gesture anyway, and so is tossing them off.

From Sun Media:

Despite an upswing in attacks against Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, recruiters at a Canadian Forces job fair said yesterday they are seeing their ranks swell with eager candidates.

A steady crowd took in the event at the HMCS Tecumseh, watching demonstrations and getting up-close-and-personal with Canadian Forces equipment, including an LAV III armoured fighting vehicle and a Griffin helicopter.

"Despite"? Maybe "Because of"?

Capt. Nolan Kemp with the Calgary recruiting centre said coverage of Canada's major role in southern Afghanistan and Kandahar has led to an upswing in recruitment for the Forces and its part-time reservists.

"There's a further sense of patriotism - people willing to go out there and make a difference," Kemp said.

I'm not saying people are signing up so they can get shot at. But they are signing up because they see the military as relevant, both to the world at large and to Canadians in particular, which is a new thing for Canada.

With that, though, comes responsibility. The government must establish a respectful and professional relationship with the military, and the military must move beyond constantly complaining about the lack of funding. Basically, the maturity level has to go up. I think that process is well underway already, though, and just in time too.

We owe all these new recruits the best possible future in return for their commitment to spend that future defending us in a world that seems a lot more dangerous than it did only a few years ago.

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" is a well-known phenomenon in the United States:

the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush

As Charles Krauthammer points out, it normally strikes the intellectually weak, but is beginning to affect others as well:

It is, of course, epidemic in New York's Upper West Side and the tonier parts of Los Angeles, where the very sight of the president -- say, smiling while holding a tray of Thanksgiving turkey in a Baghdad mess hall -- caused dozens of cases of apoplexy in otherwise healthy adults. What is worrying epidemiologists about the [Howard] Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state.

Moreover, Dean is very smart. Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood. Barbra Streisand, for example, wrote her famous September 2002 memo to Dick Gephardt warning that the president was dragging us toward war to satisfy, among the usual corporate malefactors who "clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq,'' the logging industry -- timber being a major industry in a country that is two-thirds desert.

Apparently, like a species-jumping virus, there are hints of the afflication mutating into a Canadianized version:

In Ottawa, about 250 people showed up to voice their opposition to everything from security certificates to the cost of university education.

They also demanded Canadian troops leave Afghanistan.

"There's no reason for these soldiers to be there," said Lincoln Addison, 25, a member of the Student Coalition Against War that helped organize Saturday's protest. "They're being lied to by their government."

In Halifax, there was a similar theme as hundreds of anti-war protesters marched downtown, banging drums, yelling out chants and carrying placards depicting war-ravaged children.

In Calgary, Dijla Al-Rekabi, 29, was moved to tears as she spoke to about 150 protesters about the situation in Iraq, which she left in 1996. "Iraq is a dream that I've had," she told the crowd. Now, Al-Rekabi said, she can only "look for the memory of it."

No reason for Canadians to be in Afghanistan? Why? Because Afghanistan under the Taliban can't matter to Canadians? Tell that to the families of the two dozen Canadians killed on 9-11.

But to think of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his psychopathic sons as a "dream"? Derangement among Canadians already exists of course, directed at the United States, but now starting to target Canadians as well:

The protesters, some dancing to keep warm, then marched down Ste. Catherine St. to Complexe Guy Favreau, many carrying anti-Harper placards.

Among them: Harper is putting our lives in danger, and Mr. Harper, you were BARELY elected. Many chants targeted the U.S. president and Harper, including: "George Bush: terroriste, Harper: complice"

Philippe Viene, a 25-year-old community activist, took part to send a message to Harper, who has said that Canada's soldiers - sent by the previous Liberal government - will remain in Afghanistan.

"The Conservatives always said they were for the war in Iraq and the occupation," Viene said. "I want to send a message that we still don't want to participate in the war. And I want Canada's troops in Afghanistan to come back home, because we're just helping the U.S. military strategy in the region."

Helping US military strategy? Well, d'uh! Should we be help Sheik Omar? Or just sitting tight and hoping that the number of Canadians killed in terrorist attacks is kept to a dull roar (and of course, hopefully only evil business people).

Ah well, it's going to get worse from here on. It's only a matter of time before Stephen Harper changes from stooge to evil warmonger. The key will be the media. If the media reminds Canadians that Afghanistan needs help, that groups within Afghanistan like women or religious and cultural minorities stand to lose not just political freedom but quite possibly their lives if the Taliban return, that Canada was targeted by Osama bin Laden long before Canadians went into Afghanistan, then maybe the disease can be contained.

I hoping the media will be up to it. I also hope the Conservative Party recognizes the positive role the media can play (and will play, if the message is delivered correctly), but that it will only happen if the media is treated with some respect and understanding. You know what they say about flies and vinegar...

One thing to watch for is implicit or explicit support for the HDS crowd from the political class, especially the NDP and the far left of the Liberal Party. Well, maybe not support. More like manipulation. Goading the HDS-afflicted protesters on to more loud and disruptive activities and eye-catching stunts. One thing to watch out for is those politicians using the media more effectively to get that coverage and make life hard for Stephen Harper, harder than it should be for the relatively small numbers of radicals involved. That's where the Conservatives have to be proactive and have to win the media battle in order to win the larger public opinion war.

I'm going to list a number of well-known Canadians:

• Peter Amrstrong: national CBC reporter
• Tim Powers: Conservative Party strategist and vice-president at Summa Communications
• Kady O'Malley: freelance reporter and mainstay at The Hill Times
• General Rick Hillier: Chief of the Defence Staff
• Tom Parry: parliamentary reporter for CBC Radio
• David Akin: parliamentary reporter and blogger for the Globe and Mail
• Lawrence Martin: one of Canada's leading political authors and columnist for the Globe and Mail

The question: What do they have in common?

For all I know, lots of things. Maybe they all love Canadian Idol.

But I know for certain one thing they have in common. Yours truly spent time with all of them, and many others as well, in a St Patrick's night that will not be forgotten anytime soon.

What did we talk about? Sorry, but that's off the blogging record.

Cheers.

From the Globe and Mail via Bourque:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has imposed central control over all information and comments to the public issued by government officials and even cabinet ministers, directing them to have everything cleared by the Prime Minister's Office, according to an internal e-mail and government sources.

The orders, described in an e-mail to bureaucrats, indicate that ministers have been told to avoid talking about the direction of the government, and that the government wants them to be less accessible to the news media. And all government officials are instructed to avoid speaking about anything other than the five priorities outlined in the Conservative campaign.

"Maintain a relentless focus on the five priorities from the campaign. Reduce the amount of ministerial/public events that distract from the five priority areas identified in the campaign," the e-mail states.

Of course, anyone in the private sector is used to this sort of thing. Any major corporation I've worked for has always maintained a very strict "no comment" rule for all employees at all levels when dealing with the press. Only the pros in the communications group actually communicate to the outside world.

Now a government is not a corporation. Or is it? Shareholders or voters? CEOs or Prime Ministers? Division vice presidents or ministers? The fact is that any heirarchical organization will tend to look the same. Should it come as a surprise that they behave in a similar manner?

But then there is the whole democracy thing. Do these rules work against the ability of MPs to serve their constituents?

The article seems clear that this applies to all ministerial communications, not to riding issues. Though I suppose that for MPs who are ministers, given their added responsibility, they can expect their riding newsletters to be vetted as well.

For what it's worth, these sorts of rules tend to be very temporary. In projects I've managed, we've always started with the formal "all communications go through the project manager" phase. That never lasts long. Very quickly, I would ensure that once I understood the lines of communications, and the people in the project understood what their responsibilities were, and what they were allowed to promise and not promise to other departments, the reins were loosened dramatically.

It's the up-front investment in some discipline that pays dividends later. Call it a learning curve for a minority government with inexperienced ministers and staff, with a need to stay on message, focused on the priorities, with little time for distractions, and not too much capital with a particularly suspicious press corps to spend on buying forgiveness for missteps.

I expect that once key ministers are in sync with the message and the style of communications this government wants to use, the restrictions will be relaxed. It'll have to happen for the sake of efficiency.

Warren Kinsella as prime minister?

Since 1990, one true Liberal has stood above the rest. He has fought for the real values of the Party. He served under Jean Chretien, and as special assistant helped deliver huge political wins again and again for Canada's most popular Prime Minister ever.

One true Liberal stood up to Paul Martin and the business Liberals. During the 2004 and 2006 campaigns he used the internet to bring down "L'Equipe Martin Team."

And now, this ass kicking Liberal who testifies to the true meaning of Liberal Party is helping to rebuild the Party he loves. Now that he has defeated the evil "Board" that has mangled the inner workings of LPC, he is taking it upon himself to shape the bright future of the Party he loves.

This gushing piece appears on the blog confidently, if prematurely, called "PrimeMinisterKinsella" at Blogspot. It refers to Warren Kinsella, who has repeatedly said he is not interested in running, or helping a potential candidate.

He is busy helping the Ontario Liberal Party right now, as well as raising his family, and pursuing his legal and writing work.

Kinsella is the obvious choice for Canada's next great Liberal Prime Minister. A well experienced Party man, he has shown his unwillingness to compromise his true beliefs during his period of exile from the Party.

Maybe. Certainly he is a man of his convictions. I like him personally. The Liberal Party could do worse. It probably will, judging from the current crop of potential candidates.

Then the blog seems to take a different direction, and I'm not sure which direction it's going. Is it seriously disconnected from reality, or is it cleverly sending a message that Kinsella is not leadership material?

If I knew who was behind the blog, I'd know if the person was clever enough to pull it off. I suspect in fact the person is smart enough to do just that.

But first some examples:

Kinsella's criticism of Harper has been severe. During the campaign, he called Mr. Harper "Too sexy." With such criticism, I am surprised that Mr. Harper even managed to keep his seat in Calgary.

The "sexy" comment came from a December 10 posting:

I cannot believe I actually said Stephen Harper's haircut is "too sexy." Mary Vallis at the Post, who is doing a weekly campaign panel sort of thing, regularly gets me to say things I will live to regret. Ipso facto, she is an excellent journalist.

Too sexy. Sheesh.

Hardly crushing criticism. Actually one of those endearing posts that makes me come back often to read Kinsella's blog -- he knows how to poke fun at himself.

The next part of the post tells me the person behind this is playing a big joke on us all:

To further help the strength of the Party, Kinsella has supported other strong progressive candidates who are considering leadership bids. He helped Mr. Brison, for instance, by posting private blackberry messages that exonerate Mr. Brison from any wrongdoing in the I.T. story.

OK, here is what Kinsella said to help Brison:

What does the below exchange mean, captured this morning on front page of the National Post? It means someone's done like dinner, I think. (Hell, CTV's David Akin is reporting the email may have been sent from a cabinet meeting.). And this IT thing is just getting started, remember: that's why I have taken the position, since January 23, that this government's lifespan is measured in years, not months:

[emails from Brison]

Helping Brison? He follows up with an example of how Kinsella has forgiven David Herle, Paul Martin's right-hand man, which of course is an example of quite the opposite.

To me this is clearly Kinsella. I think he's sending a message to all the potential Kinsella recruiters that they are not paying attention if they think Kinsella is about to help Brison or David Herle or any of the former Martinites continue to hold power. If the Liberal Party picks another Martinite as leader, they can forget about Kinsella's help.

Moreover, he's playing a big joke on those people who will read this piece (very well written, by the way -- another Kinsella trademark) without actually checking the facts, and who will then jump on the faux bandwagon.

In fact, I expect Kinsella will post a gotcha follow-up, with the best of the "recruit Kinsella" emails he'll be getting:

Please send your letters of encouragement and support to [email address deleted]. The time has come to get Stephen Harper's strongest opponent into the right position. The tims [sic] has come to get a true Liberal who is supporting our Party during our period of transition into the right position. The time has come to get someone fair and just and respected by all into the right position. The time has come to elect a real leader who can see beyond personalities and work towards the strong progressive Canada the Liberal Party envisions.

This last paragaph is the important one. If you read this and you're paying attention, you'll realize that if it is "tims [sic] has come to get a true Liberal who is supporting our Party during our period of transition into the right position", then you need to find true Liberals, who are not going to be found in the Martin camp. He says that the "time has come to elect a real leader who can see beyond personalities". A message to look beyond the caucus itself?

I think Kinsella is having one over on us, but at the same time sending a carefully constructed message.

If that's true, good one, Warren! But maybe a bit too subtle for most people.

Update:

It appears that it isn't Kinsella:

March 16, 2006 - Funny. Glad to see some members of the Board are making creative use of their severance period, as well.

Still, I can't help but think that the message I described is in that post. Otherwise, the person who wrote it completely misunderstood just about everything Kinsella said about Brison and so forth. Or possibly something else -- the person who wrote it does not expect people to check the details and figures that he can get away with what seems to be an endorsement by Warren Kinsella for the current membership of the Liberal Party.

Some people are pointing out that Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to enjoy soft drinks, and that he has a bit of a bulge:

On Tuesday, the front pages of Canadian newspapers featured a photograph of Harper as he looked at his food tray holding a can of pop, while most others drank water when he sat down to a mess hall meal with Canadian troops in Kandahar. Other candid pictures showed his shirt straining against the visible spare tire around his middle.

Well, apparently this is serious!

Dr. Paul Boisvert, co-ordinator for educational activities for the Merck Frosst/Canadian Institutes of Health Research chair in obesity at Laval University, said it's difficult to gauge the prime minister's eating habits and what affect they have on his weight, but that his image could have a negative impact.

"It's not a good example,'' he said.

Evidence that pop and other sweetened drinks are a significant factor in weight gain has been mounting in recent months. A Boston-based study published in Pediatrics last week showed that teens who drank a can of pop a day gained up to 6.4 kilograms a year compared to those who didn't.

OK, I don't know that many teens, but all the ones I do know in the neighbourhood are:

1. Entirely unaware that Stephen Harper has a spare tire
2. Entirely unaware of Stephen Harper

Frankly, I'm more worried about the second point than the first point, but in any case, teens are not likely to be affected whatsoever by the prime minister's choice in beverage, unless, that is, Stephen Harper became a finalist on some rock star reality show.

For that matter, if you want reality, here's some reality. The prime minister is a middle-aged father of two, and he's a bit squishy in the middle. Most middle-aged fathers are. Not all of us have been blessed with my rock hard abs so well-defined you could grate cheese on them.

Is it Stephen Harper's job to promote a healthy lifestyle?

Boisvert said it's clear Harper has an image to protect and that Canadians need politicians or other high-profile figures to promote healthy lifestyles, similar to the work done by former U.S. president Bill Clinton after he underwent heart surgery.

"I'm sure if we have more politicians that come as an icon, that will certainly help,'' he said. "That is a good example. That is something that we need.''

Of course some liberal-types believe that the government should use its coercive power to do even more:

Results of the study prompted British Columbia's Childhood Obesity Foundation to launch a campaign against sugary drinks and other junk food. The group wants the government to treat junk food like tobacco and place a tax on it to deter people from consuming it.

"We need to get that message out and to convince government that they can't passively hope that people get the message,'' Dr. Tom Warshawski, head of pediatrics at the Kelowna General Hospital, and chair of the foundation, told the media.

Why should the government treat soft drinks as junk food? The government doesn't drink. People do. Parents understand that a soft drink consists of empty calories. It shouldn't require punitive taxes to cause them not to give these drinks to young children.

Obviously for a lot of people, the urge to go to the government for solutions is still very strong. Hopefully a few firm but polite refusals to get involved by this governemtn will teach these people to solve the problem themselves.

Bloggers are getting beat up by Ben Chin, though it's not not just bloggers despite what the article says:

Toronto-Danforth Liberal candidate Ben Chin, angered by bloggers, has taken out a newspaper ad to defend his family history.

"I hope we can move past anonymous, mean-spirited smears," he said.

The ad ran in a community paper on Saturday.

Chin is going up against the NDP's Peter Tabuns in a byelection to fill the seat vacated by Marilyn Churley when she ran federally.

Bloggers questioned Chin's connection to the riding and whether his last name was Korean or Chinese. They also accused him of painting a false picture of himself as a poor refugee. Other entries suggested Chin's diplomat father was once linked to a fascist regime in South Korea.

As far as I know, the question of Chin's name was not brought up by bloggers, but by the rabble crowd on their message board.

However, it is true that bloggers were trying to sort out the question of Chin's family history (without any silly, perhaps even racist, nonsense about names).

I know because I participated. I plugged a story by Stephen Taylor. I assumed that if a Korean was a victim of political persecution, then he must be North Korean.

Of course, South Korea has not always been a proper democracy. Indeed, it went from an autocracy under Syngman Rhee until 1960, then a dictatorship under Park Chung-hee until 1978, when Park was assassinated. Another general took over, and the country is still shifting to a proper democracy.

Chin says in the newspaper ad that his father was incarcerated by the Korean CIA in 1975 and accused by military dictator President Park Chung Hee of being a communist.

Chin was sent at age 13 to live in East York after he was told he would not be allowed to continue his education in South Korea.

Goes to show that not everything is black and white. I knew South Korea had only recently become a democracy in our sense of the word, and that before that it was authoritarian country. I would have thought a high-level diplomat would have been in a safe, even privileged, position, but then you know what they say about tallest weeds being the ones cut first...

Scientists at NASA are angry that there is not enough money to do, well, everything:

One hot-button topic, for example, is a funding cut for a mission to Europa, a moon of Jupiter, with possible high value in term of exobiology. "The Europa line is gone because we don't have the money to do it now. We didn't say that we're never going to do it. It's just that we don't have it within this budget framework," [NASA Associate Administrator for Science, Mary Cleave,] responded.

"If you want to do Europa, the money is going to have to come from somewhere," Cleave said.

The scientists are upset because they weren't consulted before the cuts were made. I can't be sure that was true. I suspect some scientists were consulted, but not all scientists.

Well, there is no satisfying everyone.

But as Mary Cleave said, the money has to come from somewhere. I wonder if the private sector could step in. Why not offer a group of pharmaceutical and bio-engineering companies exclusive rights to exploit the practical applications of any biological discoveries made in such a mission? Pick an extremely long timeframe, say 100 years, to recognize the potential difficulties in bringing any potential products to market.

Similar offers could be made to natural resource concerns to help fund a trip to an asteroid or to the moon to mine for resources.

The money they put up might be enough to tip the balance and get the mission back on.

Maybe the costs are too high to realize a profit, but I don't see why NASA can't float an idea like this. Or maybe it's obvious that it can't work. Anyone have other ideas?

From the National Post editorial on Slobodan Milosevic:

Finally, Milosevic showed up international humanitarian law for the fragile -- often vain -- project it is. When Milosevic was hauled to The Hague in 2001, the event was hailed as a welcome landmark: For the first time in history, a head of state and government had been brought before a war crimes tribunal to answer for his actions. But outside the Balkans, the world lost interest as the proceedings ground tediously onward. As John O'Sullivan notes on these pages, rather than bringing closure to victims, the trial merely gave a soapbox to Milosevic so he could rant at the West. This spectacle, too, is being repeated in Baghdad.

I haven't written anything on the death of Milosevic until now, because I've been trying to focus on the big picture. I'll let others weave conspiracy theories about whether Slobo was murdered, committed suicide, or died a natural death.

For me, it was remarkable that he was still in the middle of this absurd court case when it happened.

The National Post captured my distaste perfectly.

So what do we do about it? My thinking is that it is a mistake to treat these sorts of crimes as if there are crimes in the first place. The law courts, in particular in the West, are not suited to the prosecution of these crimes, as the Milosevic debacle clearly showed.

A war is fought, a war criminal is caught, but then he is tried as if he held up a convenience store. Lawyers try to weave a direct connection between the dictator and the deaths of this or that particular group of victims. Another group of lawyers file motion after motion in order to stall for time.

Why stall for time? Because war crimes are political and ideological crimes, committed for political or ideological reasons. A collapsed political system or a discredited ideology lose their grip on the public interest quickly as they are replaced with a new system and a different ideology. So stalling succeeds when it puts the ex-dictator past the point when the public cares any more.

As horrendous as Nazi crimes were, when an aging man is pulled in front of a judge accused of being a German prison guard at a concentration camp, more than a few people always wonder whether the past should just remain in the past. When the majority of people think like that, the dictator's defence lawyer knows he has a good chance of winning.

Maybe we need to remain in the realm of political expediency and ideological purity instead of shifting into the world of judicial minutiae in a situation in which we have captured a dictator like Milosevic or Sadaam.

• Were war crimes committed? Yes.
• Were they widespread, over a large area, over a long period of time, and involving an overwhelmingly large organized group of government employees, military and civilian? Yes.
• Did the dictator give speeches, both those aimed at a domestic audience and those presented to the world community, in which he encouraged those crimes against a particular and identifiable group? Yes.
• Did the retinue of cabinet ministers and hand-picked security people surrounding the dictator exclude those in the targeted groups? Yes.
• Is there reason to doubt that free and fair elections were held in this country? Yes.

Answer yes to these questions, provide and evaluate the evidence, and the dictator is found guilty. Over in less than a month.

This approach doesn't demand a direct link between the dictators desk and the crimes, but then a dictator might not have left one. But the political and ideological links remain, and they are not easily dismissed or discredited.

You know Kevin Chalmers, the former campaign coordinator for David Emerson, and now the leader of the effort to "de-elect" Emerson for having the temerity to join cabinet.

Well, on the donation page on the de-election website he writes the following:

Send to:

Suite 359 - 3495 Cambie Street
Vancouver, BC V5Z 4R3

Any questions please contact us by email or phone at:

Email: info@emersoncampaign.ca

Notice that no actual phone number is provided.

Well, I checked the registry for emersoncampaign.ca, and Kevin Chalmers used the phone number (604) 924-9212. That turns out to be his home number at 145 Keith Road West in North Vancouver. Interestingly, that is in Don Bell's riding North Vancouver.

Kevin Chalmers does not live David Emerson's riding of Vancouver Kingsway. David Emerson is not Chalmer's member of parliament. Chalmer's is represented by Liberal MP Don Bell. Judging from the lack of a de-election campaign, Chalmers is pleased by his representation by an opposition MP first elected in 2004, and who has never held a cabinet post.

Maybe Kevin Chalmers can explain why he feels the need to de-elect someone else's member of parliament. Apparently just as he is happy with his representation by Don Bell, he knows that the people of Vancouver Kingsway would be happy to have a new member of parliament. But then why isn't there someone in David Emerson's own riding who is leading the charge to de-elect David Emerson?

Can't those Vancouver-Kingsway people organize their own town hall meetings?

As a Vancouver-Kingsway grass roots driven organization we would like to extend a formal invitation to Mr. Emerson to attend and participate in a town hall meeting with his constituents.

I think he meant "a North Vancouver-based Vancouver-Kingsway grass roots driven organization".

A "carpetbagger" is an outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality. I guess that makes Chalmers some sort of anti-carpetbagger, an outsider who seeks the failure of local politician.

Maybe Chalmers can explain which is more dangerous to the parliamentary system: that an elected member of parliament joined the cabinet at the request of the prime minister, or that people might be able to force by-elections in ridings that aren't their own.

Imagine a riding in BC that is heavily NDP running de-election campaigns targeting a Conservative MP in Alberta. Or vice versa. Then you will understand why we have a riding system in which members are responsible to their own constituents.

Update: Apparently this was revealed by Norman Spector on CKNW radio today. Darn.

In my post on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit to Afghanistan, I said the following:

I bring this up because with Stephen Harper's brilliantly executed visit to Afghanistan, I see a sign of that sort of division building.

The phrase "brilliantly executed" generated a bit of controversy. You can read opinions in the comments.

I haven't defended my choice of words, in part because I knew I wouldn't have to:

Just weeks ago, most Canadians said they wouldn't personally vote in favour of putting troops in Afghanistan. But a new poll finds a majority of Canadians back the mission even if they don't fully understand it.

The poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail found that a modest but clear majority of Canadians -- 55 per cent -- now support the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Only 41 per cent oppose the deployment.

An earlier poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel on Feb. 23 found that 62 per cent of Canadians would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan should a vote be held in Parliament. Only 27 per cent said they would vote in favour of the mission.

Furthermore, 73 per cent of respondents said the decision to send troops to Afghanistan should require parliamentary approval, while 20 per cent said it should not.

Of course, one visit doesn't explain this remarkable shift. But the change happened since February 23, a month after the election, at a time when the Conservatives were settling into government. The cabinet had already been in place for more than two weeks. Ministers were begining to respond to issues coming up in their portfolios, and the media was dutifully reporting and analyzing. This included the message from the Conservative government about their support for the troops and for the mission, and how it plays into the bigger picture of Canada re-asserting her sovereignty and defending her interests, at home and abroad

The poll itself was taken from March 9 through March 12, meaning the effect of Stephen Harper's visit on March 12 could have had a reinforcing effect at the end of the poll.

Now you see why I called the trip "brilliant". Not only was it a bold leadership move for a new prime minister leading a minority government to focus (in a very personal and public way) on an issue that is very controversial, politically, Stephen Harper seems to have picked exactly the right time to make this move.

He did it ahead of the poll. He is leading Canadian opinion, but at the same time, in tune with it. A certain former prime minister was well known for waiting for the polls to come out before deciding what to do.

Now the poll shows some problems. It seems that 70% of the respondents think the Canadian troops are there as peacekeepers. In the formal sense of the word, they are not. Peacekeepers are in place to keep apart two sides who have agreed to a cessation of hostilities. The Taliban have agreed to nothing, and the Canadian troops are in place to support one side over the other. In fact, the Canadians are hunting the Taliban down.

Nevertheless, the positive shift means that further refinement of the message so that Canadians are fully informed is not an impossible task. And with that, a productive and meaningful debate in Parliament can take place, if that's what ends up happening.

Kevin Chalmers, David Emerson's former campaign coordinator, is spearheading the effort to have the floor-crossing cabinet minister "de-elected".

At his website, we learn that this is not motivated by partisan politics:

We are a non-partisan, grassroots campaign. We are not aligned with any political party.

They accept donations:

We welcome donations of all sizes -- every contribution helps.

Please make cheques out to:

Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson

As far as I can tell, this is not a registered political organization, or a charity. It is not a publicly traded company with shareholders. We're not in an election, so I'm not certain whether the so-called "third party" rules apply to restrict the amount of money spent. Kevin Chalmers is not registered as a lobbyist, so we don't know who he is talking to about this issue.

The bottom line is that we have his word for it that this is a non-partisan grassroots campaign. It might have started out that way, or maybe this Liberal Party organizer got the idea from somewhere else. He might be getting his money from somewhere else, too. Heck, the NDP came second in the riding -- who is to say money isn't being moved into this campaign from there.

We don't even know if Chalmers is making any effort to restrict donations so that only David Emerson's constituents are putting up the money, or if he is happy to accept money from any Canadian living anywhere in any amount who wants to meddle in the politics of Vancouver Kingsway.

Actually, if I were Chalmers, I'd probably want to keep that a secret too. Though partisans might be happy to accept help from any source as long as it advances their agenda, people who are not so sure about what to think about Emerson's move into cabinet would probably feel a bit angry if they learned that some outsiders were trying to force the issue and turf their candidate.

I wonder if anyone is looking into this.

I've checked, and I can't find any stories of vandalism aimed at Belinda Stronach's riding office by angry conservatives:

Two men are in custody facing mischief charges after Vancouver police caught protesters dumping manure outside embattled MP David Emerson's constituency office early Monday.

Recall that recently four people were arrested for assault by trespass for staging a sit-in. This included Kevin Chalmers, David Emerson's former campaign coordinator and currently the CEO of White Tiger Consulting. White Tiger had two major contracts with Canfor, the lumber concern for which David Emerson was formerly the CEO. I'm guessing no new contracts will be going to White Tiger anytime soon. I wonder how the other partners at White Tiger feel about that?

Enough about those arrests. Back to the today's batch of arrests.

The names of the manure dumpers weren't reported.

Conservatives aren't devoid of passion. I bet plenty of people who felt betrayed by Belinda's defection to the Liberals in order to sell her vote for a cabinet post had petty revenge fantasies.

But then one of the things that seems to identify a liberal is being "liberated" from the bonds of common decency, or even the requirement to act within the law. Do you feel strongly about an issue, especially if it's just feeling against something without clearly for anything else? Then you aren't confined to letter writing, or peaceful protests, or personal boycotts, or exercising your vote at the next election. You're a liberal! You are allowed to do whatever you please.

As long as it makes you feel good, right?

Don't worry about the police and the law. Just call whatever you did direct action, physical political intervention, or even street theatre. Plenty of ways to spin vandalism and assault in such a way as to suggest that the appropriate response is applause and adulation instead of a hefty fine and possibly a criminal record.

Maybe it's the conservative way of seeing the world -- realisitically -- instead of the liberal way -- idealistically -- that prevents conservatives from engaging in this sort of thing. Call your "direct action" whatever you want -- it's still a petty crime committed by petty criminals for petty motives. Nothing like a healthy dose of realism to reveal stupidity for what it is.

It is a given that after an election campaign, the winner must unite the electorate.

That is, for the most part, true. In Canada, Stephen Harper has to lead a country where there was no clear majority vote for any one party. That means he must fashion coalitions in order to lead.

Having said that, Stephen Harper must also be true to himself and his party platform. That is difficult if your potential coalition partners have allied themselves to pull in a common direction.

Of course, Stephen Harper's Conservatives won the single largest block of votes, so they should have the most pull. But if the other parties unite...

So it is key to keep the opposition off-balance and fractured. And one way to do that is to drive the opposition party to their extreme positions. Whereas the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, and the NDP have some common ground, there are plenty of things they disagree on. If Stephen Harper can keep them focused on their differences, the better his chances at successfully pursuing his agenda.

I bring this up because with Stephen Harper's brilliantly executed visit to Afghanistan, I see a sign of that sort of division building.

Recall that Canadian troops are in Afghanistan because the Liberals sent them in. The key is to force Jack Layton and the NDP to occupy a position which rigorously opposes that mission, and in doing so, create a source of serious friction that can play a role in the way the Liberals and the NDP are able to coordinate constructive opposition on other issues. Jack Layton is a politician, so he is certainly able to compartmentalize irritants for political expediency if he is allowed to. But true believers have it in their power to deny Jack Layton that latitude. For these people, that the Liberals put troops in Afghanistan means that the NDP should not make common cause with the Liberals.

Do these true believers exist? Here's a sample of comments about the visit from rabble.ca:

Let's hope that "support the troops" line of propaganda doesn't work here. I don't think it works with the military either as (using all the people in the military I know as a sample) most of them vote Liberal. [Euhemeros]

I fear for the morale of our troops. Imagine having that goop slobbering platitudes in your face, and you stifling a gag reflex. Back in the day, the troops referred to guys like Harper as "plugs". [nister]

No, this repulsive clown is simply aping his moron-mentor to the south, with his militaristic proclivities. Bush, it seems, is always addressing cadets or fresh recruits or marines or Westpoint graduates and seems to enjoy hanging around the engines of war, he must get some vicarious buzz of it...making up for earlier lost opportunities I suppose. Why doesn't Harper go visit a daycare center? An Innu community? Something a little more central to the Canadian identity than Victorian era colonialism? He's just a puke. [Merowe]

He invoked 9/11 early in the speech, moved to “we won’t cut and run… That’s not my way” and finished it all up with a “God bless Canada”. All Harper needs is the Texas drawl. [caliope]

He is a freak. [Cueball]

Jesus. Time to move to Europe. [Michelle]

Oh well, at least he's honest about it. Unlike the Liberals who did all their pro-Bush regime stuff behind closed doors and kept us happy with a well-spun lie about how we're "peacekeepers" and somehow only benignly imperialist. [kuri]

I like the last comment in particular. As much as these people hate the Conservatives, the Liberals have earned a special disdain. The Conservatives are a clear antithesis, but the Liberals steal NDP votes by posing as liberals but acting like conservatives (from the point of view of the NDP folks). Many would have been willing to hold their noses and work with the Liberals, but now...?

If the true believers can be kept in full "Hate Harper" mode, that will compromise the ability of Jack Layton to work constructively with the Liberals. The Liberals are not ready to go into an election. They need to tread carefully in this minority government. With the right level of pressure, working in unity with the NDP or the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberals might be able to influence this minority government, even blackmail it, without going to far as to trigger an election.

Working with the Bloc is fraught with political peril for any party, but especially for the Liberals who still portray themselves as Canada's only true party of national unity. That leaves the NDP, but if Jack Layton is unable to make pragmatic compromises when required if it means being seen to take the lead from the evil Conservatives or the duplicitous Liberals...

Unwilling to pull the pin on the election grenade, and faced with a seething and irrational NDP base handcuffing Jack Layton, and unwilling to work with the politically unpalatable Bloc, the Liberals may be forced to support the Conservatives (at least by not voting against the Conservatives) just to maintain the status quo until the Liberals have a new leader (a year away, if not longer). The bizarre situation might even inspire more Liberals to cross the floor.

I know this is an elaborate chain of reasoning, but in the end, in a minority situation, the pragmatic will win over the ideologue. Ironically, the pragmatic Conservatives will have to act like ideologues into order to draw the NDP into behaving the same way, and so give the Conservatives the upper hand.

OK, quick test. I'm going to name two presidents. Which one would you associate with venereal disease?

• Bill Clinton
• George W Bush

If you are honest, you will say Bill Clinton, whatever your political leanings. The facts of the Lewinski scandal are beyond dispute. His reputation as a rake precedes him. I'm not saying he actually has a disease, but if you were going to reference that condition with any president, past or present...

And yet if Anne Coulter said Bill Clinton was a syphilitic president, she'd be excoriated. Even if it was a metaphor.

So why does Kurt Vonnegut get away with it?

On a cold, cloudy night, the lines threaded all the way around the Ohio State campus. News that Kurt Vonnegut was speaking at the Ohio Union prompted these "apathetic" heartland college students to start lining up in the early afternoon. About 2,000 got in to the Ohio Union. At least that many more were turned away. It was the biggest crowd for a speaker here since Michael Moore.

"Well," says Vonnegut, "I just want to say that George W. Bush is the syphilis president."

The students seem to agree.

Apparently it was a metaphor. One that required no explanation, though no one quite understands what Vonnegut meant. I suppose it was supposed to sound like a clever insult, without actually being clever. A multisyllabic version of "You're stupid!"

But Vonnegut said it, so it must be genius.

Here's another example.

George W Bush stands up and says that when a young person declares that he or she is a homosexual, the parents are inevitably hurt by the news.

Did he say that? No, but if he did, the hue and cry would be deafening. Bush and his social conservative cabal hate homosexuals and assume that a declaration of homosexuality can only be met with pain and not with love and acceptance. Maybe that's the way things are in Jesusland, but not in enlightened places of America (who voted for John Kerry, by the way).

But guess what? Kurt Vonnegut said exactly that in the same speech:

"If you really want to hurt your parents and don't want to be gay, go into the arts," he says.

Then he breaks into song, doing a tender, loving rendition of "Stardust Memories."

By now the packed hall has grown reverential. The sound system is appropriately tenuous. Straining to hear every word is both an effort and a meditation.

Meditation? Reverential? He likens homosexuality to something universally repellant, and the crowd reveres him? He was making a joke, of course. Fine. But I thought we weren't allowed to make jokes like that. Imagine Stephen Harper or Jason Kenney saying something like that in Canada, or George W Bush or John Ashcroft in the US, even in jest.

As he accepts the students' standing ovation with characteristic dignity and grace, not a few tears come from young people who are wise enough to appreciate what they are seeing. "If this isn't great," they seem to say, "what is?"

How can a crowd of university students be so bereft of the gift of critical thinking?

Sad news out of Iraq. Tom Fox, a non-violent Christian worker from the US, firmly on the side of the insurgents, was murdered by those same insurgents, his body left to be found as a message. The message? That the US abandon Iraq to the terrorists and the genocidal maniacs and the Islamic fundamentalists, so that they can continue to murder and kill and enrich themselves.

Now it is one thing to stand for your principles. Even to be killed for living by your principles. For that Tom Fox has to be given a measure of respect.

Too bad his own people aren't giving him that respect.

[An email I received today]

Brent Colbert has invited you to join in supporting Stand Up For Choice In Childcare. Opposition MP and Senators have threatened to vote down the new Government's Choice in Childcare proposal. Please take a moment to let them know that you want the Choice in Childcare benefit and forward this on to your friends and family.

Opposition MP and Senators have threatened to vote down the new Government's Choice in Childcare proposal. During the election parents across Canada voted for change and part of that change was for a government that respected all parents and the choices they make for their kids. Canadians voted against an eleven billion dollar bureaucratic scheme that would only provide limited help to less than 30% of Canadian families that choose institutional care for their kids. Canadians voted for the $1200 per year per child benefit promised during the election. Parents want the freedom to invest that money in the childcare that best suits their children. Perhaps it's classes for their stay-at-home kids or money to pay for extra help for a special needs child. Some parents will use the benefit to offset the costs of a nanny, a relative or the fees at a day care center. But in the end, it will be their choice not the governments. That is why Canadian parents need to stand up and tell the opposition politicians to pass the Choice in Childcare benefit. What you