The Journal of N = 1

ha ha haaaa HA!

2006-07-30T23:31:00.000-04:00

Who knows if this is true. But it's worth mentioning this to your favourite envirolefty family member, just to see his/her eyes bug out like in a cartoon.

Just Say Know

2006-06-24T12:34:00.000-04:00

Freedom: My Anti-Gov

Best thing I've found on the web in a while.

So I'm thinking...

2006-06-07T00:12:00.000-04:00

...if these 17 suspects choose to be tried by juries, there'll be a peck of tenebrous veniremen out there.

I'm just sayin' is all.

To Colby Cosh, with thanks

2006-05-22T19:44:00.000-04:00

Dear Mr Cosh:

Twice in the last month, you have made me search Dictionary.com: on April 28, I had to look up "veniremen", and on May 21 I had to find the definition of "tenebrous".

Finding new words is a rare pleasure, and one I do not often have the opportunity to enjoy.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

N

Opus: "Liberals are meddlers! Conservatives aren't supposed to be meddlers! You're baaad Republicans!"

2006-05-22T10:02:00.000-04:00

This weekend's OPUS strip, by Berkely Breathed:

[Click to go to a larger version]

Note the "Hands Free -- Automatic" urinal in the last panel. With the... er... automatic grasping arm.

If Islam was good enough for Mohammed, it's good enough for me as well as those hellfire-bound offspring of apes and monkeys.

2006-05-21T14:37:00.000-04:00

Nice.

And these are the "moderates".

I think the post-9/11 Lefty handwringing ("why do they hate us?") might have a pretty easy answer: because if they don't hate us, they have to repeat grade 1! Not to mention grades 2, 3, 4, 5 through 11, and 12!

But you know, I shouldn't be so judgmental. After all, they learn to hate Christians and Jews, and we learn that Christopher Columbus "discovered" "America". So it's really two sides of the same coin.

I blame George Bush.

If English is good enough for Andrew Coyne, it's good enough for me.

2006-05-21T14:19:00.000-04:00

Coyne is back. Cool. Now all we need is Amazon and Aldini and Angry White Males and...

If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me.

2006-05-21T13:46:00.000-04:00

Honestly, I think this* is a mistake: the US is evidently some ways along towards enshrining English as its official language.

The whole idea of an official language is stupid. Government should communicate with people in whatever language makes local sense. This is simply a question of practicality: once there are "enough" Language X'ers in a given place, they should be able to communicate however they want. Naturally as a libertarian I think there oughtta be an awful lot LESS communicating with government than is currently required, but the principle holds.

I am not trying to suggest that if you speak Esperanto or one of those African Click languages (or for that matter French, English, Russian, or C++) that you have a "right" to communicate with the government in that language. You have a right to be left alone by the State. Everything else is just about practicality.

The big problem with having an official language (apart from the fact that the whole idea is stupid--why do a plurality of my neighbours get to decide what the "official language" is? Based on what right? Other than the Rule Of The Mob, of course, which I grant you is all the "right" that pretty much anyone requires, these days...) is this: once you establish an official language, there will be pressure to add others. Surely some group of Spanish speakers will in some area form a majority in some southern state, and they will pass a law that says Spanish is their local official language. Then the federal gov't will get into a big constitutional battle over it, which by rights it should lose because of States Rights. And then what do you have? You have Quebec separatism, Albuquerque style.

Typical nativistic crap. In Canada this has evolved into the CR(*spit*)TC and the sponsorship scandal, which we should not forget arose out a plan to bribe Quebecers to love Canada. Is that what the US wants? I guarantee you: if this official language b.s. goes through in the US, it will come attached to the usual bit of legislation that always accompanies social engineering: The Law of Unintended Consequences.

[*Link thanks to Hit & Run, new Associate Professor at the University of N=1]

Why do so many people think they are the boss of my bitch ass?

2006-05-17T23:39:00.000-04:00

From this website it seems you can get a list of the books which are BANNED by Opus Dei*.

This is about the plumb stupidest idea I ever done hear, y'all.

I do appreciate the thought that went into the different ~~character levels, just like in D&D~~ "degrees of badness" for these books. Levels 1 and 2 are OK to read (although for 2 you may need some prior "formation", which I think is like the formation my kids do with play-dough, i.e. squashing). Level 3 is only okay if you have been sufficiently, er, formed. Although please note! There may be "inconvenient" scenes (like the one in that ol' time Christmas carol, "I saw Daddy Kissing Santa Claus"), and of course you would need the permission of your ~~cruise director~~ ~~yogic flyer~~ spiritual director.

Level 4 is where it gets good.

For Level 4 you not only need the permission of the Spiritual Director (and possibly the Spiritual Executive Producer and Spiritual Assistant Sound Editor, although that is not specified per se), but you must "have a necessity to read them". I am guessing that this definition of "necessity" cannot generally be extended to include letters to Penthouse, due to the necessity of finding out what Midwestern College Co-eds do when the Pizza Guy shows up and they don't have cash on hand. (Unless authorized by your Spiritual Director, of course, which raises the possibility of a black market in freelance Spiritual Director permission slips.)

Levels 5 and 6 are FORBIDDEN abosuposituvelitely, unless you have the specific permission of either the Mad Hatter in New York or the Queen of May in Rome. Failing that you require the permission of the Chief Dogbotherer in Palos Verde, or the Associate Comptroller for the Five Boroughs.

I suppose if anyone writes some really nasty piece of crap, it would require written permission from the Head Flying Monkey on the planet Bongo.

This is a really, really, really, powerfully stupid idea. But at least I know where to start my summer reading!

p.s. I am a little peeved that Ayn Rand only made Level 5. What the heck? So I only need some yahoo in New York to say it's okay to read Atlas Shrugged, but if I want to read Carrie I've got to make a call to Rome?

*In case you are wondering, Dei is not the last name of Berkely Breathed's cartoon penguin.

Found on www.canuckscorner.com

2006-04-02T13:43:00.000-04:00

You had me at "idiocy"

2006-03-30T23:27:00.000-05:00

Theodore Dalrymple, the pseudonymous physician and social commentator, writes the way I would if I were extremely brilliant and talented, instead of an overtired cliche-ridden hack.

Exhibit A: This piece from The Times of London, entitled "The Striking Idiocy of Youth."

Allow me an excerpt or two:

THE SIGHT OF MILLIONS of Frenchmen, predominantly young, demonstrating in deep sympathy and solidarity with themselves, is one that will cause amusement and satisfaction on the English side of the Channel. Everyone enjoys the troubles of his neighbours. And at least our public service strikers just stay away from work, and spend the day peacefully performing the rites of their religion, DIY, and not making a terrible nuisance of themselves. In fact, many of them are probably less of a public nuisance if they stay at home than if they go to work.

Of course, demonstrating in huge numbers is what the French do from time to time. We should never forget that to break a shop window for the good of humanity is one of the greatest pleasures known to Man. Trying to topple governments by shouting insults is also great fun.
[...]
It is often pointed out that French unemployment under the age of 26 is the highest in Europe, running at about 25 per cent. Moreover, in the banlieues it is 50 per cent. These banlieues are homes to millions of people, disproportionately young. It follows — does it not? — that there must be a considerable section of the young population in which unemployment is less than a quarter, actually much less. One would hardly have to be de Tocqueville to guess in which section of the young population the unemployment was less: the section from which the demonstrators, or at least their leaders and agents provocateurs, are drawn. In an increasingly desperate situation, the demonstrators are so afraid of the future that they want to hang on to their privileges and job security by hook or by crook, even if it means that the youth of the banlieues will eventually have to be kept in order by the Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité, the much-feared riot police, the CRS. There is nothing idealistic or generous about the demonstrators, just as there wasn’t in 1968.
[...]
We have no reason to condescend to the French, however, for the British are in fundamentally the same boat, with a few extra problems of our own. The vast and fraudulent expansion of tertiary education, which leaves students indebted for their own useless education, is merely a means by which the Government disguises youth unemployment and keeps young people off the streets. [...] Our economy is corruptly creating public service jobs — endless co-ordinators of facilitation and facilitators of co-ordination — but not many in the private sector, the only true measure of economic health and growth. Any fool can create public sector jobs, and [the Labour Government in the UK] has done so: but not even the most brilliant man can make them economically productive in the long term.
[...]
It can’t be said either that we won’t deserve what we get. It is we, after all, who have listened to the urgings of demagogic confidence tricksters, and believed their promises of irreconcilable goods. We should have paid attention instead to the wise words of Benjamin Franklin that apply as much to economics as to politics. He who gives up freedom for security, he said, will end up with neither.

"We should never forget that to break a shop window for the good of humanity is one of the greatest pleasures known to Man." Hah. Awesome.

Hockey versus Politics

2006-03-27T23:15:00.000-05:00

Last year, I found myself so disgusted with politics that I started avoiding the front page of the paper in favour of the sports section. At the time it looked like Harper was misplaying his hand, and that Martin would be able to pimp the Dippers until a spring election returned another Liberal government.

It was so disgusting I had to look away.

Since the January election, I've been avoiding the front pages again--not because it's disgusting, but just because it's boring. Well, either boring or insane--like the Battle of Khartoon.

I don't really care about the internal machinations of a Tory government. I don't really care about whether Peter Mackay was awarded Foreign Affairs as a prize for hard slogging, or as a firework designed to illuminate the man's deep shallowness. I don't care about the Liberal "race"--a competition so shockingly pathetic that Belinda Stronach (insert DSM-IV Axis 2 reference here) is straightfacedly described as a front-runner.

As a cynical Canadian libertarianoid, I ask of my government only two things, really: (1) cut my taxes, and (2) don't piss me off too much.

The second probably requires some explanation.

I fully expect to be pissed off a lot by any Canadian government. Bombardier will continue to turn wealth into ashes. The Wheat Board will continue to try to prove that black is white, and will do so on my dime. The CRTC will continue to insist that I be entertained and educated only in a fashion Approved By The State.

But I don't need to have my face shoved in this pile of ordure. And as long as the government mostly stays out of my face, I'm not going to rush the barricades.

Harper's only been PM for a couple of months. He hasn't had a chance to do anything yet. So far he hasn't pissed me off too much, which is all I'm asking for. But I'll be scuppered if I'm going to blog about it. I've got nothing to say, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

So I'm back to the sports pages, and trying not to go crazy over my sadsack Vancouver Canucks.

For them to make the playoffs, realistically they've got to beat out Edmonton and Los Angeles. I don't think L.A. should be too tough--although as I write this the 'Nuckleheads are in tough against the Kings. It's the Oilers that are giving me the heebiejeebies lately. Not only do I think we're not going to beat them, I honestly don't think we deserve to. The Canucks have underachieved since at least Christmas. They have played like a team of Tin Men for months, and a team like that won't get anywhere in the playoffs even if the Oilers collapse out of the top 8.

Or maybe there's a simpler, psychological explanation for my ennui. Maybe I can only function as a contrarian. Now that my (Tory) team won the election, I have to find another team to grouse about--and thank goodness, I've got the craptacular Canucks!

Ahem.

Go Sens go!

Another Loss

2006-03-13T23:23:00.000-05:00

The Vancouver Canucks just lost 4-2 to the Dallas Stars, in Dallas, after dropping 3 straight at home. This team is driving me completely bonkers.

Is Bertuzzi to blame? I honestly have no idea. I don't think anyone does--at least, not anyone outside the 'Nucks dressing room. But he's not alone in his futility: witness the pathetic performance, night after night, of Vancouver's "pure scorer" Markus Naslund.

This guy was on the cover of EA Sports NHL game a couple of years ago. He was Hockey News' best scorer in '04. And now he's basically a waste of ice time.

Maybe Bert is bringing Naslund down. Maybe the two of them are just simultaneously slumped. Who knows. I'm starting not to care. Even the Vancouver radio announcers are starting to laugh at them--for getting bad penalties, for missing shots, for cruising back at low speed instead of backchecking.

I've heard two theories about why Bert is doing so badly this year. Is he (1) on some medication that is sapping him of his drive? Or maybe (2) off some "medication" [koff koff Barry Bonds koff koff] that he sorely lacks? Impossible to say.

But he and Naslund ought to be benched. Add their goose-egg partner Brendan Morrison as well. Sit them all down in the press box for the Nashville game on Thursday. If they won't play when they're on the ice, they might as well not be on the ice.

Who cares if they make the playoffs or not, at this rate? Is there a single creature with opposable thumbs that can imagine this team NOT getting swept out of the first round?

Damn Canucks.

Go Sens go.

It's not cognitive dissonance. Really. It's not.

2006-03-11T00:28:00.000-05:00

I can hold the following ideas simultaneously in my own little head:

(1) George W. Bush is inept and foolish, and largely unworthy of the presidency
(2) The Democrats are disgusting and pathetic, and totally unworthy of the presidency

In general this same "contradiction" holds for any two parties you could name (Canada: Tories/Liberals; UK: Labour/Tories; etc.).

What's a poor libertarian to do? Ought I Jardinify myself? Does it really not matter which lizard wins? I mean, what if the wrong lizard got in?

By the way

2006-02-20T01:42:00.000-05:00

As my wife has pointed out (er, in another context...) I really do have a long refractory period. So after I reached a sort of pinnacle of blogasm around the time of the Jan 23rd election, I needed to take some time off. In doing so, I avoided commenting on Emerson (my bottom line: close to irrelevant, and occupied too many column inches for too long), Fortier (ditto), cartoon violence (death-worship takes us all another step closer to the abyss; honour and thanks to Ezra Levant for doing what every newspaper and magazine in Canada should have done), and Gretzky betting scandals (you're kidding, right? Gambling is still a crime??). Not to mention a Hamas victory (clarifies things for some people, no doubt) and Dick Cheney shooting his friend (regrettable for all involved, of course, but intrinsically funny and uniquely American).

I'll try to post more frequently in the next while.

In the meantime, look at these sitcom ideas for Mohammed. Hilarious. Probably NSFW in Canada, mind you.

This is a perfect example of why I don't link to Bourque

2006-02-20T01:27:00.000-05:00

His unique "I-was-a-Red-Tory-when-Red-Tories-weren't-cool" worldview really pisses me off. His second rate "same-links-as-Drudge-but-12-hours-later" news aggregation I can do without. But what really gets my goat is the sense that, in reading Bourque, I am consuming the web equivalent of microwaved McDonald's coffee: it's nasty, it's bitter, and it frankly wasn't that good when it was fresh.

Here is today's banner headline:

Classy. I mean, honestly: was he drunk when he posted that?

Is this thing on?

2006-02-17T08:59:00.000-05:00

Hello? Hello? Can we get some N in here?

Hey, Scott Reid!

2006-01-24T10:05:00.000-05:00

I guess Alberta could blow you!

Polls

2006-01-24T01:45:00.000-05:00

SES was right. The bastards.

Victory

2006-01-24T01:24:00.000-05:00

The Ontario vote did collapse, just as I'd feared, but thanks to Quebec--QUEBEC!!--the Tories still win.

Razor thin, yes, but a victory nonetheless.

Kinsella notes that the Tories ran an almost perfect campaign, and the Liberals an almost impossibly bad campaign, and that Canadians still were only willing to grant Harper the tiniest of wins. But I think this is failing to see the forest, or looking a gift horse in the mossy stones, or something. A mildly right-wing government has won, led by a mildly libertarian candidate, who actually advocated adding property rights to the constitution in the middle of a televised debate. In Canada. In our cities! And despite the fact that Harper was running against 3 other parties, all of whom made him out to be some unholy product of a union between Chimpy W. Bushitler and Satan Himself... And despite the fact that the Tories were opposed not only by the incumbent, who came to office only 2 years ago trailing clouds of glory, but also opposed by the public broadcaster and by the largest-circulation newspaper in the country... And despite the fact that Harper was himself widely perceived as such an electoral albatross only 6 months ago that he was seen as his opponent's biggest asset.

It is an historic achievement.

And to all those who are whingeing (this means you, Robert Fife!) that Harper will have a difficult time working with this tiny minority, I say: suck it. It is, parliamentarily speaking, no more difficult working with a 21 seat lead than a 41 seat lead. A minority is a minority. Just like Martin's minority in 2004, Harper needs 2 other parties to support any legislation. And his slim lead will help keep the Tory crazies (this means you, Cheryl Gallant!) on a short leash. This slim minority will help Harper whip his fractious team into line.

I would have preferred a larger lead--a 30 or 40 seat lead, rather than 20 seats. But this is only because I wanted more Liberals to lose (The sweet part of this bitterness: they're sitting in Opposition! Olé!) If we are to have a minority, it truly does not matter how big the lead is.

This is only the first step. And for the first time in more than a dozen years, it's a step in the right direction.

This is a good thing for Canada.

Phew.

From the hit musical Les Liberables...

2006-01-22T01:20:00.000-05:00

One day more!
Another day, another destiny.
This never-ending road from Calgary;
These Grits who perpetrate their crimes
Now surely have run out of time.
One day more!

Almost there.

2006-01-20T00:32:00.000-05:00

Paul Martin is a disgusting demagogue. Like that race-baiter Al Sharpton, Martin is a prov-baiter: he will intentionally make every effort to divide the country into with-me's and against-me's, because he hopes to be on the right side.

It is one thing to attack your opponent on the basis of his personal flaws or mistakes: he is corrupt, she is wrong-headed, he is weak, she is hypocritical, etc. It is quite another to attack an entire region of your own country, as Martin and his monkey Buzz have been doing. When Martin's monkey tries to carve up this country into Good Toronto and Bad Alberta, he no doubt thinks that he is doing his master a favour--if Good has more votes than Bad, after all, then Master may win!

But such a victory can only come at incalculable cost to the nation as a unitary state. How many times do Albertans and other westerners have to be told we are Unwanted, before we finally shrug like Atlas?

[UPDATE: want an example of what I mean? Read this. And it's not even from Martin's monkey. It's from the Great Man Himself.]

This should be a sobering piece for any Liberal who thinks he can save Canada by pushing the knife into Alberta just one more time.

Personally I am not overly emotionally invested in "Canada" as a nation. Don't get me wrong: I like it here. We're a pretty free people, albeit with a pretty corrupt and increasingly statist government. Compared to most of the world's crapholes, this is a pretty great place to live. But I can easily envision a better country: one with all of Canada's freedoms, and more. One with less government, fewer taxes, a stronger economy, better universities. A well-armed, if modestly sized, armed forces. A foreign policy more grounded in values and liberty, and less in schoolyard anti-Americanism. A country worth keeping.

The Conservative Party is hardly a libertarian's dream. To call their policies "watered-down" is to do a disservice to water. But it is a start: they make an effort, in tiny, pathetic ways, to enlarge the sphere of my liberty. My taxes would be lower under their rule--if only slightly. The role of government in my family's life would be smaller--although you might need a micrometer to prove it. The government might finally do just one of the three things a government actually should do, namely defend our borders--if only a little bit better. But I accept that the only way Canada will improve is incrementally. We are not going to wake up one morning and find ourselves in Galt's Gulch. But we may just wake up next Tuesday with the tiniest flickering ember of hope.

All of this is a long and wordy way of saying something very simple.

If Canada's voters let Martin's demagoguery win the day again, for the second time in as many elections, then I will finally see the light. If my values are bad for Canada, if I'm not only wrong but actually harmful to this country, then it will be time to go. For me, my Canada does not include Buzz Hargrove. But if Canadians decide that they'd rather have his values than mine, that's their right. Farewell, no hard feelings, see you later, here's your toothbrush and robe. Goodbye.

Splitsville.

Polls

2006-01-20T00:21:00.000-05:00

They've all pretty much moved into equivalence with one another: the Tories have about 37, the Grits about 30. Personally I think the final results will be a bit tighter (36-33), with a weak Tory minority--i.e. it will require more than 1 party to support them in order to pass anything.

Fortunately the Libs are going to be brokebrokebroke after this, and the Bloc are going to be scared, so I think a Tory minority would be at least as stable as the Martin minority was. Which is to say, we'll be back listening to the same disgusting lies and cheap pandering by fall 2007.

2004 Election - Canada

2006-01-18T19:24:00.000-05:00

These are the SES data for the 2004 campaign. I have added my own "best-fit" trend lines (for Tories and Libs) to smooth out day-to-day bumps.

There was clearly a trend towards a Liberal victory from about the 3/4 point of the campaign, i.e. with about 10 days to go. The parties' support had really almost flattened out with about a week to go.

Atlantic Canada and Quebec

2006-01-18T19:15:00.000-05:00

Here are the SES results for the 2006 campaign, for Atlantic Canada and Quebec. I have added my own "best-fit" trend lines for the Tories and the Libs.

It looks to me like the parties will be roughly tied in Atlantic Canada (meaning a seat gain for the Tories from 2004), and with the Tories ahead by a bit in Quebec (which means probably 2 to 4 seats for the CPC, and maybe 6 to 8 for the Libs, because of how the latter's vote is concentrated in Montreal).

Ontario and Western Canada

2006-01-18T19:13:00.000-05:00

Here are the SES results for 2006 in Ontario and Western Canada. I have added my own "best-fit" trend lines for Tories and Libs.

It looks to me like these two parties will end up approximately tied in Ontario (which means Libs hold seats in GTA and Tories pick up in 905), and with the Tories way ahead in the West (which is irrelevant information, because the only place that matters for the Libs is BC and these data do not give BC numbers).

I can't stand it

2006-01-18T01:18:00.000-05:00

I knew the race would tighten. My guess is Monday will show something like 36 - 33 in favour of the Tories. But it's still agony watching it happen. It's agony because I have no trust in the political judgement of my Learned Friends in Ontario. None. Zero. I wouldn't trust Ontario voters to choose the prize bull at a county fair, let alone a g**d*** Prime Minister.

I know Occam and others think polls are stupid, but they're not. They're just data. Sure, the data may be biased or inconclusive or misinterpreted by eager partisans... but they're still just data. They're generally true... or, at least, true-ish. As Terry Pratchett might say, they're true for a given value of true.

That being said, something looks wrong with these data:
Decima: 37 - 27 for the Tories, +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20
SES: 37 - 30 for the Tories, +/- 2.9%, 19/20
CTV: 42 - 24 for the Tories, +/- 2.5%, 19/20

Is it different voter support on different polling days? Which is to say, is voter support shifting quickly from one day to the next? Decima is Jan. 12-15, SES is Jan. 14-16, and CTV is Jan. 14-16. Given that SES and CTV are the same dates, the answer here is "no".

Or are these just different points along the "plus-or-minus" line? Maybe we can make these make sense. Look just at Tory support.
Decima's Tory range: 33.9 - 40.1
SES' Tory range: 34.1 - 39.9
CTV's Tory range: 39.5 - 44.5

And the Grits:
Decima: 23.9 - 30.1
SES: 27.1 - 32.9
CTV: 21.5 - 26.5

It's possible to make the Tory number work out--something in the 39.5 to 39.9 range fits all 3 polls. The Libs don't quite fit: with only Decima and SES considered, we can make the Liberal number anything from 27.1 to 30.1, but the CTV number is incompatible. The highest CTV number (26.5) and the lowest SES number (27.1) don't mesh.

Either one of these polls is the "mythical" 20th poll, or there are local complications (e.g. is one province sampled differently in SES and CTV polls?) or different ways of handling the undecideds. We could split the difference, and say "the mid point between SES and CTV is 26.8% for the Liberals", but that's pretty fudgey and likely wouldn't pass muster with most statisticians.

Regrettably I am no statistician. If one is out there, please help me understand these polls...

This is no time to quit

2006-01-13T00:09:00.000-05:00

I sense my fellow partisans letting down their guard. Andrew Coyne is going all Hindenburg on us, and Greg Staples says he is "worried no more" and "the only remaining question is how strong will the Conservative mandate be?"

The election is not tomorrow, people. It's more than a week away. You think it's over? Not a chance.

The Liberals are a wounded bear. Harper can't take his eyes off them for a second. The moment the Tories get distracted and triumphal, this goddamn thing could all go pear-shaped. A couple of Tory war-room screw-ups, a couple of loose cannon candidates... shudder. All I'm saying is: focus!

Just because the Liberals have the stench of death does not mean they are actually dead. We can't let up now. Drive the stake in their heart, Stephen. Show Canada some positive issues-based ads, to take advantage of the Liberal confusion over their ad disaster, and a new negative one to fight back: not sponsorship, but honesty. I think you should quote their military ad and their leadership funding ad and refute them, personally, on camera. I think you should call Martin a liar. He is, and everybody knows it.

They won't be dead until January 23, and then only with continued hard work and good luck. Any other party would be at 10% in the polls now. They're still hovering around 30 nationwide, and basically tied with the Tories in Ontario. Tied! After the campaign they've had!?!? Remember: there is a HUGE reservoir of goodwill towards the Liberals out there. We have to poison that well.

Kill! Maim! Disfigure! Don't let up until the final whistle has sounded!

Courage is all well and good, but we need something different. What we need is bloodthirst.

Thank You

2006-01-12T11:18:00.000-05:00

Flush.

The more I think about this, the worse it gets

2006-01-12T02:30:00.000-05:00

Here's John Reynolds, Tory Campaign guru, on Derek "Nothing To Declare" Zeisman:

“He will go to court, and he is still an innocent man until he goes through this process.... He’s a nominated candidate for the next election, and he’s on the ballot. And his constituents will make up their mind whether they think this is a serious issue.”

Let me get this straight.

When it's Goodale and the Liberals, it's all about the "appearance" of wrongdoing, and the responsibility of parliamentarians to uphold the highest ethical standards.

But when it's about some no-name Tory pustule who's putting MY PERSONAL JOY AT MARTIN'S IMPENDING LOSS AT RISK, it's all "ooh, he's innocent until proven guilty... these are charges not evidence... I have considered my own behaviour and I have completely exonerated myself."

Up yours, Reynolds. Cut this f*cker loose. Now. Send him a fax: "Go. Go away. You're getting in between me and my Tory victory celebration, asshole."

Nothing explains this kind of Tory passivity except the kind of blinkered stubbornness that led to the Martin Supports Child Pr0n... etc etc from 2004. I can't believe that someone calling himself a Tory during this election would have the gall to even mouth the words "he's innocent until proven guilty." Um, hello? Suck my what? Don't you think this kind of undercuts the WHOLE FREAKING TORY PLATFORM, YOU ASSHOLES!

Pathetic.

Stand Up For Canada, Unless It's A Tory Under Indictment, In Which Case Stand Up And Plead Not Guilty Your Honour.

Don't do this to me. I've waited so long for the Liberals to lose. Soooooo long. Dear lord, please. Do the right thing. I'll never think bad thoughts about Stephen Harper again, I promise. Pretty please?

I knew it couldn't last

2006-01-12T01:26:00.000-05:00

Nice.

Thanks, bud.

The only blessing here is that this broke after the eastern papers were put to bed (I hope--the morning editions may prove me wrong). This will give Harper a chance to cut this f*cker loose before noon Thursday.

Don't give me any crap about "innocent until proven guilty". It's not a goddamn constitutional right to be a Tory candidate or MP. If you're a candidate, you have to tell the goddamn truth about being criminally charged with a goddamn felony offense. Harper must must must MUST get rid of this guy.

He must say this:

"The Conservative Party has higher standards than my opponent. We expect a certain standard of behaviour from our candidates and ultimately our members of parliament, and Mr. Zeisman has failed to live up to those standards. By his lack of truthfulness about this matter with our party and with the public, Mr. Zeisman has disqualified himself as a Conservative candidate. I have revoked his nomination papers. He is no longer a candidate for the Conservative Party in this election. If you have any questions I would be pleased to answer them."

Please. Please. Please. Show the kind of leadership that Paul Martin has not and cannot. This is either a silly bump in the road, or the beginning of a media backlash--and a voter backlash--against the Tories. For God's sake do the right thing: amputate.

Those Ads

2006-01-11T02:35:00.000-05:00

I think they'll work. I think they'll work well. Part of the reason they'll work is because the Tories won't want to hit back just as hard.

I think the popular vote will end up being a virtual tie. The Tories may end up squeaking out a razor-thin minority, but we can kiss strong minority/majority goodbye.

I don't know why the Tory ads are so pusillanimous. I don't know why they're scared of using the word "liar" to describe Martin. Yeah, yeah, "why should we believe him" blah blah blah. Call him a goddamn liar and hit him HARD. But they won't.

This is why the Liberals win all the time. They're not afraid to do the dirty work.

Damn.

Notwithstanding the Red Book

2006-01-11T02:24:00.000-05:00

The Shotgun has what appears to be an advance copy of the 2006 Red Book. It will come as no surprise to you, I am sure, that there is no mention of the "central" plank of Martin's New! Improved! campaign: i.e. Martin's ~~panic attack~~ "plan" to revoke the Notwithstanding Clause.

The only mention of the Charter in the Red Book occurs on page 55 (of 85 pages total, which gives you some idea of its relative significance to the Liberals...). Here is the relevant paragraph:

"The successes that Liberals cherish today – the creation of our public health care system; bilingualism; multiculturalism; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the restoration of fiscal order – did not come about by chance. They are an extension of the values that set us apart from our political opponents and that guide our actions."

Nope, nothing about notwith. I bet the Red Book was written about 2 weeks ago, and the notwithstanding "plan" invented about 3:15 a.m. Monday.

Paul Wells suggests that Martin's plan was written on the back of a napkin. Me, I'm not so sure. I doubt it was written down at all. But if it was written on a napkin, I have a simple solution: just staple that bad boy into the Red Book, and voila! It's policy!

Another triumph, Prime Minister. Well done, sir.

Maybe this time it's just different

2006-01-09T01:34:00.000-05:00

"We just started the third quarter pause, refer to notes and I don't think you spark the ball short pause spike the ball pause, refer to notes until verrrrry long pause, refer to notes twice until pause until the game is over sickly smile, head bob."
Rt. Hon. Paul Martin Jr., Prime Minister of Canada, January 8, 2006

Hey, stumblebum: I'm sure you're getting suuuuuuper advice from The Board, but here's my two cents.
(1) This is a hockey country. Not football. Not baseball. Not box lacrosse. Hoooockeeeeey. If you're going to make a sports analogy, try the one with the ice and the puck.
(2) Spark the ball?
(3) You don't spike the ball when the game is over. You spike the ball when you score a touchdown. Nobody spikes the ball when they win, OR when they lose. Doesn't happen. You're an idiot.
(4) If you are unable to present a simple sports analogy without 5 pauses and 3 references to notes, you may wish to find another line of work.

I was getting my knickers all in a twist about the Tories' mistakes this weekend, but maybe I needn't worry. Their timing is impeccable: one day after their worst campaign day by far, the Tories get a pool showing them 8 points up nationwide, leading in Ontario, and statistically tied in Quebec. You think tomorrow's Globe headline is going to be "Harper muses about majority"? Good freakin' luck, my friend. It's going to be a big poll B.J. for les Bleues. And the debates are tomorrow as well, which pretty much ruins any Liberal chance at focussing people's attention on their "platform" (insert pink elephant hallucination joke here).

And speaking of Tory BJs, did anyone else catch NewsNet tonight? There was a typical "nationwide" panel of reporters (two in Montreal, one in Kitchener), and they and Saaaandie Rinaaaaaaaldo spent at least 10 minutes giving Harper a big kissy-smoochy. It was weird. Craig Oliver, Robert Fife, Lisa LaFlamme--it was a love-in for Harper. They frankly kicked Martin's ass to the curb. Weird. Fife even said that Martin's attempts to go neg "probably wouldn't work this time."

It was apparent that poor Craig Oliver did seem to be legally dead. I like Craig, but maybe he needs a vacation.

There's that old adage about generals always trying to fight the last war. I wonder if this is what the Liberals are trying to do, and what I was trying to do as well. Who knows. This whole thing could still blow up in Harper's face like some backed-up toilet. We could all be forced to sit through another sweaty-faced triumphal speech from that Martin character. January 24 could be a very bad morning. But I'm starting to wonder if this time might not be different. Maybe the Liberal spin won't work this time. Maybe the Globe won't try to assassinate Harper's character. Maybe that famously tremulous beast, Ontarionus voterensis, will keep its wits for two more weeks.

We'll see.

3 ½ mistakes in 2 days

2006-01-08T12:48:00.000-05:00

Maybe we really are re-living the 2004 campaign.

1) Tories say they'll raise taxes on the poor.

2) Tories say they'll repeal Kyoto.

3) Tories muse about a majority.

3 ½) Liberal ad says Tories will "kill your children"... and the Tories don't respond. (Only ½ point because it's only been 24 hours, so maybe a response is pending.)

Look, you stupid bastards: don't you understand? You have to be better liars than the Liberals. This is not actually as hard as it sounds, because these Liberals are led by Paul Martin who sounds like he's lying even when he's telling the truth. Harper should be beating Martin like a rented mule in the plausible lie department.

Here's how the Tories should have handled these questions:

1) "We'll be releasing our entire tax package in x days. It's a family focused policy for middle class Canadians."

2) "We'll be releasing our complete environmental platform in x days. Unlike the Liberals, we don't believe in lying about imaginary goals and pretend policies. The Conservative platform will address real change to air quality and water quality, to help make sure that polluters like Paul Martin's old company don't get away with it any more."

3) "Look, Canadians know we are going to have a minority government after January 23. The question this country is faced with is: which party offers Canada the best chance for honest, trustworthy, capable leadership? Will we have a Liberal minority, focussed entirely on scandal, leaks, and lies? Or a Conservative minority with an achievable five-point plan?"

3 ½) HIT THEM HARD.

Opening shot: two television screens in a dimly lit studio. The first screen flickers into the "They'll go neg" ad opening: a black and white Paul Martin face, fading quickly into the Globe and Mail head.

FEMALE VOICEOVER
Last week we told you Paul Martin was about to run a campaign of lies and distortions, because Paul Martin has nothing positive to offer the country.

Second screen shows the beginning of the Liberal child care spot, with the disappearing children.

FEMALE VOICEOVER
Now Paul Martin's Liberals are lying about the Conservative Child Care Plan.

Fade to pictures of children and families popping up all over the screen, the reverse of the Liberals' disappearing act.

FEMALE VOICEOVER
The Conservative plan will help all families, by helping families do what's best for their children. Paul Martin's team may think that parents would rather buy beer and popcorn than take care of their children, but the Conservative plan will make it easier for all Canadian parents to make their families strong. The Conservative plan for 125,000 day care spaces and direct help to every family with children is something Paul Martin can't offer...

Fade to black and white picture of Paul Martin from the "They'll go neg" ad.

FEMALE VOICEOVER
...so all he can do is lie. Again.

Fade to Conservative logo.

FEMALE VOICEOVER
On January 23rd, stand up for Canada. Vote Conservative.

Hit.
Them.
Hard.

Now.

(With thanks to Norman and Andrew for links)

Oh yeah? Weird THIS, razor boy!

2006-01-08T01:22:00.000-05:00

Tagged by Occam.

5 weird things about me:

1. I can move my ears independently of one another.
2. I support privatizing the fire department.
3. I practise conversations with people inside my head, before they happen in real life. The conversations are in my head. The people are not in my head. Does that make sense?
4. I am obsessed with the newspaper. I can be walking down the street with my wife, and we'll walk past a newspaper box featuring a newspaper I already read that morning. And I will stop in the middle of the sidewalk, and read the part of the front page visible through the glass of the box. You know, just in case.
5. I have fallen asleep standing up. More than once.

For what it's worth, I tag these 5:
Matt
Colby
Jay
Sean
Bart

And just to piss off Bob: cheers!

This is like the political version of the prisoners' dilemma...

2006-01-02T13:24:00.000-05:00

Dec. 31: Prime Minister Paul Martin says he was one of the people who knew in advance about Ralph Goodale's announcement on income trusts Nov. 23[...] Answering reporters' questions, he was unable to say who else in his office heard about Goodale's announcement before it was made public. "Well, I knew and I'm one of them," Martin said.

Jan. 2: Finance Minister Ralph Goodale is trying to get Paul Martin out of the line of fire in the income trust controversy as the Liberals and other parties revive their full-scale election campaigns today. [...] Goodale said yesterday [that] the Prime Minister was not aware of the final position the government was going to take.

This is exactly like the whole CARP imbroglio at the beginning of this Income Trust mess. The CARP guy says on camera that he got a heads-up call pre-announcement from Finance. Then he comes on later and says NONONONO I WAS MISQUOTED nobody called me. But it was too late, someone at Finance had already admitted notifying CARP. So then the CARP guy comes on again and says, well, yes, he HAD been called... by which time the Libs were slamming the CARPers as demented old coots.

Hey, Ralphie and Paul: another home run, boys. Well done.

The Journal of Guns = Bad

2005-12-16T00:52:00.000-05:00

My God, did you see the headline at cbc.ca today?

Man accused of shooting officer was under firearms ban

There ought to be a law. It ought to be illegal for people who are banned from owning firearms to own firearms. It ought especially to be illegal for people who are banned from owning firearms to use an illegal firearm in the commission of a murder.

When will Paul Martin's Liberals have the courage to stand up to the evil of gun violence?

I know, I know. I'm just an old softie. But dammit, sometimes you have to do what's right!

Am I the only person in Canada who remembers this promise?

2005-12-13T00:23:00.000-05:00

From The Star, December 12, 2005 (emphasis added):

Prime Minister Paul Martin is calling on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to say whether he'd use the notwithstanding clause to override the Constitution and revoke same sex marriage legislation.

Martin says it's clearly a Charter of Rights issue, and he believes Harper eventually will have to state whether he'd use the constitutional override to keep his promise to scrap gay marriages.

The Liberal leader says he doesn't believe the prime minister of Canada should be able to cherry pick which Charter rights to support.

But turn the clock back almost 2 years to the day. From Canada.com, December 19, 2003 (emphasis added):

Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court rules that churches must perform gay marriages.

"Oh, yes I would," Martin said Thursday on CBC Radio when asked whether he would use the clause.

"I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a (religious) right," he said, explaining that it would be used only under extreme circumstances.

Assignment:
Please complete the following sentence:

The Prime Minister of Canada must only be allowed to "cherry-pick" which Charter Rights he would support if he is a member of the _________ Party.

[thanks to Let It Bleed for the Star link]

Update on my voting intentions

2005-12-11T11:03:00.000-05:00

Because clearly this is the top of mind issue for Canadians from coast to coast to coast to longest undefended border with a pretty big part of that border on the top left corner that we pretty much usually forget about 'cause it's Alaska and who wants to go to Alaska, it's just like Canada but with more penguins.

A couple of posts below this one, in the middle of a vituperative tongue-swallowing eructation of electoral fire, I said that anyone who votes for "this garbage" can go and do to themselves something that 3 out of 4 dentists would not recommend.

I thought it was obvious what that meant, but a cryptic message from Kateland (not to mention a cheerful and gentle missive from Anonalogue) has caused me to consider that I was perhaps not as clear as I had intended--although in fairness to my commenters, their concerns might have had nothing to do with this at all...

In any event, this is what I meant:

For "this garbage", please read "Paul Martin's Liberals and their [allegedly] insider-trading, self-dealing, meddling, brainless, bureacratophiliac hangers-on."

For the record, as of December 11, 2005, I intend to vote for the CPC candidate in the federal election. My despair over the Tory position on The Issue Which Shall Not Be Named has been leavened by the fact that ultimately I think there should be a free vote on you-know-what.

Moreover, I am totally convinced by Occam's position on the election, which is: "Nothing good can even begin until the levers of power have been pried free from the Liberals' white-knuckled grip." [Note appropriate apostrophe placement--an Internet rarity! Blessings be upon you, brother Occam!]

As a semi-principled mostly-libertarian (I'll explain this in the comments if anyone cares...), I believe that Canada will either become better (more free) or worse (less free) during my lifetime. The only political party that stands any chance at all (i.e. a snowball's chance in Hell) of the former is the Conservative Party. The Dippers and the Liberals are both much worse, for a hundred reasons--although I should add that I respect NDP voters more than Liberal voters. At least Dippers believe in the power of ideas (albeit the wrong ideas) rather than just the idea of power.

I have many reservations about the Tories: bad intentions about you-know-what, bad ideas about drug policy, execrable me-tooism with respect to corporate welfare, an inexplicable attachment to socialism in dozens of areas... but politics is a zero-sum game. One party will win in January, and the rest will lose. A vote for "none of the above", while appealing from a philosophical perspective, means I will be subject to the unadulterated average vote of my fellow Canadians. Obviously my single ballot has slim to no chance of affecting the outcome (and Slim just left the building) but I have to try. I want the Tories to win, even though they are by any objective measure a hodge-podge of bad ideas offered up by an unappealing bunch of meddlers. More importantly, I want the Liberals to lose--an objectively evil cabal of thumbsuckers and would-be dictators.

You've heard the phrase, "don't make 'the perfect' the enemy of 'the good' "? Well, I will vote Tory because in this election, 'the bad' is the enemy of 'the incalculably worse'.

I don't love the Tories. But I love my family and my friends and my self--and the Liberals will continue to make all our lives harder until someone stops them. And the Tories are the only bunch that can fit the bill, despite their shortcomings.

So Go Harper Go! Just... please... don't make me regret this choice even more than I already do...

This is a stupid headline

2005-12-10T11:08:00.000-05:00

From CTV News:

Election day could be bleak, weatherman says

Let me get this straight:

It's in January.

It's in Canada.

And it "could" be bleak.

Personally, I think CTV should have put that under "breaking news". Oh my, here's an update: Summer generally warmer than winter, experts agree! Film at eleven!

How can we miss him if he won't go away?

2005-12-10T10:50:00.001-05:00

So NealeNews links to this story at the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, about (must... not... doze... off...) Bill "Intern Academy" Clinton and Belinda "Math Class Is Hard" Stronach. The story headline is "Clinton on Stronach: I never advised that woman".

Except Neale splits that into two lines:

Clinton on Stronach:
I never advised that woman

And my browser showed just the top line. And I'm thinking, I thought she denied that last year?

Dumber than shit

2005-12-09T00:15:00.000-05:00

I like Calgary Grit's blog. He's generally funny and insightful. But he's fucking lost me when it comes to Paul Martin's latest attempt to shove his own head up his ass. Grit writes that the "crackdown" on "gun ownership" is:

a policy that is:
a) bold
b) smart
c) politically savvy

[...]
Yes, I'm aware this won't affect a ton of people. And I'm aware this won't stop gun violence in Toronto. But it's a good start and, unlike most of the policies announced so far this campaign, I really don't see a downside to it.

Okay, so the Martin crackdown has brought Occam out of his blink-and-you'd-miss-it retirement! (Which, needless to say, was shorter than any of my 'tween-post pauses...). But regrettably for my adolescent country, there is nothing else positive to say about the "ban".

Let's take Grit's comments from above one by one.

Bold? Bullshit. Bold would be: concealed carry laws. Bold would be: immediate deportation of landed immigrants found guilty of violent crimes. Bold would be: cancelling the gun registry (for a Liberal). Bold is certainly not saying "oooooh, guns BAAAD" which in Canada is about as bold as saying "Americans are fat!"

Smart? Bullshit. Does anyone honestly believe that "banning" handguns will reduce by any measurable number the quantity of gun-related deaths in Canada?

[pause for deep cleansing breath]

I don't like to insult people simply on the basis of their opinions. I'm not as arrogant as I once was, and I know that smart people can differ on any number of things. I know as well that no-one has ever been convinced of the error of their ways by insult.

But:

If you believe that banning handguns will make our streets safer, then you are a fucking shit-for-brains dumbass.

I note that Grit doesn't even seem to believe this "ban" will work (see his next point: "And I'm aware this won't stop gun violence in Toronto"). It is in fact the most outrageously ludicrous idea I've heard in a few years: if you make illegal guns double-extra-illegal, that'll do the trick.

I am utterly inarticulate with impotent fury. This proposal is the most cynical and disgusting act of a Liberal PM since... I honestly don't know when. I call it "cynical" because both the liar and the audience know it's a lie: even fans like Grit know it's a futile gesture. But somehow everyone accepts the lie. Maybe Homer Simpson was right when he said, "Marge, it takes two to lie: one to lie, and one to listen." Every Liberal who applauded this maneuver is complicit in their own deception, and what is more they know it. No-one over the age of 6 could possibly imagine that "banning" handguns will stem gun violence. It's totally fucked. The handguns that Johnny Whitetrash and Parminder Gangh use to shoot each other are (wait for it) already fucking illegal you fucking morons. How is it that adding another figleaf of public condemnation is supposed to work again? Do Johnny and Parminder get on their goddamn Blackberries and say "Hey, homey, I was going to bust a cap in your ass later, but turns out my gun is illegal, so I'se gonna turn that fucker right in to the cops. Let's settle our drug gang turf war over a nice game of pinochle."

A few months ago, I turned my back on the Tories because of their pathetic attempt to legislate homophobia. Thank Christ I never became a Liberal, because this would fucking spell an end to that. But this crystallizes something in my mind:

If a plurality of Canadians votes to re-install that mendacious parasite Paul Martin in 24 Sussex next month, this country is well and truly fucked. I will become a Western Separatist about 5 minutes later.

Any country stupid enough to vote for this feculent nonsense is not a country I can belong to any more.

If you vote for this garbage, you can go fuck yourself.

Dilbert Blog

2005-12-08T00:08:00.000-05:00

Instapundit highlighted the appearance of the Dilbert Blog today. It's freaking hilarious. My two favourite bits so far...

From Dec. 7, "How to Dance":

There was a time when I considered writing a self help book. But then I realized it’s logically impossible. If you think about it, a self help book is really just an author trying to help your sorry ass. It’s not as if you wrote the book yourself. It’s not even close to being “self help.” So stop taking credit for other people helping you. That’s all I’m saying.

From Dec. 4, "Best and Worst Jobs":

Yet another “third highest ranking al-Qaida leader” has been killed, this time by a rocket attack from an unmanned drone. There are a lot of jobs that I wouldn’t want, and “third highest ranking al-Qaida leader” is right at the top. But I can tell you for sure that if I ever got that job, the first thing I’d do is narc out one of the top two guys so I could move up a notch. Apparently one of the perks of being in the top two is having a really, really good hiding place. The number 3 through 10 leadership guys are pretty much scurrying between mud huts and looking at the sky a lot.

hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

A useful reminder that, no matter who wins on January 23, this country is still going to Hell.

2005-12-05T10:19:00.000-05:00

From the front page of today's National Post (emphasis added):

Judges should feel "emboldened" to trump the written word of the Constitution when protecting fundamental, unwritten principles and rights, Canada's Chief Justice says.

Beverley McLachlin, in a speech delivered in New Zealand, took on critics who say judges have no business going beyond the strict letter of the Constitution to strike down laws and enforce rights.

"The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion," said a prepared text of the lecture Judge McLachlin gave to law students at Victoria University of Wellington late last week.

"There is certainly no guarantee or presumption that a given list of constitutional principles is complete, even assuming the good faith intention of the drafters to provide such a catalogue."

Judge McLachlin set out a blueprint for when judges must rely on unwritten principles, which she defined as "norms that are essential to a nation's history, identity, values and legal system."

As "House, MD" would say: Nice! After all, this whole "democracy" thing hasn't really turned out like we'd hoped, eh? Voters still have these nasty, brutish ideas about how the country should be run. Sometimes they just need the firm smack of a caring fist, yes?

Thank the goddess that we have our own Northern Lights, our nonet of Philosopher Queens, to identify our unwritten national values. It makes the dirty work of utopianizing our bastard citizenry so much easier.

After all, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Turns out the answer is: The Judges! Phew. Long centuries of groping towards the ideal form of government, and Beverley "B-Mac" McLachlin has found it. As long as Canada continues to be ruled by The Wise, and as long as those Wise continue to be appointed by The Liberal Party of Hope And Optimism (© John Duffy, National Post, December 3 2005), then this country will clearly continue its historical Short March.

Recall the stirring words of the French Revolution, my friends: Egalité! Fraternité! Obéissance!

Which one of us paid for that crap?

2005-12-04T17:16:00.000-05:00

I have long believed that the government should personalize our taxes by identifying exactly what each of us pays for. Say, for example, that the CBC costs about $1,000,000,000 a year. The average family in Canada contributes about $37,000 per year in taxes (according to Fraser Institute calculations). Therefore we could say that about 27,000 Canadian families funded the CBC. I think the feds should randomly select 27,000 families from the tax rolls, and write them a letter: "Congratulations and thank you! Felicitations et merci! This year you paid for the CBC."

We would all get a letter, saying what we paid for. Maybe last year my tax money paid for official bilingualism in North Overshoe, Manitoba. Maybe I paid for three-gazillionth of the gun registry bureaucracy, or for one of those fed-gov junkets ("Congratulations! This year you paid for 19 House of Commons translators to enjoy a 3 day bender at a Quebec lakeside resort! Merci beaucoup!").

Then the government could publish a list of who paid for what. That way I would know who to write my reverse-pledge-drive letter to:

Dear sir,

You paid for the CBC last year. Therefore you paid for CBC News to run a "week in review" thing after the first week of the 2005 election campaign, called Behind the Ballot. Your tax dollars therefore allowed some faceless CBC flunkie to open the show with a video montage of the federal leaders: Martin speaking sonorously of the choice facing Canada, Layton inviting voters to send more New Democrats to Ottawa, and Harper being asked "do you love Canada?" and then (according to THE ANNOUNCER ON THIS NEWS SHOW) giving (and here I am quoting the announcer) "the wrong answer".

Might I invite you, sir, to please quit your goddamn job and start shooting heroin. You would therefore stop paying taxes, and perhaps the CBC would then be short your $37000. If you know anyone else who paid for the CBC this year, please tell them also to become a welfare parasite.

Thank you.

A sotto voce argument in favour of another vote on SSM in the House

2005-12-01T13:04:00.000-05:00

I have been very unhappy about Harper revisiting the whole gay marriage thing, for two reasons: tactical (I don't think the Tories should be stressing this issue during the campaign) and moral (I think the Tories are wrong to oppose SSM). As I have noted below, and others have reminded me, my tactical and strategic skills are severely limited by the fact that I don't understand how most people think. Perhaps I am an idiot. Perhaps other people are idiots. Perhaps I am just a square peg surrounded by a bunch of round holes...

Anyway, I am happy to concede that my strategic and tactical advice to the Tories might be better stuffed into my own round hole. Who knows? There's at least one guy with a PhD who thinks I am wrongo, buster. (Although having a PhD certainly does not mean that one is necessarily very clever. As someone (Orwell? Friedman? boy I'm dumb...) once observed, there are some ideas so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them.)

But apart from purely electoral thinking, there is at least one good reason to favour a free vote in the House on SSM.

In the USA, restrictions on abortion were outlawed by the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which it is fair to say is at least constitutionally controversial. Whether abortion rights are properly included within the penumbra of privacy in the US constitution is debatable. Both foes and fans of abortion-on-demand appear to believe that the Supreme Court decision does not reflect the actual voting intentions of the current US electorate: keep in mind how viciously the battle over Supreme Court nominations is fought in the US. Anti-abortos and pro-abortos both know that if the abortion question came to a vote, US voters would (in some states) restrict access to abortions.

Put another way, both sides believe that Roe v. Wade is an undemocratic decision: the pro-abortion side believes that abortion is a rights issue, which must be kept out of the ballot box (in much the same way that it would be unconstitutional to legislatively restrict the rights of black or hispanic Americans); the anti-abortion side believes the abortion question should be settled by citizens and not judges. Because the pro- side won in an undemocratic way (which is theoretically fine, because not all questions should be settled by vote, in my opinion), the anti- side feels disenfranchised. The Roe v. Wade decision has therefore led to considerable "social unrest" over the last few decades in the US, because it seems to me that both pro and anti activists agree the Court tipped the scales to one side at the expense of the other.

Putting SSM to a whipped vote in the Commons, as Martin did a few months ago, leads to the same feeling on the part of the anti's. They clearly believe that this was an undemocratic decision, and that a fast one was pulled on the country. The pro's obviously agree, at least a little bit, or else there would be a general shrugging of shoulders at Harper's suggestion. "So what if there's another vote? SSM will win, because it's so popular!" The outcry this has provoked, on both sides, clearly demonstrates that the anti side feels it has been excluded from the decision--and the pro side seems to agree with that, and is perfectly happy thank you very much.

So: if SSM is put to a free vote, and wins, there can be no feeling of democratic exclusion among the anti's. A feeling of democratic exclusion is dangerous, because it leads to all sorts of stupidity (e.g. Quebec separatism*). It could, for example, lead to this issue surviving to be fought AGAIN, in the next election after this one! Dear lord, Clementine, pass the smelling salts!! (as Wells said in another context)

In order, therefore, that this issue be settled within a democratic context**, without either side feeling like it has been the victim of a procedural trick, SSM should be put to a free un-whipped vote in the Commons.

Sigh.

Notes

* I mean that Quebec separatism is stupid for Quebec. Personally I support the idea of Quebec seceding, as a benefit for the rest of the country. I just think they're silly for suggesting it for them. Of course, threatening it (without doing it) has been profitable, n'est-ce pas?

** Naturally I find it repugnant that this issue should even be voted upon at all. Since when is it any business of Canadian voters what I do in my own house, so long as it does not harm you? Since when do a majority of my fellow citizens get to decide how I live my own private life? (Ed. note: what frickin' planet are YOU livin' on, bud? Since forever! Now shut up and do what you're told.) However, a functioning democracy is still the best defense we have against the worst excesses of state power (which isn't saying much), so I make this argument in support of a functioning democracy.

Offered without comment (but with emphasis added)

2005-12-01T13:00:00.000-05:00

From The Guardian, headlined "Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream":

The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today.

*koff koff*

Stop me if you've heard this one

2005-11-29T20:26:00.000-05:00

So this guy walks into a bar, and it's like Day 1 of an election campaign, and maybe he'll win and maybe he won't.

And the bartender says "what'll it be, mate?"

And the guy says "who gives a shit about the economy and taxes and defense and foreign policy and softwood lumber and separatism and hope and jobs. I think I'd like to have a BIG FUCKING VOTE ON GAY MARRIAGE, doncha know."

Get it?

Neither do I. I heard it today, and I didn't get it. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

Maybe we could whiteboard this

2005-11-27T10:23:00.000-05:00

Colby Cosh bitchslaps the new Canada.com redesign, noting the typically clanging attempt at pithiness in its new slogan: Where Perspectives Connect.

While I agree with Cosh, if he's surprised by this inarticulate conceptual abscess then he's just not paying attention. The consulting world--and with it, the universe of modern business and government communication--is completely consumed by polysyllabic illiteracy. Where Perpectives Connect reeks of the kind of trying-to-justify-my-consulting-per-diem faux intellectualism that gives us "whiteboard", "dialogue", and "impact" as verbs, not to mention the concepts of the fishbowl, the parking lot, and change management (ed. note: please insert inchoate sound of rage here).

I guarantee you that Canada.com hired some thesaurus whores with a fancy acronym to "re-image" their "public interface" as they "move forward" through a time of "enriching change".

Personally I didn't even notice the slogan until Cosh pointed it out. I was more impressed by the scintillating colour scheme, cascading all the way from bluish-grey to greyish-blue... which leaves one with the pleasing sensation that one is going blind, starting with the cones and proceeding painlessly and inevitably towards the rods.

Thanks Canada.com! Any way of simulating chest pain or dysuria for your next re-imagining? I've even got a slogan for you: it's a secret for now, but look forward to a magical combination of the words "information", "super", and "highway". Can you guess?

What the hell do I know, anyway

2005-11-26T14:06:00.000-05:00

I think I must have terrible political instincts. I suspect that Paul Wells, in contrast, has good political instincts.

Case in point: in the 2004 election, Harper's Harpies accused Martin of supporting--not doing little to prevent, but actually supporting--child porn. I thought it wasn't so bad, maybe a minor slip-up... and Paul Wells thought it was a huge mistake that would cost Harper at the polls. Even now, when people look back to explain Harper's collapse in support in the last couple of weeks of the 2004 campaign, they still bring up the porn accusation. Score: N 0, Wells 1.

Case in point deux: in spring 2005, Martin goes on national t.v. to beg for his political life, throwing the "wait for Gomery" hail Mary pass. I thought it was transparently ridiculous and a waste of breath. Wells thought it was a complete success, and would save Martin until 2006. Score: N 0, Wells 2.

Now: Harper accuses the Libs of links to organized crime. My take: probably true in the broadest sense of organized crime (i.e. a group of people systematically planning to break the law), probably untrue in the sense most people have of organized crime (i.e. my cousin Vinnie "One Thumb" is going to visit your apartment later to remind you of the importance of paying your bookie). He repeats his allegations in the house more than once, as Andrew Coyne points out today (subscription) in the Post. This is clearly an intentional strategy. The Libs take the bait, such as it is, and spend the next two days (at least) talking about how they are NOT associated with organized crime.

My initial take was: stupid stupid Libs, repeating the allegation in order to deny it. Most people think "where there's smoke, there's fire," and given most voters' minimal engagement right now with politics, all they're going to hear is "blah blah blah Liberals blah blah organized crime". That can't be good for the Grits. (I note that Tarantino shares my perspective somewhat.) Paul Wells' take: Harper's comments are appalling, and the next few days will be excruciating for the Tories.

The way my strategic predictions have gone, I think I should hang up my prognosticator's hat. As I pointed out in my very first N=1 post, I do not understand how most people think. I feel like Oliver Sacks' anthropologist on Mars: other people's (political) decisions do not make sense to me, so maybe I should stop trying to anticipate them.

I think Wells' analysis might be off base--after all, I think some media people do have a tendency to jump on Harper quickly, seeing as he usually deserves it. I'm not saying Wells is on the antiHarper bandwagon, I'm just saying we should take the "ooo-stupid-Tories-and-their-stupid-angry-mouths" bits with a grain of salt. Except that Wells has a track record of being right. And (more importantly, as my wife would say) I have a track record of being wrong.

If Wells thinks Harper is going to wear this accusation, he's probably right. It won't affect my vote. As long as Harper does not promise to repeal gay marriage, I'm voting Tory. If he does, or if my local candidate does, then I'm voting for someone else in the NotLiberal Party. But it might affect other people's votes. It's verrrrry early days yet, and ultimately I doubt this specific "gaffe" (or truth-telling, take your pick) will move a single vote. But it might just demonstrate typically crappy Tory message management.

I happen to think Paul Wells is wrong--but that's just a guess

2005-11-17T23:58:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Paul Wells suggested that it had been a "good day for federalism" because Andre Boisclair had fled from Jean Charest's invitation to an unchallenged seat in the Quebec "national" assembly.

I hesitate to contradict Mr. Wells, because my own understanding of Quebec politics is weak at best. However, I think he's wrong in this instance.

If I were Boisclair, I would have done exactly the same thing. Why would I go and sit across from Charest for a couple of years, allowing him to make fun of my cocaine use every day? It's a bad idea for Boisclair to get himself into the Assembly any time soon. Much better, from a strategic point of view, to remain on the outside looking in... at least for now. In my opinion, that allows him to avoid dwelling on his coke habit for a few more months, until the public is utterly bored of it, while simultaneously allowing him to embody the politically valuable "outsider" persona.

Here is where my lack of feeling for Quebec politics may be a problem, because for all I know being the outsider-running-against-the-establishment may not be a great thing in Quebec. But if Quebec's political culture is anything like the USA or indeed the ROC, that outsider mantle can be a valuable thing. It's hard for a former cabinet minister to achieve, but being outside the legislature for a few more months makes it more credible.

As an aside, has Harper said anything publicly about Boisclair? Anything like "while I congratulate Mr Boisclair on this particular event, the Conservative team is working hard to convince Quebecers that the Pequistes and the Bloc offer Quebec only another dead end. Quebec's aspirations can be realized within a new Canada, far more easily than they could be achieved from the outside. Quebecers should not make the mistake of assuming that the Liberal Party is what Canada is all about. The Liberals may be a tired, corrupt stew of tired ideas and hopeless cliches, but Canada is still a great and free country. I invite Quebecers to join with the Conservative Party to make their province and our nation something we can all be proud of again."

He didn't?

Why the fuck not?

Congratulations

2005-11-17T23:51:00.000-05:00

...are owing to Sinister Greg, for earning the First Annual Carbuncle.

And it's funny how gradeschool insults are still the best. I can call the UN "a shitbasket of dictators and thieving whoremongers," and Greg can call Paul Martin "a coward and a dink".

And Greg's is funnier than mine.

You know it's true.

People want to be deceived

2005-11-17T23:09:00.000-05:00

It's the only explanation I can think of.

Sinister Greg pleads "don't let the Liberals fool you." He knows, as I do, and as many people do, that the Liberals are a professional talking shop. They are better than anyone at sounding a good game. But when it comes to action, they fail. Jean Chretien understood this implicitly. He always talked big (against private health care, against the Americans, in favour of Kyoto), but he was careful to promise only the unmeasurable. He never promised something which it could be proven he had failed to deliver--at least, he didn't after he promised to repeal the GST. Chretien deceived Liberal voters into thinking they were getting something (sustainable medicare, a made-in-Canada foreign policy, etc), when in fact they were not.

Liberal voters aren't any stupider than Tory or Dipper voters. I think they're just more eager to deceive themselves. As long as they talk about "helping Canada's Native communities have clean water" or some such bullshit, they can fool themselves into thinking that they are doing something worthwhile.

As an aside, this is never more true than when a Liberal's heart turns to thoughts of the UN. A more pathetic corrupt disgusting toilet of an organization it is hard to imagine, but Liberals think it's the goddamn holy grail. It is, in fact, a shitbasket of dictators and thieving whoremongers, lying to one another about peace. But it looks good! As long as you don't look too closely, that is. The Liberals and their supporters fit right in. Whether you're talking about clean water on a reserve in northern Ontario, or disarming a nuclear Iran, Liberals appear to think that talking about it is good enough. Talking is, of course, not their means to an end, but the end itself.

The Liberals are so good at this, it is to weep. And Greg shouldn't be surprised when a plurality of Canadian voters once again leans in close to let the Liberal Party pour its poison into their ear.

I want the Liberals to lose

2005-11-14T01:40:00.000-05:00

I want the Liberals to lose.

I want Paul Martin to make poor strategic decisions... like choosing to have an election in January, for example, when he could have had one in February.

I want a Liberal civil war... like the one the Chretienites are set to bring down upon the Martinoids. Leak, baby, leak!

I want the NDP to do well... for example, I like it when Jack! looks like Mr Parliamentary Wisdom, because I think that moves the granola vote his way.

I want Harper to learn the following words:

(1) "more in sorrow than in anger"
(2) "our platform has been public since November"
(3) "Has Paul Martin lived up to your expectations?"

Please, oh please, I want this election to be different.

My Plan, which won't ever happen, but so what

2005-11-11T16:29:00.000-05:00

I am Stephen Harper.

I move a non-confidence motion on November 15. All three opposition parties vote non-confidence in Martin's Liberals. The government is defeated.

Martin goes to the GG to ask that the House be dissolved and an election be called.

I too go to the GG, along with Jack and Gilles (heh heh... "Jack and Gilles go up the hill" etc etc.). We have a signed agreement stating our formal coalition as a Government of Democratic Accountability. We will work alongside one another for 4 months. There will be a cabinet formed in equal parts of members of the CPC, NDP, and Bloc. Layton can be Finance, Duceppe can be Foreign Affairs. This agreement stipulates that we will act only in one area: to investigate and reform the democratic system in Canada, so tattered and worn after a dozen years of Liberal scandal. We will specifically not address changes to health care, taxes, privatisation, foreign policy, etc. We will commit our group to call an election for March, 2006, the same date that Martin had promised previously.

Presented with an agreement confirming the existence of a coalition government with the confidence of the House, the GG will have no choice but to recognize this Government of Democratic Accountability. Martin's request for an election is refused.

I become PM for 4 months. Working with Layton and Duceppe, we have 4 months to open the books and shine a light into Martin's dark corners.

There is a federal election in March.

The Senate of the University of N=1

2005-11-11T03:03:00.000-05:00

Is pleased to announce the appointment of Angry White Males to the rank of Associate Professor. Angry will be teaching in the Department of You Eastern Bastards Can Freeze In The Dark.

Welcome aboard, Angry!

Occam thinks I am a malingering bastard

2005-11-09T01:35:00.000-05:00

And he's right.

In other news, no-one seems to have pointed out that the recent poll numbers frankly show no significant Tory bounce overall. They show the Libs down, or slightly down, but the Tories are flippin' stuck. I think they're stuck because they're playing Mr Sneaky Boots with their platform.

It should come out NOW.

I have also come to a decision about my own personal vote in the (maybe) looming campaign. I finally figured out why I hate the Liberals so much. It's not really their policies, which as anyone will tell you are pretty much indistinguishable from the Tories'. It's not the corruption, because (a) I hated the Liberals long before Martin pulled Gomery out of his trousers, and (b) I know the Tories would be just as corrupt if they had the chance.

It's the attitude.

My whole life I've hated the "I know better than you" people. The sneeringly superior socialist meddlers. The condescending left-lib assholes. Sure the Tories have their own version (although they generally only condescend about gay sex and drug use... which pisses me off but only at a theoretical level because I'm not gay and don't do drugs), but nobody can top a Liberal when it comes to condescension. The last 40 years of Liberal Party history has been devoted to the precept that They are Better than You. This makes me so mad I could puke. I could not vote Liberal. Could not. I frankly couldn't look myself in the mirror afterwards.

The Liberals need to lose. They need the humility. Oh, man, do they need it. Reminds me of the old joke about Texas law. Why is it that stealin' a horse gets a worse sentence than killin' a man? Because I ain't never met a horse that needed stealin'.

The Liberals need losin', baby.

I happen to live in a Tory riding. The best chance to keep the Libs out is to re-elect the Tory in my riding. So I'm voting Tory. If I lived in a Dipper riding, I'd be marking my X next to Jack!'s chosen minion. Hell, given that they're a bunch of useless tits, I'd even vote for the Bloc.

In other other news, I'm revamping my blogroll, given my all new reason for blogging. Old reason: share my trenchant insight with millions of adoring fans. New reason: intermittent venting to a half dozen maladjusted cranks like myself. Therefore: ixnay with the reciprocal links and the links to Blogs I Used To Read But Just Don't Have Time For Any More. Cut cut cut. Plus see-you-later to the Ecosystem tracker. I now officially do not give a crap how many incoming links I have.

I'm only leaving up the sites I read almost every day.

We now return you to regularly scheduled apathy.

I'm sick today

2005-10-29T20:29:00.000-04:00

And I'm grumpy.

Does anyone in the country actually give a crap that poll X shows the Liberals at 38% compared to 26% for the Tories, while poll Y shows Libs 34% v. Tories 30%... I mean, come one. It's farking stupid. Everyone knows what's going to happen. There's going to be an election in the spring, and the Libs are going to win a minority. Polls schmolls. The only funny part is watching poor Jack Layton trying to get his little band above 17%. Go Jack go! You're so cute when your moustache is angry.

The number of people in the world whose opinions don't matter to me continues to increase rapidly.

Two great finds today

2005-10-17T21:47:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine's Hit & Run, I found today a very interesting take on stem cell research, ensoulment, and embryogenesis. No, really. When was the last time you read an article that contained not one, but two killer debating points?

Pointus the Firstus:

John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. [...] Stepping onto dangerous theological ground, it seems that if human embryos consisting of one hundred cells or less are the moral equivalents of a normal adult, then religious believers must accept that such embryos share all of the attributes of a human being, including the possession of an immortal soul. So even if we generously exclude all of the naturally conceived abnormal embryos—presuming, for the sake of theological argument, that imperfections in their gene expression have somehow blocked the installation of a soul—that would still mean that perhaps 40 percent of all the residents of Heaven were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires.

Pointus the Secondus:

[M]illions of viable human embryos each year produced via normal conception fail to implant and never develop further. Does this mean America is suffering a veritable holocaust of innocent human life annihilated? Consider the claim made by right-to-life apologists like Robert George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, that every embryo is "already a human being." Does that mean that if we could detect such unimplanted embryos as they leave the womb, we would have a duty to rescue them and try to implant them anyway? [...] In right-to-life terms, normal unimplanted embryos are the moral equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children. Of course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a child—and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people. Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?

My second great find from today is thanks to Monte Solberg. My general disaffection for All Things Tory has basically put his blog on my no-fly list for a while, but I dropped by today and was richly rewarded:

I arrived at the Husky station in Strathmore this morning to find that gas had dropped to 95.9. This is better news than you know. With gas prices so high lately I have jumped on the alternative fuels bandwagon and have been planning to convert my truck so that it would run on whale oil. [...] My point was that as someone of Norwegian descent I thought I might apply to get a permit to hunt and render whales and run my truck on the oil. But with gas back under a dollar it probably doesn't make sense. Plus I'm a little foggy on the whole rendering process and on how to convert the truck engine.

If I were the type to have milk spray from my nose, this would have done the trick. I'm not, you know. But still. "Convert my truck so that it would run on whale oil"? Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Welcome to the gulch

2005-10-05T00:19:00.000-04:00

He worries about the international criminal court, praises a "conservative" foreign policy position, disparages Liberal nanny-state daycare, and sings the praises of libertarian art.

Welcome to Galt's Gulch, friend! Always happy to have another like-minded soul in our little town.

Just when he thought he was out, we pulled him back in

2005-10-05T00:12:00.000-04:00

Please join me in welcoming Alan of Occam's Carbuncle to The Journal of N=1. With two posts in the last two weeks, he's already bettered my posting frequency by about 100%.

Bastard.

Message to track-suited soccer moms everywhere

2005-10-03T09:47:00.000-04:00

If you must keep up the pretense of exercising in public, please keep your untrained jackass of an Archetypal Suburban Golden Retriever^TM on a lead. Notwithstanding your plaintive protestations of his amiable nature, the growling and circling would suggest a somewhat more aggressive temperament. In any event, I really don't care how fucking friendly you think he is, I don't want to be his friend, and neither does my dog.

Our Gaia, Who Art In The Ozone

2005-09-26T23:07:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Jonah Goldberg of NRO's Corner today, I find this excellent analysis of only state-favoured religion in Canada and the US: environmentalism. Thanks to Steven Landsburg (and his book "The Armchair Economist"), I have a template for the letter I expect to have to write myself in a few years. I'm going to quote the whole thing here:

Dear [pre-school teacher]:
When we lived in Colorado, [my daughter] was the only Jewish child in her class. There were also a few Moslems. Occasionally, and especially around Christmas time, the teachers forgot about this diversity and made remarks that were appropriate only for the Christian children. These remarks came rarely, and were easily counteracted at home with explanations that different people believe different things, so we chose not to say anything at first. We changed our minds when we overheard a teacher telling a group of children that if Santa didn't come to your house, it meant you were a very bad child; this was within earshot of an Islamic child who certainly was not going to get a visit from Santa. At that point, we decided to share our concerns with the teachers. They were genuinely apologetic and there were no more incidents. I have no doubt that the teachers were good and honest people who had no intent to indoctrinate, only a certain naïveté derived from a provincial upbringing.

Perhaps that same sort of honest naïveté is what underlies the problems we've had at [pre-school] this year. Just as [my daughter]'s teachers in Colorado were honestly oblivious to the fact that there is diversity in religion, it may be that her teachers at the [pre-school] have been honestly oblivious that there is diversity in politics.

Let me then make that diversity clear. We are not environmentalists. We ardently oppose environmentalists. We consider environmentalism a form of mass hysteria akin to Islamic fundamentalism or the War on Drugs. We do not recycle. We teach our daughter not to recycle. We teach her that people who try to convince her to recycle, or who try to force her to recycle, are intruding on her rights.

The preceding paragraph is intended to serve the same purpose as announcing to [my daughter's] Colorado teachers that we are not Christians. Some of them had never been aware of knowing anybody who was not a Christian, but they adjusted pretty quickly.

Once the Colorado teachers understood that we and a few other families did not subscribe to the beliefs that they were propagating, they instantly apologized and stopped. Nobody asked me what exactly it was about Christianity that I disagreed with; they simply recognized that they were unlikely to change our views on the subject, and certainly had no business inculcating our child with opposite views.

I contrast this with your reaction when I confronted you at the preschool graduation. You wanted to know my specific disagreements with what you had taught my child to say. I reject your right to ask that question. The entire program of environmentalism is as foreign to us as the doctrine of Christianity. I was not about to engage in detailed theological debate with [my daughter's] Colorado teachers and they would not have had the audacity to ask me to. I simply asked them to lay off the subject completely, they recognized the legitimacy of the request, and the subject was closed.

I view the current situation as far more serious than what we encountered in Colorado for several reasons. First, in Colorado we were dealing with a few isolated remarks here and there, whereas at the [pre-school] we have been dealing with a systematic attempt to inculcate a doctrine and to quite literally put words in children's mouths. Second, I do not sense on your part any acknowledgment that there may be people in the world who do not share your views. Third, I am frankly a lot more worried about my daughter's becoming an environmentalist than about her becoming a Christian. Fourth, we face no current threat of having Christianity imposed on us by petty tyrants; the same can not be said of environmentalism. My county government never tried to send me a New Testament, but it did send me a recycling bin.

Although I have vowed not to get into a discussion on the issues, let me respond to the one question you seemed to think was very important in our discussion: Do I agree that with privilege comes responsibility? The answer is no. I believe that responsibilities arise when one undertakes them voluntarily. I also believe that in the absence of explicit contracts, people who lecture other people on their "responsibilities" are almost always up to no good. I tell my daughter to be wary of such people — even when they are preschool teachers who have otherwise earned a lot of love.

Sincerely,

Steven Landsburg

Recycling is worse than voodoo. It forces us into a raccoon-like intimacy with our trash. And it amounts to a sacrifice of wealth on the altar of anti-life statism. If recycling were profitable, it would not have to be mandatory. It is mandatory, therefore it is not profitable. Therefore it is a waste of money. Therefore my wealth is being reduced--i.e. stolen--by fiat... and I am simultaneously compelled to finger through my garbage like some sort of flea-ridden rodent.

I hate recycling.

Guest Post: Occam's Carbuncle

2005-09-24T01:07:00.000-04:00

When Occam took his Carbuncle off the air a few months ago, I gladly offered to put up any guest posts he decided to write. I am very pleased to present Occam's first such contribution:

Top 10 Possible Liberal Campaign Slogans (in no particular order)

1. Suckers wanted.

2. Because we’re worth it.

3. Let our fingers do the taking.

4. The quicker cocker upper

5. Yeah, we stink, but look at those guys!

6. We like it so much, we bought the country.

7. Maybe we’re born with it. Maybe it’s just another fucking lie.

8. There are some things that money can’t buy. For everything else, there’s a slush fund.

9. Now with an offensive odour slightly diminished by the passage of time.

10. Vote…don’t vote. It’s all the same to us, jerk. We’re not going anywhere.

Heh, indeed.

Thanks Occam. Your hiatus has been a real loss to Canadian blogging. It's been a gap that I haven't even tried to fill, because in all honesty I just Don't Fucking Care about Canadian politics at this point. When that changes--in 2 months or 20--I'll let you know. Until then, Paul Martin can stuff Stephen Harper's head up Jack Layton's ass, for all I care.

Actually I think that last bit is in the Tory Policy Book (motto: We're Liberal Lite! Same crappy socialist bullshit, but with 15% less support!)

Two good finds

2005-09-07T23:48:00.000-04:00

From Gods of the Copybook Headings:

Governments are quite good at shooting and arresting people - not always the right people, but close enough for government work...

From the Volokh Conspiracy:

"Reverse Mussolini Fallacy": The argument that, because Mussolini (supposedly) made the trains run on time, it's wrong to make the trains run on time.

The latter reminds me of a killer rebuttal my brother has just taught me:

"That sounds like something Hitler would have said!!!"

Heh.

Verily, pith replete.

Free Market Salvation

2005-09-07T00:48:00.000-04:00

Okay, so freedom may not be a panacea--but then again what is?

In a comment to one of my recent posts (insert windy sigh here), The Carbuncle Formerly Known as Occam makes the following excellent point:

If insurance companies owned the levees, New Orleans would be dry as a bone right now.

As Aldini remarks in another context, I find this to be intuitively obvious. If a company's livelihood depends on the levees surviving a Category 5 hurricane, they'd probably do a better job of it than a government whose livelihood depends instead on fooling some of the people all of the time.

Of course, if insurance companies owned the levees, they would cook poor people for food and sell their livers to Halliburton etc etc etc, but don't you think Occam's right?

And for all you big government types who get the vapours at the thought of people owning their own lives: worry not, little dingos! Privately owned levees? Ha! Like there's any chance of THAT happening in Canada! I mean, it's still illegal to pay for your own hip operation in this country! And that's just the way you like it!

Keep up the good work, you cute gov-lovers. You're the best!

Wow

2005-09-05T17:40:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Staples for the pointer. This is one of the best essays I have ever read.

Angry, powerful, and exactly right.

Lessons

2005-09-05T14:16:00.000-04:00

In no particular order:

1. When your city is evacuated, you should leave.
2. Water and frozen/canned cooked food: You will need more than you have.
3. Consider buying a gun. If civil order breaks down entirely, a tiny sliver of the population will clearly go mad.
4. Don't trust the government to protect you. If you believe that a Democratic (or Liberal) administration would, by its nature, likely do a better job than a Republican administration, then you are a fool.
5. Every once in a while, everything goes wrong at the same time.
6. If I were Al Qaeda, I would attack the US right now.
7. The US Dept of Homeland Security would not be able to respond adequately to a serious attack.
8. Politics is vicious. Absolutely everything is fair game.
9. There are millions of Americans--mostly black Americans--who live in a type of poverty that resembles Third World conditions. And it is always the poorest who suffer the most when society breaks down. The same thing is true about thousands of Native Canadians. 50 years of socialist intervention has not helped in the way it was intended. Is it the case that people in these desperate circumstances would be beter off if there were more government help? Or does chronic government aid impoverish people in other ways?
10. Desperate circumstances bring out the best in some people, and the worst in others, in big ways and small. Bush and Blanco have not covered themselves in glory. Neither has Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. No surprise: Stockwell Day remains an idiot, as do German Greens.

Chuck Strahl has Mesothelioma

2005-08-23T00:15:00.000-04:00

If the reports are accurate, then Chuck Strahl does not have lung cancer (as is being widely assumed) but mesothelioma, a cancer of the pleural membrane surrounding the lung which is specifically linked to a certain type of asbestos.

This is terrible news for his family. Chuck Strahl has always struck me as one of the honourable men in politics: a stable, earnest, good-hearted leader. The type of man you would be please to have as a neighbour.

Cancer is an ugly thing.

This is normal mesothelium:

It's the thin, one-cell-layer-thick row of cells at the bottom of the image.

This is mesothelioma:

The cells are piled up, disorderly, chaotic. Chaos is evil.

My thoughts are with you and your family, sir.

Summer

2005-08-12T13:59:00.000-04:00

Nothing to say, and no time to say it.

I have recently turned away from Canadian politics, the way one turns away from a news story about some hiker discovering a dismembered corpse in the woods. It's disgusting. Why would I want to watch that?

I am reminded of the comment attributed to US Chief Justice Earl Warren:

I always turn to the sports page first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page nothing but man's failures.

As an aside, the Senate of the University of N=1 has made a number of staff promotions, and a couple of deletions. Whatever happened to Peter Rempel?

This is very funny

2005-07-15T00:00:00.000-04:00

Please visit Gull Chased Ship and read The Bronze Rat. It's very funny.

Mind you, I have a stupid sense of humour. I mentioned a Greek woman's name to someone at work today, and she said "Is that Greek?", and I said "It sounds Greek to me." And I laughed and laughed.

Just thinking about it makes me laugh some more.

Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Land of Truth and a Bitter Vicious Hatred of All That Is Really Really Stupid

2005-07-12T22:20:00.000-04:00

Land of Hope and Glory

2005-07-08T00:21:00.000-04:00

Respect mah authoriteh! RESPECT MAH AUTHORITEHHHH!

2005-07-04T00:22:00.000-04:00

Or, failing that, read this excellent piece by Victor Davis Hanson at NRO.

Cool excerpt:

Rather than worry about the supposed new unpopularity of the United States from Canada to France, or constantly badger supposed allies to at least be neutrals, we [the USA] should very gently strengthen our alliances with nations that are self-confident and without neuroses of various sorts. That would mean to accept that an ankle-biting Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Mexico, or Turkey has a perfect right as a neutral to distrust the United States and craft its own independent path.

If they all see statism, socialism, and big government as the better solutions to their own problems, or Islamic fascism as largely an American bogeyman, again more power to them all. In the meantime, we should begin to draw closer to true allies — a Japan, India, Australia, Britain, a very few Eastern and Western European countries, Taiwan, and Israel — who agree that the world is a scary, often crazy place, with the United States far better and more reliable than the alternatives.

As an aside, I think "excerpt" is a cool word. It looks dumb, but it works! The "c" seems superfluous, but it's not. And how do you pronounce the "pt"? It's kind of swallowed in a staccato fashion, like you're being choked. "Ek-ser-*!" From the Latin excerpere, to pick out.*

Did you hear the one about the pregnant woman who didn't have a bath for nine months because she didn't want the baby to drown?

2005-07-03T23:51:00.000-04:00

True story.

Academic Appointment

2005-07-03T11:38:00.000-04:00

The Senate of the University of N=1 is pleased to announce the appointment of BoundByGravity, at the rank of Associate Professor. Gravity will be lecturing in the Departments of History and Political Science.

Respect

2005-07-02T18:41:00.000-04:00

The last few days have been difficult for me, politically and philosophically speaking, because I have in a sense turned my back on my political home. It has left me angry and irritable, and I have written some things of which I am not terribly proud. I haven't gone back to delete anything, because in its own way that would be a lie. But I need to make clear one very important thing.

Some of this I said already, in my update below, but it is worthy of its own post.

I do not believe that opposing same-sex marriage, or equal marriage, means one is bigoted or homophobic. I do not believe that Stephen Harper and the Tory party are bigoted or homophobic. I do not believe that religious Canadians who oppose SSM, in keeping with their faith, are bigoted and homophobic. Sadly the tone of my recent commentary on this topic has been occasionally offensive and, frankly, thoughtless.

A great number of people, for whom I have the deepest respect, sincerely hold religious views which do not allow for the word "marriage" to be applied to gay or lesbian relationships. These people are, by and large, not homophobic--although to be fair some of them are homophobic.

I accept and believe that opposing SSM for religious reasons, and even secular reasons, does not make one a homophobe. I appreciate that the "conservative" approach to social change, with which I generally agree, mandates a "go-slow" response to SSM. I am personally of the opinion that allowing gay marriage is, honestly, an unqualified good. But I have enough modesty to accept that it is not necessarily a bad thing to take one's time about nearly unprecedented social change, and people who want to take their time about such things are not to be condemned for their caution.

In my own defense, I would like to make three specific points.

One, although I respect the religious (and secular) objections of the many fair-minded Canadians who oppose SSM, I cannot agree with any of the anti-SSM analysis I have read. Allowing SSM is a simple matter of human decency. In my opinion, the objections to SSM that centre on its deleterious effect on "the family" are utterly hollow. I have no clue whether a fair reading of the Canadian Charter would oblige government to allow SSM, but that is neither here nor there. This isn't about the Charter. It's about human rights. Equal marriage is the right thing to do--and, in my opinion, it is one of the necessary steps towards normalizing homosexuality in the eyes of society and the law. Probably people who do not view homosexuality as normal are afraid of exactly that. These people are wrong. This is my opinion.

Two, I continue to believe that by opposing SSM with a unique intensity, Stephen Harper and the CPC have made a massive strategic error. In my opinion, even Canadians who are uncomfortable with SSM are unlikely to vote against something they believe to be a Charter right. As I said above, I don't know whether SSM should actually be considered a Charter right... but this is about politics, not reality, which means it is about perception. I believe that a large majority of Canadians would view Harper's idea of revoking equal marriage, after it is assented, as a violation of people's rights. I think this will cost the CPC at the polls. I also am disgusted at the way the CPC's opposition to SSM has led them to go soft on a hundred policies I agree with, in order to fight for one that I cannot abide. Harper could have fought the "good fight" against SSM, accepted his loss, and moved on--and I would still today consider myself a Tory. But his determination to revoke SSM, which seems more important than allowing freedom in health care or opposing Liberal spending, means I cannot vote Tory in the next election. I am sorry about this, but it's no good. Sure George Bush is anti-SSM, and more anti than Harper. But at least if you vote for Bush you get a war of liberation that I wholeheartedly support! A vote for Harper gets me... what, exactly? A ringing NO! to something I support, and a whole lot of maybemaybemaybe on things that matter. Forget it, buddy. Not gonna happen.

Third, a request. Those of my friends and readers who sincerely oppose SSM, I would ask a small favour. Please: when you come across bloggers and writers who are overtly homophobic in their opposition to SSM, please make it clear that they do not speak for you. The failure to reject homophobia among the anti-SSM crowd has done a lot of harm to the anti-SSM message, in my opinion. Those of us who support SSM, in particular those of us who are otherwise Tory supporters, do not appreciate being told we have been fooled by the CBC, or that we are in thrall to the Liberals, or that we are libertines (and don't start with the libertarian = libertine bullshit). I do not enjoy reading, after the passage of C-38, that "fudge-packers" should "rejoice". I do not appreciate being told that I am an idiot for supporting SSM, or that I haven't read enough about it, or that I haven't thought about it deeply enough. I do not enjoy being lumped in with drug addicts or hippies.

That's it. I'm not writing about this any more.

Bigotry [See Update Please]

2005-07-01T12:46:00.000-04:00

For those who have followed my ranting over the last couple of days, I would like to clear up one thing. I do not believe that opposing equal marriage necessarily makes you an anti-gay bigot. It is a matter of simple observable fact that all anti-gay bigots oppose SSM, but I understand that not all of those who are anti-SSM are bigots.

But...

It's hard for me to develop an argument that opposes equal marriage while simultaneously acknowledging the normalcy of homosexuality. Does such an argument exist? Probably. No doubt all of the non-bigoted types who oppose SSM believe they have an argument. I just can't think of one.

Last night on The Situation (MSNBC), Tucker Carlson said what I think is probably the most pointed and truthful comment on SSM I have ever heard on television. He said (paraphrase alert!):

Gay marriage will continue to be accepted, gradually, all over the world. The reason is that those people who are against gay marriage--and that includes me on some days--cannot come up with a good argument against it. Many people, perhaps most, have a visceral opposition to gay marriage, but there does not seem to be a very good reason to be against it. Until someone can come up with that reason, gay marriage will continue to be approved in country after country.

I agree--only I happen to believe that there is no good reason to oppose SSM. But maybe there is, and I just can't think of it. Fair enough. So if you oppose SSM, I don't think you're necessarily a bigot.

UPDATE: I have been insulting and thoughtless, and for that I apologise. There are of course excellent religious arguments against SSM. Many people whose opinions I respect therefore oppose SSM on religious grounds. These friends and family members are not bigots. They are instead faithful Catholics, Mormons, Jews, etc. Their opinions deserve respect, and I have failed to provide that. I'm sorry.

However, as I explain in the comments below, I do not believe that religious justifications for laws are enough. I require secular justification for government policy--else how do we choose which religion to believe? The United Church and some Anglicans support SSM, after all. The opinions of religious Canadians matter just as much as my opinions, of course. But in my opinion, Canada ought not be governed according to religious precepts which lack secular backing. A law against thievery may be religiously appropriate, but we should only make stealing illegal because we can make a secular argument against it. A law against Sunday shopping? No dice. I know it sounds silly, but I put SSM in the same category as Sunday shopping: against the rules of many religions, but not against any secular principle I can name.

My religious friends are emphatically not bigots. Again I regret implying otherwise. But neither can I subsume my rational judgement to your faith.

In Response

2005-06-30T23:27:00.000-04:00

I have received a pretty massive response to my last post, in which I explained my personal split from the Tory party--well, massive for me, at any rate. 21 comments as of Thursday night! Who the heck do you guys think I am, Mike Brock?

I'd like to respond, in a way, to some of the thoughts my interlocutors have offered.

Pace Occam, I will not soon reach a tipping point about Canada. I do not believe this country is too far gone. I do not believe that the Liberals have some kind of mystical grip on the country's greeblies. I believe that Ontarians and Atlantickers are, frankly, foolishly biased in favour of the Liberal Party, but I also believe that they are open to alternatives. For me to reach my tipping point about Canada, I would have to see a "Conservative Party" (or reasonable facsimile thereof) which presented a reasonable platform in a reasonable way for at least two consecutive election cycles, only to lose to a visibly corrupt or evil Liberal Party. In my view this has happened once in the last 20 years: 2004. It is not about to happen in 2006, because even if Martin does hold the election he has "promised", and even if he wins, it will not be against the kind of Conservative foe that I describe above. And Occam, how can I honestly give up hope for Canadian democracy when I still have hope for the Iraqi version?

Other commenters accuse me of falling prey to the bias of the CBC, or to the spin of the Liberal Party. Please note: this is utter bullshit. I never--never--believe the CBC. Never. I haven't trusted the CBC to present a fair account of the news once in my entire life. I wouldn't believe the CBC if they said the sun rises in the east. The CBC can go to hell. And the Liberal Party? Holy smokes, Batman, grant me some respect. If you honestly believe that I have split from the Tories because the fucking Liberal Party told me so, then I would simply remind you of the importance of taking the exact amount it says on the little bottle you got from the happy man in the short white coat. No more. No less. And don't forget to take your naps!

One commenter suggested I could have "saved some bandwidth" if in lieu of my longwinded diatribe I had written instead "Stephen Harper is scaaaaaary." I find this disappointing for two reasons. First, I tried to present a coherent argument, starting from principles and moving towards conclusions, with at least one tangent and a handful of observations. I attempted to address counterarguments before they were made. I tried to make a case. "Harper is scary" is not an argument, it's an eructation. It also happens to be wrong--which is the second disappointment with this scary idea. Harper isn't scary. Frankly Martin and Layton are a whole lot more scary, because of their committed opposition to freedom in health care. [Note to commenter MemeWarrior: I do not believe Martin/Layton are engaged in a conspiracy to kill me. I just don't think The Survival Of Me matters as much to them as does The Survival Of Medicare...] Harper doesn't frighten me. He just doesn't offer any reason I should vote for him. As the Flea noted today,

If the Conservative party was opposed to same-sex marriage but were planning to fight the next election on the principle of personal liberty [...], defense of the West against fundamentalism [...] or the principle of less intrusive government and the rights of religious minorities including those religious minorities in favour of same-sex marriage [...] then I would have to carefully balance one party policy against the dangers of continued one-party government and the inevitable risk of corruption such an arrangement brings.

Too bad that Conservative party does not exist.

Harper's not scary. He's just irrelevant. Why would I vote for him?

In the last couple of months, Stephen Harper has focused on two issues: (1) gay marriage is wrong, and (2) the Liberals are corrupt. He has also made a number of smaller points, most of which amount to: (3) anything the Liberals promise, we'll deliver. So if I support the CPC, I ought to do it because I don't want gays to be legally permitted to marry one another, because I prefer a little less corruption, and because I want all the Liberals' spending promises kept.

On the first point, Harper is wrong: morally, politically, and legally. You may offer that this is only my opinion. Just so.

On the second point, Harper offers no plan or proposal that would act to prevent this kind of corruption. His only point appears to be "we're better people than they are". Frankly I believe this is partly true: I believe Harper and Solberg are more honest than Martin and Goodale. I believe the CPC would not take kickbacks--at least, not at first. But all governments become corrupt over time. What would you do, Stephen? What are your proposals? Silence from the gallery.

On the third point, I do not want the Liberals' promises kept. I want them repudiated. Why should I support a leader who says he'll do everything Jack Layton wants Martin to do? It's laughable. I used to think Joe Clark was an idiot for his socialist leanings. I should suddenly think it's okay just because it's coming from Harper instead?

One commenter returned more than once to her sorrow over where Canada has gone. I, too, am sad. I do not take my repudiation of the Tories lightly or with any happiness. I first joined the PCs in 1989. I joined the RPC in 1993, and the CA shortly after it was formed. My CPC membership card arrived in 2004. I am a sincere believer in capitalism and liberty. I cannot tolerate the idiotic and sophomoric leftism of the Liberals and the NDP. I cannot imagine myself, even now, casting a ballot for the Liberals. I certainly do not plan to. But I am not some sort of zombie supporter of the Tory party either, willing to accept any foolishness or any wrong so long as it is carried out under a blue banner. I have my limits.

My limit is this: no matter how corrupt the Liberals are, no matter how much they steal and lie, I will not vote for the Tory party so long as it is committed to repealing equal marriage. Will not.

I am furious that the Tories have brought me to this point. Even a week ago, I believed I was doing the right thing: I could hold my nose and vote Tory, because their anti-gay obsession was sure to fail, and their putative "conservative" policies were eminently desirable. But in the last 24 hours I realized: there are no "conservative" policies--at least, there are no policies that Harper et al want to talk about. All they want to talk about is how gay marriage is wrong. I would be ashamed of myself if my vote were the single vote that put Harper into 24 Sussex, given that the only thing we can know for sure that he would do with his power would be to revoke equal marriage. Tell me truthfully: do we know for sure that he would cut taxes? Raise military spending? Rip up Kyoto? Abolish the CRTC? Disband the Wheat Board? No way, no how. For my money, that stuff all seems negotiable--all except for gay marriage.

I'm sad too.

Maybe Jay Currie is right. Maybe

the CPC has to have its [anti-gay-marriage] spasm and get that out of its system by being massively repudiated by urban Canada in the next election. I am sad that this will mean another Liberal government, hopefully a minority, but the cranks and bigots have to have their day before we can move on to the creation of a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian political party which will reach out to all Canadians.

My tipping point

2005-06-29T22:54:00.000-04:00

Occam has made recent reference to Walsingham's essay about a nation reaching its tipping point. Occam and Walsingham maintain that Canada, as a nation, has reached its tipping point primarily because of the willful complicity of Ontarians in the Liberal destruction of Canada.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard for me to argue that there is literally no hope for this great country, but I think I can understand their perspective.

Today I find myself at a different kind of tipping point.

In a democratic socialist state like Canada, different political groups are always engaged in a "war of all against all", to use Rand's memorable phrase*. Different pressure groups and political parties strive to violate the rights of others in order to protect what they perceive as their own interests. So business groups want to expropriate the property of homeowners (see Kelo); NDPers want to expropriate the property of businesses (see $4.6 billion); some religious believers want to compel a nation of people to live by one interpretation of their Book (see equal marriage); Liberals want to compel a nation of people to die by one interpretation of their Book (see Medicare). I could go on.

Many principled libertarians (such as Jay Jardine) appear to argue that all the mainstream political parties are eager violaters of our natural rights, and therefore none of them deserve our support. In a way I agree, but unfortunately (and I hate to even mouth these words) I don't think that's very practical. I don't mean to imply a dichotomy between theory and practice. I just believe that we are in a position to choose between a "lesser of two [or more] evils". It may be true that the CPC would violate my rights, just like the Liberals and NDP would, and it is certainly morally correct to aver that one ought not vote for any of them. But I have believed for many years that Canada's "right-wing" parties (PC, RPC, CA, CPC) would violate my rights less, or at least more slowly, than the alternatives. So I have supported those parties, with time, with money, and with my vote. I have done so knowing that these parties were not "morally good" parties, but believing that they were at least morally better than the others--if, unlike Rand, one is willing to bargain about inches of evil.

The actions of the CPC surrounding same-sex marriage are changing my mind.

Harper and the CPC appear to be opposing SSM with a tenacity, a ferocity, that they reserve for absolutely nothing else. Not health care, property rights, war, trade, separatism, terrorism... nothing. It is easy to conclude that fighting an inevitably losing battle against allowing gay Canadians to wed one another must be the single most important thing in the CPC platform. We hear from the CPC nothing but compromise on the issues that will actually affect my personal life: compromise on taxes, compromise on medicare, compromise on fatty foods for Heaven's sake. But on a matter which will not directly affect me at all, the CPC is ready (aye, ready!) to Fight To The Death. It has become readily apparent to me that the CPC doesn't actually care about my issues at all. They evidently care about the issues of those who don't much like gay people, and who don't think homosexuality is normal. But I like gay people--at least, I like them as much as straight people, which is to say I like them as much as I like any individual. And I think homosexuality is normal--at least, it's as "normal" as any type of human predilection in which no-one is injured and in which all participants engage willingly. I accept that for millions of Canadian Christians, Jews, and Muslims, homosexuality is considered evil. They're wrong, and I no longer wish to associate with a party that acts as if it agrees with these Canadians.

People can think what they like. Canadians are free to think homosexuality a sin... although one wonders why it seems to be treated so much more seriously than other more injurious sins, like adultery or neglectful parenting. Actually one does not wonder at all. It is terribly easy for the self-righteous to condemn a sin which it is impossible for them to commit, such as having a romantic interest in one's own sex if one happens to have been born straight. A white man may as well consider Africans sinful because they have dark skin. This way of thinking is abhorrent to me. Yet I accept the right of people to hold abhorrent views, and I accept the right of churches to promulgate hatred from their pulpits. I believe in freedom of speech. I just don't want to be the one holding the song sheet.

This has been my tipping point. I am no longer willing to endorse this aspect of the Conservative Party. I made a mistake. I thought it was okay, to bargain away the rights of some Canadians, because other rights (of mine) were at stake. In this political war of all against all, we are each obliged to make this kind of choice, to the extent that we participate in politics at all. I can choose to support Christians and Jews and Muslims in their hatred towards gays (i.e. I can vote CPC), or I can support socialist fools in their hatred towards America and freedom and property of all descriptions (NDP), or I can support corrupt wardheelers in their hatred towards liberty in health care (Liberals). I was willing to make the first choice, because the others were too hideous--and, let's face it, because I'm not gay. It was easy for me.

But it's not easy any more. I was willing to let the CPC's homophobia slide, in part because it was so obviously a losing cause. The Libs and Dips and Bloc were going to pass SSM, so who cares if the Tories wanted to wage a quixotic battle in opposition? I guess the answer today is: I have decided that I care.

I don't mean to pretend some kind of rediscovered virginity in my politics. I know that to engage in democratic politics in a socialist state is to compromise some values--to violate some rights--in the hopes that one can defend and protect other values and other rights. But I have tipped past that point with today's CPC.

If they were willing to say "private health care is a Canadian right," if they were willing to say "we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in fighting terrorism," if they were willing to say "we support amending the Charter to protect Canadians' rights to property," then I might be willing to tolerate the CPC's distaste for gay people. After all, the NDP and the Liberals actively want me to die: in opposing private health care, these parties are acting to hasten the deaths of any ill Canadian. I'd pick hatred over suicide any day. But that isn't my choice, is it? The CPC aren't offering me anything to balance the hate. It's not hate with a side order of health care freedom. It's not hate with a delicious creamy topping of liberty. It's just hate. And that's not good enough.

So why today? After all, this is nothing new. The CPC have been backsliding away from every single policy in the platform for months now--well, except for the whole gay-people-suck policy, which is evidently carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock. What's new is not the policy weakness. It's today's promise, the first promise Harper has made about what he would do if elected PM. He would overturn equal marriage.

I was wrong. The Flea was right. Jay Currie was right. I was wrong. I cannot support this Tory party. They take my money, they take my time, and they offer me nothing but all-gay-marriage-all-the-time in response. And when the dust has finally begun to settle, once the policy options again open up for Harper and his team of otherwise bright souls, what does he do? He promises to Keep Fighting The Good Fight so that my lesbian friends can't be married.

I can't take it any more.

I'm tipped.

*I am reliably informed that this phrase originates not with Ayn Rand but with Thomas Hobbes, specifically Leviathan. For example, see here. My apologies. My literary background is inadequate to the level of philosophy to which I aspire! ;-) This is what comes from a non-liberal-arts education, I'm afraid... Thanks to commenter "MemeWarrior" for the correction.

It's anguish, people, not bias

2005-06-23T22:22:00.000-04:00

Read Paul Wells' rant to Stephen Harper.

Read it.

I hope Harper reads it too.

Paul Wells is an interesting commentator. He is uncompromising and, occasionally, vicious in his denunciations of Martin and his cronies. But because he is sometimes biting about the Tories, he finds himself the target of a lot of "anti-bias" bile. I guess the argument goes something like this:

The mainstream media is biased against Harper.
Wells is part of this media.
Wells says [nasty thing] about Harper.
Therefore Wells is biased against Harper.
QED!

Well, bullshit. (Thanks to Occam for my newfound vulgarity. Hey, Occam*--can I say "suck this"? Heh heh.)

For the life of me I don't know how Paul Wells votes in federal elections. If I had to bet, I'd lay a dollar on his being generally a federal Liberal--seeing as he's a bilingual Easterner and all, and we're just playing the odds here. But to be honest I think he's more interested in the "good government" side of things than the ideology. 'Cause when I read Wells smack Harper upside the head, the emotion I detect is anguish. Not hate. Not disgust. Not even dislike. Just a desperate hope that Harper would do a better job.

I think the "Wells = MSM = bias" crap is defeatist empty-headed rubbish. If Paul Wells is biased against Stephen Harper, well then I must be biased too, because I think Wells is (get ready Occam) fucking bang on.

[D]o something[, Stephen]. Change your game. Because right now, with your endless hectoring rant about the Liberals and your utter tabula rasa blank frickin' slate when it comes to your own plans for the Conservative government that you seem to believe Canadians should want, you resemble no leader so much as Joe Clark.

Remember him? Remember his last days? Criticizing the Liberals on the Iraq war without saying what he'd do? Rising, day after day after day, to demand that the documents be tabled? Scowling and whining about process? Empty and cranky all at once?

Remember how, by the end, the Liberals were laughing before he'd even said a word? Remember how you used to laugh at him?

That's the guy you're turning into, in what are starting to look like your own last days in politics. If you're so smart, fix it.

If there's a more damning indictment in Canadian politics than "you're turning into Joe Clark", I don't know what it could be. Harper can fix this. He's only a few points back. People don't like the Liberals. They want to vote for something better--not a happier barbecue guest, for fuck's sake, but a better leader. Our policies are better. Let's talk about them.

Now.

Nope. Can't say that.

2005-06-21T00:39:00.000-04:00

I've really enjoyed reading all those lists of things you can't say in Canada (and thanks to Jerry Aldini for the link roundup). Of course, you can say them, but you just might as well kiss that academic promotion goodbye!

Let me add to something Colby Cosh pointed out. One of his never-said-in-Canada lines addressed the hypocrisy of some within the pro-choice lobby:

It's also completely inconsistent for feminists to stand on their individual classical-liberal right to total personal inviolability--when it comes to abortion--and to proclaim an illiberal doctrine of collective, identitarian rights in every other sphere of human activity.

I don't claim to have invented the following, but here's my Verboten in Kanada contribution:

A woman is allowed to visit a private abortion clinic and pay out of her pocket for the privilege. A woman is not allowed to visit a private obstetrician and pay for the privilege. Which is to say, "two-tier medicine" is A-OK when it comes to pregnancy care... just so long as the baby ends up dead.

Laugh out loud. I mean it. None of that "LOL" sh*t.

2005-06-15T00:29:00.000-04:00

RightThinkingPeople, on the Jackson acquittal:

And somewhere on the planet Zebulon-Rhomba, Michael's birth parents are clapping their cilia together and hooting softly into the dense, methane atmosphere.

Most Interesting Political Analysis I've Read In A While. Warning: No Swearing Is Involved.

2005-06-15T00:07:00.000-04:00

Ghost of a Flea peeks out of his pop culture niche to present us with what I can honestly say is a fascinating perspective on Canadian politics: specifically, what the Conservative Party has to do to get elected. Flea manages to do this without once relying on the Usual Staple Of Sensible Middle-Canadian Analysis ("move left, young man!"). Instead, he bases his evaluation on a psychological/sociological theory called Transactional Analysis, which plots behaviour on two axes: Hostility vs. Friendliness, and Weakness vs. Strength.

It deserves to be read in its entirety. I will only steal the best single line from the piece:

Remember, your political views (whatever they may be) are sensible and based on a clear-headed assessment of the facts while the general public, lacking your perspicacity, only perceives the truth, so evident to you, through a glass darkly.

Heh.

Chapter 7 - In Which Our Protagonist Uses Several Very Naughty Words Indeed

2005-06-14T00:27:00.000-04:00

I'm not kidding. If bad language bothers you, then I invite you to take a tour of my blogroll.

Still here?

Fine. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Continue reading this tripe.

You know what? I'm just tired.

2005-06-10T00:13:00.000-04:00

I had a conversation a few years ago with an American friend (hello Brad!) who obsessively followed Canadian politics. At the time, I was obsessively following American politics, and I couldn't figure out where he was coming from. I mean, American politics is all about ideas, right? War! Peace! Freedom! Slavery! It's like a movie with all the big names in it. See Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in George Lucas' new Shakespearean Blockbuster! Produced by Spielberg and Filmed in Imax!

My friend pointed out that, in contradistinction to American politics, things actually happened in Canada. Maybe the characters were forgettable, and the actors unknown, but there was Plot With A Capital P. Parties were destroyed! Parties were born! Separatists won... then lost! Today's widely accepted dogma ("The Liberal Party will respect the [same-sex] rights identified by the Supreme Court!") is tomorrow's rejected cant ("The Liberal Party will not respect the [health care] rights identified by the Supreme Court!").

It is safe to say the last few weeks, the last couple of months, have proven my friend right. And frankly I'm tired of it.

I don't want to gross anyone out, but Canadian politics is becoming like some kind of weird mass porno. There's no foreplay, it's all just... er... well, you know. Non-confidence! Confidence!! Betrayal!!! Counter-betrayal!!!! Bribery!!!!! Fraud!!!!!! Judicial Bombshell!!!!!!! Makes you want to reach for the remote control before the kids walk into the room.

And through it all, the polls snap around like a jib on a spinning boat.

When I click on MSNBC or FoxNews for some respite, I get either the tedious (will the Democrats invoke cloture before their own filibuster ensures that hsadgyalwru72bi... sorry, fell asleep on the keyboard there for a sec) or the Avert-Thine-Eyes disgusting ("Well, Brian, the question is whether Michael Jackson performed any actual sex acts during those overnight stays" hork hork hacccccchhhh gag). And frankly it's a relief.

I think too much plot is getting to be bad for my health. I need less plot. Maybe no plot. Couldn't Ottawa just all go to Hell? Temporarily, I mean.

Sinister plotting

2005-06-05T16:12:00.000-04:00

Let me point you to an interesting discussion over at Sinister Thoughts, asking the question "how could the NDP form a minority government in Canada".

I'd like to add my meta-thoughts to the tactical proposals I have left over there: the fact that Dippers are asking--and attempting to answer--this question is seriously good news for the CPC. This suggests that some NDPers are looking past propping up Martin's Liberals, and considering how they could be victorious in a general election. The CPC needs this kind of thinking from the left, because if the NDP decides to vote against the Libs (because they think they could do well in an election) then Martin is well and truly sunk.

Go Jack go!

I hope I don't have to add that I don't want the NDP to form the government, and I think if that happened my head would explode. But the NDP has to do well--and has to believe they will do well--for the CPC to succeed.

Book Tag--a temporary distraction from Gurmant Grewal's quick trip into footnote history!

2005-06-02T22:35:00.000-04:00

Tagged by The Monarchist.

I'm surrounded by books at work, many of which have meant a lot to me in the professional sense... but I'm going to limit my answers to personal "recreational" books.

Number of Books I Own: Probably around 200. I've moved across the continent a few times in the last several years, and each time has involved divesting myself of piles of books I wasn't likely to read a second time. Now that I'm settled again, I'm starting to accrete once more.

Last Book I Bought: the original Star Wars Trilogy, by George Lucas, Donald Glut, and James Kahn. Maybe I could make something up about buying The City And Man (Leo Strauss) or Utopia (Thomas More), but That Would Be Wrong.

Last Book I Read That I Could Discuss At A Swanky Dinner Party With My Eyebrow Arched To Underline My Fascinating Interest In The World Around Me, And The Historical Currents Which Sweep Man Along To His Destiny: Two Roads to Sumter, by William Catton.

Last Book I Really Finished: Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, by Susanna Clarke.

Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me (in no particular order):

(1) Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and all of Ayn Rand's non-fiction (e.g. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal--please read the Amazon review! It's hilarious!)... except The Romantic Manifesto which left my fancy untickled. Rand has deeply influenced the way I see the world. Like the generation of capitalists and libertarians before me, I am indebted to her.

(2) Battle Cry of Freedom: the Civil War Era, by James McPherson. Without a doubt the best single-volume treatment of the US Civil War that I have read. A fascinating and wonderful book.

(3) The entire "Discworld" series by Terry Pratchett. I particularly enjoyed some of the more recent ones, including The Truth and Going Postal. Absolutely hilarious satirical fantasy, and Pratchett gores all the right oxen. I can re-read these books over and over.

(4) Systems of Survival, by Jane Jacobs. A very interesting book, told through the conceit of a series of dinnertable conversations by a disparate group of thinkers. Jacobs identifies and provides evidence for the existence of two completely distinct moral codes: the guardian code, and the commercial code.

(5) The Gruffalo, by Julia Donaldson. I have had a great time reading this book to my kids (again and again and again and again until my eyeballs start to bleed out of sheer happiness!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *koff*). Seriously, this is a very fun book which allows me to indulge my need to speak in a variety of silly voices. The Gruffalo is the best of Donaldson's several books, although I also like Room On The Broom.

You're it:
Ravishing Light
Heart of Canada
Shenanigans
Joel Fleming
Japnaam Singh
Rempelia Prime

(Have you noticed how people tend to tag other bloggers of approximately the same ... er ... I don't know, pull? Heft? So high-power bloggers tag high-power bloggers, mid-level types tag other mids, etc. Life is high school.)

Just remember: when one door closes, another one slams shut in your face

2005-05-25T21:01:00.000-04:00

When this happens--and it is "when", not "if"--then I absolutely and totally guarantee you: Paul Martin will renege on his promise to call an election 30 days after Gomery tables his report.

He will call the promise "a mistake" which he was "forced to make after the CPC and the Bloc teamed up to destroy Canada". He will call an election "a threat to Canadian values". He will say that "Canada is frankly more important than Stephen Harper's extremist ambitions".

He will apologise for making the mistake of promising an election. He will do so on national t.v., and the Toronto Star will praise him for his "bravery". And there will be S.F.A. that anybody can do about it. By then, at least one of Chuck Cadman, David Chatters, and Darrel Stinson will be too sick to vote, and it will be mathematically impossible for the Tories to topple the Martin government.

I guarantee you: there will be no election in 2006.

If I'm wrong, I will... er... well, anyway, I'm not wrong.

Martin is going to get away with it. And we will be able to thank Chuck Cadman and Belinda Stronach for the Worst Possible Realistic Outcome In Canadian Federal Politics: a Liberal minority propped up by an NDP coalition. I swear to God, worst possible realistic outcome. I think I'm going to swallow my own tongue.

Byelection breathing room?

2005-05-25T09:45:00.000-04:00

Several very sensible bloggers, including Damian Penny and Bob Tarantino, have joined the media chorus that last night's byelection win in ~~Liberaldor~~ Labrador represents breathing room for the Liberals in the House. In fact the byelection is essentially completely irrelevant.

Last week, given the cancellations due to pairing, the Libs (including Stronach) and Dips added up to 150; they needed Parrish and Cadman to get to 152. The speaker's vote--which is cast ONLY in the case of a tie--brought them to 153.

The Tories plus Bloc plus Kilgour were 152.

The Labrador win means the Lib/Dip/Parrish/Cadman total goes up by 1. The Tories don't lose anything, of course, meaning that the L/D/P/C's have 153, and the T/B/K's still have 152.

What this means is that, just like last week, the Libs need to keep the Dips AND Parrish AND Cadman in order to win. If Cadman switches his vote, then the L/D/P side drops to 152, and the T/B/K+C team rises to a winning 153. The extra vote brought by the speaker would not be cast, and the government would fall.

The bottom line is that for the Libs, winning the byelection has literally no impact at all on their ability to retain power (assuming all MPs actually vote, and none abstain--a fair bet, given the importance of these non-confidence motions). All it means is that there will be no more tie votes requiring the Speaker's intervention.

As an aside, I don't even think this matters at all, even if it did magically make the Liberals more immune to non-confidence defeat. My suspicion is that, having lost in the push for a summer election, Harper will likely wait for the Gomery report. Then it comes down to whether Martin lives up to his promise to hold an election. As I wrote a few days ago, don't hold your breath for Mr. Promise-Made-Promise-Kept.

Canada past the tipping point?

2005-05-23T12:04:00.000-04:00

Please read this thoughtful, moving piece by Walsingham at The Monarchist (and thanks to Occam for reminding me of it). I have tried hard, and somewhat successfully, to avoid Walsingham's despair and anger. In my opinion, Canada has not yet utterly lost hope.

But I don't think that day is necessarily too far off. If Martin is successful in avoiding a post-Gomery election, and polls show that Canadians don't care... or if Martin does call an election, and the Liberals win... then honestly I think my country will be dead.

I'm sorry to say that. I love my country--but she is very, very ill.

(In recognition of this and previous contributions, the Senate of the University of N=1 is pleased to announce the appointment of The Monarchist at the rank of Associate Professor. Monarchist will be teaching in the Departments of History and Political Science.)

Une petite blague

2005-05-22T19:09:00.000-04:00

Knock-knock

Who's there?

Belinda.

Belinda who?

What, is it 2006 already?

Not a hiatus. Just lazy busy.

2005-05-21T19:26:00.000-04:00

Sooooooo busy lately at work, impossible to take time to blog. I promise I don't have Blog Neglect Disorder! (And please, give generously... those poor souls need your help.)

Belinda

2005-05-21T19:23:00.000-04:00

Most of the analysis of her floor-crossing emphasizes her ambition, her opportunism, or (if you're Jeffrey Simpson) her "I'm-a-social-liberal-in-a-party-of-neanderthals!"-ism. This is all true, I believe (well, except for Simpson's lazy effort, which is frankly too pathetic to deserve a response), but it's only a part of the picture.

In my own humble opinion, Belinda is simply not very bright, and is incapable of taking the long view. She is a short term thinker, and a superficial thinker, to the extent that she is a thinker at all. It is painfully obvious that her long-term options were much better in the Tory party, if only she were willing to bide her time for an election or two. She is, or was, at least a potential leader of the CPC, which is to say a potential Prime Minister. She will never, ever be anything more than a mid-rank cabinet minister in the Liberals, and even that is a short term bet only.

Martin will be able to use Belinda for one election ("Harper is scaaaaaary, and here's Belinda to say so too! Go ahead, Belinda! Tell them exactly what we talked about in the Green Room! You remember, right? The room with the snacky-poos and the little sandwiches?"). Then Martin will be gone, because as either the winner or the loser of a minority parliament, the Liberal Party will not tolerate Martin sticking around for #3. And after Martin is gone, Belinda is toast.

If she had stayed a Tory, Belinda could have been PM or deputy-PM within 5 years. But as a not-so-bright short-termer, Belinda lacks the focus to invest in a 5 year plan. Moreover, I suspect she is quite used to listening to older grey-haired men advise her on what to do. When Harper abdicated his mentoring role vis a vis Belinda, that gap was filled by David Peterson and Paul Martin. They were able to fill Belinda's head with talk of national unity, and appeal to her desire to be seen as having an excuse to leave the Tories. Bingo, it's the separation bugaboo! Belinda hears Peterson and Martin telling her that a vote against the budget is a vote against Canada, and hears her own inner monologue telling her to advance her short-term ambition as a Grit, and the two form a beautiful rhyming chorus.

So her not-forever-just-for-now ambition and her gimme-an-excuse efforts combine to push her into the Liberal cabinet. Only now she is starting to realize she is trapped: there's no way to improve her position, she has no real friends or allies in her new caucus, and she's the target of a media that obviously believes she sold her vote to Martin for a cabinet post that she does not deserve.

Look at the pictures of her in the news these days: she looks tired and wrung out. When she smiles now, it never reaches her eyes. Her eyes are dead.

Harper

2005-05-21T19:22:00.000-04:00

I must admit it: I like Stephen Harper. I think he would make a perfectly sensible PM. But the man has terrible management skills.

Look at two separate episodes: the Scott Reid - Peter MacKay imbroglio during the convention, and the Stronach defection. In both cases, it seems to me, Harper relied on other people to Do The Right Thing, i.e. submerge their personal vanity and ambition to The Cause. He let Scott Reid advance a motion he knew would cause MacKay to blow up, he let MacKay blow up, he let Stronach feel embittered and sidelined, he let her think her personal interests would be better served as Liberal... Can anyone imagine a gladhander like Mulroney letting that happen? Not on your life.

Harper has obviously accepted that he must moderate his political views in order to be electable: goodbye firewall, goodbye Iraq war, goodbye private healthcare, goodbye BMD, hello anti-SSM (which frankly I doubt Harper really gives a crap about), etc etc. But he has not learned that he must also moderate his personal style. Other people will not always see the long-term as clearly as Harper appears to, and these people's short-term thinking has to be massaged. Stronach should have been made to feel like Harper's Ontario lieutenant. She should have been made to feel like her personal short-term interest was to stay with Harper's team. She didn't. Yes, she's acted like a fool. Yes, she has betrayed her constituents and her colleagues. Yes, she deserves ridicule and contempt. But Harper should have seen her coming a mile off. His failure to do so underlines his terrible management style.

It is not good enough to rely on other people simply choosing to do the right thing. He utterly blew it in managing Stronach's ambition, a failure which suggests that a Harper government would likely be plagued by leaks and infighting. He needs help learning to manage.

I wonder if Marjory LeBreton could give Harper a call? I bet she could put him in touch with someone who, whatever his political faults, knows a thing or two about caucus management.

Harper, parte deux

2005-05-21T19:20:00.000-04:00

My God, what's with Mr. Angry Boots? Could someone please tape record this message, and play it at subsonic frequencies overnight at Stornoway?

More In Sorrow Than In Anger
MORE in SORROW than in ANGER
more in SORROW than in anger

It goes without saying that a liberal media will look for things to attack Harper about, and have recently fixated on his "angry" persona, in lieu of substantive attacks. But Harper has made it easy on them. It's like the Republicans during the 90s, asking "where's the outrage" about Clinton. Look, partisan political types who hate the Liberals agree that everybody should be outraged by Martin's corrupt government. But the average person isn't outraged, and frankly probably reserves outrage for things that actually matter, like getting a parking ticket. The average person doesn't seem to care overmuch about politics at the best of times, and certainly isn't going to get outraged about it. But they will still feel upset at corruption and poor governance, and Harper must MUST tap into this without making people feel he's an angry zealot.

Outrage is not going to cut it. Harper needs to learn this, fast. I think the decision not to try another non-con vote before the House breaks for the summer is a wise one, because to do otherwise would be to look too angry and obsessed. Remember, Steve: more in sorrow than in anger.

Black Clouds and Silver Linings

2005-05-21T19:17:00.000-04:00

Some analysts have found silver linings in the failure of the CPC to bring down the government this week (check out Tiger for some excellent thoughts). Do not let the silver lining talk get out of hand, however: it is a bad thing that Harper could not bring down the Liberals this week.

The CPC had a good chance to win an election on the corruption issue, and that chance may not come again despite the Gomery report. For all we know, Martin will actually get serious today about fighting corruption, will fire half a dozen deputy ministers, will publicly castigate Chretien for his maneuverings and lies, will make an honest effort to clean house... okay, it's unlikely, but it's possible. And then Gomery's report turns into a pat on the back, rather than a summons to the executioner. And another thing: if the CPC had brought down the Libs this week, they naturally would have had to campaign against the Liberal budget (oh nooooo! the budget of perfection!), but do you really think the Libs won't cook up something else the CPC will have to run against in January? You think Martin will sit there with his thumb up his rear end, letting the CPC turn the whole campaign into corruptioncorruptioncorruption? Not a friggin' chance, as the Minstrel of Mississauga said this week. There will be something else: a softwood lumber deal, a BSE deal, a tax cut, another handout to the cities or the natives or the fill-in-the-blanks. The Libs will always be able to say "Harper is putting his personal ambition ahead of X", and the silver lining crowd are deluding themselves if they think that next year's X isn't going to be at least as good as the craptastic Dipper budget.

Harper was right to make the effort to topple the gov't this week, and it is a real shame he failed. He will have to try harder next time, and he may not find it as easy, what with an extra Lib MP in Nfld. and no doubt some extra floor crossings... what's that? You think Gurmant and Inky won't be asked again, along with every backbench schlub in the CPC? Ha. It's going to get harder and harder every time Harper needs to pull the pin. And as for Martin's "promise" to call an election after Gomery? Well, maybe. But try this on for size:

Toronto Star headline, January 12, 2006:
Martin Makes Bid To Save Canada
OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin said last night that, because of the strength of the separatist movement in Quebec, he was compelled to renege on what some critics are calling a promise. "Let me make this clear," said Martin to loud applause from his caucus, "I am willing to take the blame for saving Canada from the separatists." Martin went on to say that, with polls showing the Bloc would likely sweep Quebec in the wake of Justice Gomery's damaging report, it would be "irresponsible and frankly disastrous" for him to call an election at the present time.

An apoplectic Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition, called it "the most hideous example of a broken promise since Hitler invaded Poland." He vowed to try to topple the government at the earliest opportunity. However, since three Tory MPs crossed the floor to the Liberal Party in December, it is mathematically impossible for Harper to defeat the government without the help of the NDP. And since the appointment of Jack Layton as Finance Minister in November, the New Democrats are expected to support the Liberals in any confidence motion.

Believe it. Martin will not call an election after Gomery. You heard it here... er, second.

CTV Poll: "61 per cent of Canadians say they believe [Martin] would lie if it would help him politically"

2005-05-12T21:47:00.000-04:00

Wednesday:
Stephen Harper "debas[es] the Canadian political process" and sinks to "a new low" (S. Brison) when he accuses Martin of delaying the Budget vote until next week so that ill Tory MPs won't be able to be there. Martin goes so far as to rebuke Mr. Harper: "I would simply ask him to demonstrate better judgment. If we are to have civility, he should set the example."

Thursday:
Tory MP Darrel Stinson is too sick to attend next week's scheduled Budget vote. Martin refuses to change the date of the vote, in order to "respect" the centenary of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

It honestly boggles the mind.

He's a mendacious parasite, a prevaricating worm. Martin is gutless. Heartless. Soulless.

He is, as Paul Wells said, hollow.

The Consent of the Governed

2005-05-12T00:00:00.000-04:00

The words "constitutional crisis" sound pretty silly to modern ears--or, if I ought to be a little more modest, to my ears. I mean, it's pretty obvious what the government is supposed to do, right? In the USA, during the aftermath of the 2000 election, it was pretty obvious what was going to happen: either Bush or Gore would win the Florida recount/lawsuit imbroglio, and whoever lost would piss and moan, and then it would all go away. Even if Florida had somehow authorized two separate sets of electors--one Dem, one GOP--the election would have ended up in the House of Representatives. A little weird, perhaps, but hardly a "constitutional crisis".

I'm not sure which commenter first used the phrase "constitutional crisis" to describe the pathetically risible state of Canada's current Liberal "government"--maybe Andrew Coyne. He's pretty much going 24/7 with Liberal Malfeasance these days, so it could well have been him. In any event, it sounded to me just as silly about Canada as it did about the USA 5 years ago... until now.

The Leader of the Opposition has today moved a vote which a large majority of the House of Commons (3 of 4 parties, representing something like 172 of the 308 voting Members of Parliament) clearly considered a motion of non-confidence. The vote even passed by a large majority, in part because the Liberal "government" decided the whole thing is just too funny for words. And the government did not resign.

It's frankly disgusting.

It is not up to the government to decide what is and is not a confidence motion. It is up to the House. The House has decided, and furthermore has decided it has no confidence in the government. And yet the Liberal Party turns it into a joke.

Democracies are supposed to rest upon the consent of the governed, not the consent of those who govern. But the Liberals have made a literal mockery of the most fundamental principle of our Westminster parliament.

Harper must ask the Governor General to dissolve this House. Paul Martin has shown himself to be a demagogue and a privateer. The man is a nasty and disgusting insect of politics. He and his Party of egomaniacs and parliamentary assassins deserve nothing more than electoral oblivion.

I expect to be disappointed on this score. I fully expect that the Governor General would refuse to intercede--Lord knows I would refuse, if I were the GG. I mean, really, why would she stick her neck out? She'll only be criticized. Better to lie low and hope the whole thing blows over... But ignoring it is the wrong thing to do. If Martin can keep his clutches on the executive functions of government after losing its legislative powers, does it really matter that it's only for a week? It's long enough for the principle to be established. So Martin can cling to his web for a week. What's to stop the next guy--Hell, maybe Martin himself--from hanging on for a month? Or two? What's to stop him from simply refusing ever to allow a motion to be considered a confidence motion, and governing solely by executive fiat?

We can now see that what separates us from the third-world kleptocracies and former Soviet Thugostans is just piffle, really. Parliamentary "tradition". "Convention". Just "habits" that a governing party can set aside whenever it chooses.

This is no longer about ideology. This is frankly a declaration of war against Canada's democratic system of government. How can the Liberals live with themselves? How can they look themselves in the mirror? Are they proud of their maneuvering? Their slick manipulations and technicality-fondling?

They make me sick. If Chuck Cadman and David Kilgour have any self respect, they will not allow themselves to be pimped on behalf of a party of dictators.