Today's Hysterical Political Attack (#1)

Via The Globe and Mail's Twitter feed (@globeandmail) 02Aug2011. Blogged via Blackberry - please forgive thumbos & layout.

"NDP credibility under attack after Turmel's Bloc ties revealed: http://tgam.ca/CjUf"

I have never understood the virulent reactions to politicians who change their minds on any issue. The vitriol comes from both those who stand to gain the most from these attacks (opposition politicians), and those who stand to lose the most (eligible voters) - and none of it makes rational sense. Are we really intolerant of people who expand their knowledge on subjects and alter their viewpoints based on what they've learned? Having a reasonable discussion or debate on an issue can logically lead to both a more cemented point of view, or a shift in belief. Why is the latter considered wrong or weak? From issues of national importance to decisions on dinner, we can all be swayed by an excellent argument or by having a fresh thought illuminated, so why can't our elected officials? Wouldn't we rather have representatives who are willing to listen and change, rather than stick stubbornly to a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel is being attacked for simultaneously, and briefly, being a member of the NDP and Bloc parties. She has repeatedly stated that she was never a supporter of the sovereignty portion of the Bloc's agenda, but her opposition colleagues deny not only her ability to support portions of a political platform and not others, they also claim that she can not "un-become" a separatist.

"Conservatives said her recent ties fuel questions about the NDP's ability to carry out its duties as Official Opposition." This is a statement that ignores the fact that the Bloc is a legal, and until the last election, formidable member of the opposition. It also obscures the fact that all parties are guilty of courting Bloc votes - which at those times don't seem so toxic. The Liberals piped up and said that "Ms. Turmel and the party "have serious questions to answer about her personal views as well as the NDP caucus' position on Quebec sovereignty and the future of our country."" And the party? Are the Liberals now suggesting that every NDP member is, in their hearts, a separatist?

Even if Ms. Turmel had supported a separatist movement at some point (which she denies), can we not allow her to now support a unified Canada? It follows that Conservatives and Liberals don't believe separatist Quebeckers can ever abandon those views - which means they also must believe that all their time spent arguing against separatism is a waste.

But this all raises another issue; the idea that if you support a political party, it requires you to swear fealty to every word of the party platform. Bloc MP Louis Plamondon said, "When you back a party, you back its program." This is obviously a ridiculous statement to make, and is even laughable coming from any of the major parties. The Bloc themselves had abandoned bludgeoning Canada with the sovereignty portion of their platform for several years before the most recent election. When they trotted it out in full force, their base walked away and they suffered a humiliating defeat. So it seems Bloc supporters did not embrace the entire "program" that they were supposed to. Let's now look to the Conservatives, whose leader routinely claim that a vote for them equals full-support of their platform. Perhaps this is something their own MPs and members should be informed of, because the Conservative party has been split between the Reform and Progressive Conservative portions of their amalgamated party ever since their inception. Stephen Harper may support the entirety of the Conservative platform, but his party certainly does not. Liberals have no high ground to stand on either while they are dripping with spectacular public in fighting compounded by the bickering that still exists between the remnants of Team Paul Martin and Team Jean Chrétien.

Now ask yourself, is there a single Federal party platform out there with which you 100% agree with? Before you answer, actually read your chosen party's platform that is posted on their website. If you find that you fully support every single line you read, I would be astounded. I have yet to find a party at any level of government that I agree with on absolutely everything - nor one that I can agree with on even just the major issues. But I can still support one party (or several) over others because it comes closest to what I would like to see. That's democratic life, it's not perfect.

So can Ms. Turmel be a federalist and a Bloc supporter at the same time? Of course she can. No matter what one thinks of the Bloc's separatist agenda, it can't be denied that the party's primary focus is the people they represent. Quebec is one of the most, if not the most, progressive provinces in the country. They have a strong belief in protecting the environment, indigenous rights, preservation of their culture and language, child care, public welfare, work/life balance, gun control, and the list goes on. In these areas, parties like the Liberals and Conservatives, are nowhere near being on the same page. If a federalist Quebecker believes strongly in all of these areas, and doesn't see it reflected in any other party, can he really be faulted for supporting the Bloc when their separatist notions seemed to be waning?

Your priorities may be different, and you may not agree with every voter - but then, you're not supposed to. So I ask, can we at least have a civil and reasonable conversation about it?

Harper Wants to Take Away Canadians' Choices at the Polls

For someone who relentlessly attacks Ignatieff for allegedly being too American (channelling the Birthers to our South no doubt), Harper sure does act mightily un-Canadian.

From Harper's insistence on fixed-election dates modelled on the American 4-year cycle that helps foster US style continuous campaigning, to his refusal to acknowledge that he is not a President, but an MP with little more special status or power than every other MP sitting in Parliament, he has shown time and again his disdain for the Canadian electoral system.

One of Harper's favourite things to do is ignore grey areas. He acts as the uneducated do and pushes to frame all issues as black/white, left/right, with us/against us. This man condescends at every turn, and believes in only two extreme political perspectives: all the way Left, or all the way Right. This again is indicative of his preference to ignore Canadian approaches and in this case embrace the American two party system of Democrat or Republican.

In Canada we have a more robust and nuanced approach to the issues affecting many vastly differing areas of the country. We have seen many major parties come and go, succeed to play on, or merge with others to survive or up their odds. Canadians appreciate a variety of opinions and champion the many legitimate choices we have at the polls. This however, is something that our current Prime Minister seems to reject with gusto. The most recent evidence is a statement made today regarding the inclusion of Green Party leader Elizabeth May in the televised leaders debate. During the last election, Harper moved to exclude the May by threatening to boycott the debate if she was invited to participate. A classy move supporting democracy it was not. This year Harper has gone further, stating that he would be interested in a debate that included only himself and Liberal leader Ignatieff because really, the election is between them, and voters have only two choices.

I don't know about you, but I certainly can't even consider supporting a person who would be as condescending, hateful, exclusionary, and disrespectful as this. And I certainly won't allow us to throw away our multi-party system without a fight. Only a madman bent on power like Harper could.

The quote, as reported by the CBC (http://bit.ly/hR223Q):

« Ce sont les réseaux de télévision qui prendront cette décision [la participation ou non de Mme May]. De notre côté, a précisé M. Harper, je suis ouvert à plusieurs formes de débat, un débat traditionnel qui comprend tout le monde, ou un débat entre moi et Michael Ignatieff, parce qu'en fin de compte, les élections sont à propos de moi et M. Ignatieff. Les électeurs n'ont qu'un choix entre nous deux. »

In It But Not Of It: Fun At Mass

In It But Not Of It: Fun At Mass

This still makes me laugh!

Glimmer Of Hope?

The opinion poll tide is turning in Canada and more and more Canadians are turning their backs on the Conservative Party.

Can this be true? Is it sustainable? Do I dare to hope?

The Globe & Mail published this story today, asking if Canadians will "throw the bums out" if a Spring election was called. Polls show that Conservative support is in a remarkable slide, while Liberal fortunes are on the rise.

Why now? After all the bullying, American-style leadership, right-wing, evangelical, and plain evil that Harper has been bringing us for four years, what has caused people to finally say they've had enough? Proroguing Parliament. Again.

The second time Harper decided to prorogue to stem the loss of political points, he thought that if anyone cared at all, that they'd be on his side. I'll admit that as much as I care and opposed it (the first and second time) I thought the same thing as Steve - if the masses were on his side the first time, eating up lies about how our Parliamentary system works, why would it be any different the second time? I'm as surprised as he is over the public's reaction. And it appears that no amount of politicking around Haiti has reduced the prorogation ire.

I think I will allow myself a sliver of hope that Canadians will sustain their disgust, and will reject another round of Conservative leadership. I do so not only for the good of Parliament, but because I want to believe that Canadians don't hold the same views and perspectives on the world that Harper does.

Besides, I would find it endlessly amusing if Harper's decision to prorogue, a unilateral move he hoped would save his dictatorship, proves to be his undoing.

Three Months

It's been three months since my last post. I have been an absentee landlord to my Letters.

Today I try to get back to the habit with a report from a top bureaucrat named Kevin Page. He's a current hero because he's a current thorn in the side of the folks who thought that rampant spending paired with broad tax cuts would bring us prosperity. Well, we have debt. Lots of it. More than Canadians are accustomed to, since normally we have surpluses, and it's more than we can recover from any time soon.

For many months, our Prime Minister and Minster of Finance have been going on at length about how the economy is doing just fine, that the deficit is short-term and temporary, that their stimulus plans will save the day, and that any talk to contrary is an attack on our troops - their usual go-to defence for any attacks on their incompetence and failings.

In order to avoid any further discussion on their aforementioned incompetence, (we can look away from the economy, randomly point in other directions, and find plenty of other issues: torture in the Middle East, or funding cuts to museums and education for example), over the December holiday season Harper decided to prorogue parliament until after Vancouver's Olympic Games (another disaster I won't get into) to allow his MPs to have favourable photo-ops at the Games.

Which brings me back to Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer in Ottawa. Harper knew that proroguing Parliament would cause all current work in the capital to cease - which means no reports released, no committees meeting, no transparency, etc. But one report did find it's way out of the mess, and that's because Kevin Page wouldn't let it die in prorogument. He has released his budget report showing that the Conservatives, with policies pushed by Harper and Flaherty, have sunk us into an $18.9 billion structural deficit. $18.9 billion. From yearly surpluses to a structural deficit in just a few short years of Harper's reign.

And to stymie any thoughts about this being some kind of Liberal/NDP attack, let's remember that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is a public servant working in a non-partisan office that was created by the Conservatives.

This budget mess is only one of a thousand bad decisions Harper and his Conservatives have made, but it's the one that has, at last, managed to grab a lot of attention and animosity. I hope, with all that Harper has done to damage Canadians here and abroad, our reputation, our government, and even the land itself, that the voting public will finally say we've had enough. Speak with your ballot and to your elected representatives - and do it before it's too late. We're already teetering over the brink.

Use The Lies

The thrust of this Globe & Mail article is to reassure Canadians that we will, in fact, have an H1N1 vaccine before those in other countries - even though we have only just begun clinical trials and have no plan or date for rolling it out.

What is interesting, is that in the sidebar of the article there is a video titled "Swine flu vaccine available in U.S."

And yet the Globe headline, "Canadians will get H1N1 shots faster than others: official" stands, catching unawares those too lazy to read beyond the headline and first paragraph.


Update (15OCT09): More from Reuters about how others are getting shots faster; "Britain to start swine flu vaccination Oct. 21"

Blogs Are Dead

You know it. I know it. This blog has suffered because of it. Why? I'm micro-blogging with the world in the Twitterverse. And Facebook. And Flickr. If you want to, you can follow my tweets here: @LaSpage.

See this old Wired article for proof of the blog's demise.

2010 Uniblahs

The Olympic uniforms for Team Canada have been revealed! Are they modern? Do they match? Is there any continuity? Do they look like uniforms? No. Those four models could just be a group of people you see any day in town.

Of course, it makes sense that athletes are just given regular street clothes this year since all this cold-weather gear probably won't be seen much by the public. The opening ceremonies are being held indoors where t-shirts will suffice, and parkas and toques will be ridiculous.

Local Top Gear

Too bad the plate isn't on a much nicer car. Like that brand new Gallardo Spyder I saw downtown yesterday...yum!

Debate Reform

Tom Axworthy's think tank has come up with a report and recommendations for how campaign debates should be run in Canada. I'd have to say that I'm on board with most of these recommendations, but I don't know if I can agree to having Gilles blocked from the English language debate. The reason stated in the article (that Quebec Anglophones would be denied access to his debate) is an excellent reason, but mine is selfish - I just love hearing him speak and what he has to say to the other leaders. But the best thing in there would have to be about taking away the power from the insane networks that control who can debate and when. That nonsense last year with Jack and Steve trying to block Liz from the debate? Insane crap. Let's get Elections Canada involved!

LeRoi Moore - Not Forgotten

After Dave Matthews Band (DMB) co-founder LeRoi Moore passed away last summer, the band continued their tour and played a video tribute to their fallen saxophonist during encore breaks. The video was set to the beautiful song #34 and I haven't seen it since last year. On September 7th this year, the day that would have been his 48th birthday, DMB presented a new web page dedicated to celebrating LeRoi's memory. The site is fairly extensive and I found the video, so I'm embedding it here. Thanks for the memories LeRoi!


Find more videos like this on LeRoi Moore

McLaren's New 600bhp Supercar

It's called the MP4-12C and isn't scheduled to go on sale until 2011, but the teasers are out and the car is hot.



Facts:
-3.8 litre V8 twin turbo developing 600bhp
-0 to 60mph in 3.4 seconds
-lowest carbon output per hp of any car currently on the market (including hybrids)

A short vid from the BBC here shows some interesting features of this F1 inspired car.

Windmills!!

Brabe and I got entirely too excited about being near these bad boys!

Gorge!

Post-rain storm a phenomenal, intense double rainbow appeared (that this
pic does not do justice), and post-rainbow the pink sunset ruled the stage
backdrop.

Overheard In The Office #4

"I can't watch that movie."

"Why not?"

"I can't watch Tom Cruise movies because I'm distracted by his tooth. Every time I see him, all I can think is: tipped lateral incisor!"