The Gracchi

New Polls

2005-04-30T17:55:00.000-04:00

Just a quick update from my vacation here, I wanted to point out the four new polls conducted in the aftermath of Martin's so-called "Bin-Laden like" speech (gotta love those level-headed Conservatives).

First was a GPC poll which had the Liberals up two, with a large portion undecided and the Greens polling at 8%.

That was followed by a CTV-Globe poll which confirmed the two point lead and further suggested an eight point lead in Ontario.

Then we have EKOS putting the Liberals up two points nationally and six in Ontario.

Finally IPSOS-Reid comes up with slightly different totals which are still within the margin of error for the other polls. They have the Conservatives up 3, but with 13% undecided.

But Harper claims he's still going to take the country to the polls. Must be thinking that god will intervene on his side, or maybe he has another child-pornography-esque accusation up his sleeve which will sway the electorate...

Address to the Nation: The Aftermath

2005-04-23T19:56:00.000-04:00

Well, Martin's speech was far from impressive, just as I'd expected. One good thing which he has accomplished is that the Liberals can no claim that the Conservatives were trying to avoid the truth and run a campaign of fear. Fear of the Liberals, of corruption, of scandal and of all anything but them. Harper's speech afterwards was predictable, but to me it just demonstrated how desperately he wants the job. Jack's speech was really disappointing, I had such high hopes for him when he was elected leader. He always seems too excited, he needs some seasoning. Still, the talk of an NDP-Liberal coalition is interesting.

A few things worth noting...

The talk of NDP-Liberal cooperation is intersting, but it still leaves them three votes short. Sure, Carolyn Parrish would back them but where do they get two more votes? Chuck Cadman is a likely no. If it becomes an issue he will be courted hard by the Conservatives. Kilgour seems to be in the same boat. So where is the PMO looking? It seems impossible that there would be two MPs willing to defect from the Conservatives or the Bloc, it's interesting to speculate about. Who knows, maybe some Red Tories are a little leery of the right wing fanatics in charge of the party. We'll know more tomorrow after Jack and Martin meet in Toronto.

The glaring question in my mind yesterday morning wasn't what most would expect, but rather when the hell did the Toronto Star become a right wing rag? Giving Stephen Harper's response as much coverage as the PM's address. They also carried a wishy-washy editorial and ran an incredibly right wing opinion piece (not online). This from the premier left-wing newspaper in the country? Alrighty then...

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty coming out in favour of Martin's plan to wait for the final Gomery report is interesting. It really makes me wonder why the PM won't meet with him. He's no traitor to the Party, he just wants a fair shake for his province instead of getting screwed in favour of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Maybe the NDP can force Martin to back down from his ridiculous stance. Otherwise this election will not go at all well for the Liberals.

And finally the Tories lining up superstar candidates, doesn't bode well. Peter Kent is going to run in St. Pauls (my old riding before redistricting gave part of it to Eglinton-Lawrence), Jim Flaherty is going to run in Whitby and Tony Clement in Parry Sound-Muskoka (against Agriculture Minister Andy Mitchell). Former Leaf Russ Courtnall is thinking about it, Elsie Wayne is planning to come out of retirement, and even former Miss Canada Blair Lancaster is contemplating joining the fun. Looks like the vultures are circling.

In any case, very light blogging ahead. Going to visit Mrs. Gracchi's parents out West...

Martin to Address the Nation

2005-04-20T19:40:00.000-04:00

For the first time since 1995, a Canadian Prime Minister will be taking his message to the air waves in Prime Time. In a desperate attempt to stem the tide of opposition rising against the Liberal Party, Paul Martin will take his message to the people. Apparently it's not to call an election. It's not a prorogation. He's not resigning. He's banking the future of his party and this country on a five minute speech to the people of Canada.

The move comes on the heels of a new poll which gives the Conservatives a 7 point lead over the Liberals. Another poll also indicates that the lead is strongly Gomery driven, as the two parties are 34-30 with a clean questions but the lead more than doubles with a loaded Gomery-driven question.

This may be Paul Martin's only chance to stop the bleeding, his only chance to save the party and to spare the nation a disaster of a Conservative government.

Given his history with public speaking (see last year's debate)...well let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

Pope Benedict XVI

2005-04-19T13:37:00.000-04:00

This morning at 11:50 EST white smoke rose from the Sistine Chapel. In the weeks after the death of Pope John Paul II, the public had shown great interest in the election of our next pope. People around the world had voiced anticipation in a reformer, someone who could strengthen the church's gains in the third world and usher the faith in to the 21st century. We got anything but.

German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was born in 1927. He served as his predecessor's chief enforcer of church doctrine. While not technically a member of Opus Dei, he is an admitted admirer of the fundamentalist group and was their chosen candidate. Ratzinger has also taken controversial stances on political issues, including suggesting that politicians who do not oppose abortion should be denied communion (this was in reference to John Kerry) and opposing Turkish membership in the European Union.

In terms of church doctrine, Ratzinger is as far right as they get. He opposes abortion, is against women in the church, opposes birth control, and does not favour priests getting married. In this morning's Washington Post, Ratzinger was described as a brilliant, tough-minded intellectual who started out as moderately liberal and -- like so many American neoconservatives -- developed a mistrust of the left because of the student revolt of the 1960s. He once said that "the 1968 revolution" turned into "a radical attack on human freedom and dignity, a deep threat to all that is human."

Reaction to the selection has been far from positive. A poll conducted on Daily Kos shows only 1% of the site's readers approve of his selection. Meanwhile, reaction on the BBC's website has been almost as negative. Here's a brief sampling:

Choosing a conservative Pope will send the wrong message to millions of potential converts living in already overpopulated countries and those trying to cope with the Aids epidemic in Africa.
Bruce, White Rock, Canada

Why in a time of evolving consciousness and expansion of progressive thought would they choose someone who is a reactionary to be the new Pope? Well, clearly because of that fact, the conservatives of the world are trying to stem the tide of progress, equality, freedom, and diversity. Perhaps his cold efficiency will remind people that the Pope is just another politician.
Josh Borden, Santa Monica, California

Exactly what is needed - a staunch conservative to remind the world how anachronistic and outmoded the Catholic Church has become. With any luck, as those who dare to think for themselves get further alienated, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope for a world free from organised religion.
Dave, Nottingham

While most of the criticism does center around the new Pope's far right wing views, a vocal minority has expressed outrage about his youth in Germany. In fact, a few Daily Kos readers referred to him as "Natzinger" and one poster even went so far as to say "They had to elect Ratzinger today, because tomorrow is Hitler's birthday. That's a little too close to home."

The source of these comments is the fact that Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth, served in an Anti-Aircraft Unit in Munich as a teenager and was briefly a full member of the army. He fled his unit in the last days of the war and was captured by the Americans. Ratzinger, and his biographer, claim that he was never a willing member of the Nazi Party. They further argue that his time in the regime convinced him that the Church needed to stand up for truth and freedom. Opponents claim it taught him to suppress discussion - as he has during his time as chief enforcer of orthodoxy.

In essence, Cardinal Ratzinger is a reactionary who will likely be viewed with disdain by liberals around the world. As a deist, the Pope's selection has no spiritual underpinnings for me. My only experience with Catholicism came as a small child when my family traveled to Rome. Upon seeing the Papal estates, I asked my parents who owned them. Somewhat bewildered, they replied that nobody really did, but that if anyone did then it was the Pope. In the clarion voice that only children are capable of producing, I then screamed "the Pope's a poop". My family was quickly asked to leave the holy city.

Well, I may have been wrong about Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI, however, definitely appears to be a poop. In fact, the only good thing I can say about him is that at age 78 his papacy is not likely to be a long one. Thank goodness for small favours.

Bill C-307 and the Culture of Life

2005-04-18T15:45:00.000-04:00

If you thought Canada was going to be spared from the current wave of pro-life fervor spreading through the United States, get ready for a rude awakening. Only a few months ago Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) introduced legislation that most Republicans don’t even have the guts to suggest.

So what was it? Well, if Maurice Vellacott has his way then pharmacies won’t have to provide birth control anymore.

For the past year the CPC has been trying to paint themselves as a more moderate party, but the fact remains that a large portion of the party’s representatives are fringe fanatics. Bill C-307 is an incredibly dangerous piece of legislation which would be a catastrophe for Canadian women.

The bill is one simple statement followed by a series of defintions, but the meat of the bill is this: An Act to amend the Criminal Code to prevent health care practitioners from being coerced into taking part in medical procedures that offend the practitioner’s religion or belief that human life is inviolable.

Of course the bill would violate medical codes of ethics all across the country. Pharmacists are required to allow patients to make decisions about their own medical care. Sadly, the right to life movement doesn’t seem to care about that.

On the other side of the border, American women have been fighting a similar battle with ‘right to life’ fanatics all across the country. Ever increasingly birth control has come under attack, not just in the form of refusing to fund charities which promote safe sex in AIDS ravaged Africa, but also actively encouraging Pharmacists to stop giving out birth control.

In Texas, House Bill 16 is in committee and will likely pass. The law would allow pharmacists, at their sole discretion, to override phsycian’s recommendation and refuse to dispense birth control or emmergency contraception. Similar legislation has been introduced in various other states, leading to Illinois being forced to pass emergency rules which force pharmacists to help their patients.

Still, there are powerful wingnut organizatins across the country fighting to deny doctors the right to determine what is best for their patients. Pharmacists for Life International and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists are fighting tooth and nail to increase unwanted pregnancies. Now they’re bringing the fight to Canada.

The Conservative Party recently passed, in a close vote, a motion stating that they would not try to legislate abortion. Party members openly suggested that such a motion would make the CPC appear more mainstream and help them in an election. The fact remains, however, that many party insiders were far from happy. Former MP Elsie Wayne made an impassioned speech at the Convention, exclaiming: "I do not believe the majority of our people at this convention are in favour of killing babies…you know that abortion kills babies."

The CPC tries to present themselves as reasonable and in the mainstream. Yet their MPs introduce legislation that would limit access to birth control, party big wigs are fanatically pro-life and delegate debates and the recent conventions included lines like "We've killed three million babies in Canada. This issue needs to be debated."

Yet CPC supporters will loudly proclaim that party has no intention of trying to promote a pro-life agenda. Accusations to the contrary are obviously 'fear mongering tactics'. Unfortunately, Stephen Harper’s words provide little reason for optimism.

"The nature of democracy is that any previous decision can be challenged and overturned because there’s no final winners and no final losers."

Reading the Polls: BC

2005-04-18T15:44:00.000-04:00

The Province is home to 36 seats and will be a major battleground which politicos across the nation will be watching in to the wee hours of the morning. Last year the Conservatives won twenty-two seats (36%), the Liberals eight (28.6%), NDP five (26.5%) and there was one Independent. The new Environics poll gives the Conservatives 39%, the NDP 34%, the Liberals 25% and the Greens at 1%. EKOS has the Conservatives at 29%, the Liberals at 28%, the NDP at 37% and the Greens at 7%. The Grits are going to lose seats here, there is no doubt about that. The question is who picks them up, and will this be the difference maker in the next government?

Much like in other regions of the country there are ridings which are over before the first ballot is cast. The Conservatives, in particular, have a number of ridings which are extremely safe, especially in the interior of BC close to the Alberta border. The NDP also have a safe riding: Vancouver East.

These ‘Safe Conservative’ ridings are: Abbotsford, Caribou-Prince George, Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, Delta-Richmond East, Fleetwood-Port Kellis, Kamloops-Thompson, Kelowna, Kootenay-Columbia, Langley, North-Okanagan, Okanagan-Coquihalla, Prince George-Peace River and South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast .

So right off the bat we’re calling 15 of 36 ridings safe. However, several others are no brainers (narrow Liberal wins) and as such there will be minimal discussion of these ridings. Still, BC contains a number of races which promise to be tantalizingly close and may decide the outcome of this election.

No more pre-amble…here we go.

Burnaby-Douglas: This was almost included in the ‘Safe NDP’ category, they’ve won the riding every election save two in the last forty plus years and for the last twenty years straight. The race was reasonably close last time around, but Liberal support is going to bleed to the NDP this time around. Look for an easy NDP win, but the Conservatives culd make a push if the Liberals lose support in their direction. Leans NDP in a huge way, but still a ‘swing’ riding. C-NDP Swing Riding

Burnaby-Westminster: Like it’s neighbour, this riding leans NDP, but there is a bigger chance for an upset here. It’s a new riding that the NDP won in a tight three way split. The NDP defeated the Liberals by just over 300 votes and the Conservatives by 2,000. Question is where exactly does the Liberals support go? The Conservatives have a history in the riding, so it may go there way. NDP looks strong, the riding is theirs to lose but the right wing will make noise. C-NDP Swing Riding

Dewdney-Alouette: The Conservatives won this seat by 6% over the NDP last year, 38%-32%, while the Grits polled a respectible 22%. Is there a big enough swing from the Liberals to give the seat to the NDP? Seems unlikely, but a definet possiblity. This will be one of the NDP targets and a race the Conservatives will be nervous about. C-NDP Swing Riding

Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca: This riding in the lower income section of Victoria voted Liberal last time as Reform defector Keith Martin claimed 35% of the vote and beat his NDP opponent by 5%. The seat was an NDP stronghold for two decades before the Reform took over. The Conservatives poll well behind but could make a charge in a three way split. NDP appears to have a leg up in this riding, but it is likely to be close. Much may depend on who the Conservatives have running and just how the campaign is going nationally. Leans NDP but it’s going to be tight. L-C-NDP Swing Riding

Nanaimo-Alberni: The NDP is definetly poised to challenge in this traditional stronghold here, as the Conservatives won by only 7% last time around. Meanwhile, the Liberals claimed 20% of the vote and will likely bleed a great deal to the NDP which held the seat for the vast majority of the 60s, 70s and 80s. May lean Conservative, but this will be a tight race. C-NDP Swing Riding

Nanaimo-Cowichan: The NDP held this riding for the majority of the 80s before losing it to the Reform in ’93. Jean Crowder took it back for the NDP by 7,000 votes last year and this looks like a very likely NDP hold. Just playing it safe with my predictions as the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives held the seat for more than a decade. Leans NDP. C-NDP Swing Riding

Newton-North Delta: This riding saw an incredibly tight three way race last year, as the Conservatives eeked out a 500 vote victory over the Liberals and just under 1,500 over the NDP. The riding is brand new, born of parts of two old Conservative strongholds. However, from what I can see they cut out more moderate parts of those ridings. Newton-North Delta is 38% immigrant and 30% East Indian. Last time the NDP did not run an East Indian candidate while the Conservatives and Liberals did. Liberal support will drop, but where will it go? Tight race, if the national race gets ugly and Harper’s comments about immigrants come up it will likely hand the race to the NDP. C-NDP Swing Riding

New Westminster-Coquitlam: This riding has been held by the Reform/Conservatives since ’93, and by the NDP for 30 years before that. Last year saw another tight three way race as the Paul Forseth eeked out a 113 vote victory over his NDP opponent. 29% of residents are immigrants and average income is $68k. Situational factors suggest that Liberal support will swing towards the NDP, and that party is certainly in the driver’s seat here. C-NDP Swing Riding

North Vancouver: The Liberals won this traditionally right-wing upper class neighbourhood last year, while the NDP came in a distant third. A repeat seems all but impossible. Leans heavily Conservative. L-C Swing Riding
Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam: The NDP owned this riding until ’93, and the Conservatives have held it since then. Last year they won with 41% of the vote, while the NDP and Liberals each received 27% support. A shift of this magnitude seems really unlikely, but if the NDP gets going out west this riding is within striking distance. Leans strongly Conservative but still in play. C-NDP Swing Riding

Richmond: Raymond Chan won this riding in ’93 and ’97 before losing it in 2000 and reclaiming it last year. The NDP is not a big factor here, as both the Liberals and Conservatives polled over 35%. The 2000 Conservative victory was by only 1,100 votes so the party is by no means a lock here despite controlling the riding for almost all of the 70s and 80s. The Liberals are certain to lose much of their nine point lead, the question is if Chan will be able to hold. L-C Swing Riding

Saanich-Gulf Islands: This riding looks to be safe for the Conservatives, they’ve dominated it for ages and won a comfortable eight point victory over the Liberals. Still, this riding contains a large number a really left wing people, in the community around Uvic and on the Gulf Islands – the Greens get 17% support here. If the Green campaign falters and the NDP makes a serious charge in the province they could steal this seat. Still, all signs point to a Conservative hold. C-NDP Swing Riding

Surrey North: Good lord. If Cadman runs as an independent again we could see a split between him and the Conservatives handing the seat to the NDP. If he runs as a Conservative then they win in a landside. If he doesn’t run then the Conservatives win easily. Either way, this seat leans heavily to an independent right winger or the Conservatives. Ind-C-NDP Swing Riding

Vancouver Center: This riding has never been won by the NDP (although the CCF did win the riding once), but the party may be in solid position to take the seat next year. Hedy Fry defeated her NDP opponent by 4,000 votes, collecting 40% to Kennedy Stewart’s 32.3% support. The riding has voted Liberal since 1993 but this could be the year to break that streak. The Conservatives poll well behind at 19% while the Green grabbed 7%. A large portion of this riding are immigrants and the average income is pretty high at $75k. This is a really tough riding to predict, a toss-up between all three major parties. If the Liberals are going to hold on to a seat this might be it. L-C-NDP Swing Riding

Vancouver Island North: The infamous riding which cost the left wing an NDP-Liberal majority, the Conservatives took this riding by less than 500 votes in a race that wasn’t conclusive until the wee hours of the morning. The NDP dominated the precursor to this riding, but the Conservatives / Reform Party have won each race since the ’96 redistricting. The late scare tactics by the Liberals probably cost Catherine Bell this seat, and the NDP is in a good position to take the seat next time around. The Liberals are guaranteed to lose support and more of it will go to the NDP than to the Conservatives. So the question is can the NDP keep the gains they made last year? Seat leans NDP, but it won’t be easy. C-NDP Swing Riding

Vancouver Kingsway: This seat has been solid Liberal territory for over two decades, but they may be in serious danger of losing the seat next time around. David Emerson defeated his NDP opponent by a mere 1,300 votes with the Conservatives running a distant third. 2004 redistricting gave the NDP a lot more power in the riding and the Liberals will be very hard pressed to hold on to this seat. Conservatives won’t be a factor at all (they poll 21% behind the NDP) so this is a two way fight. Things look awful good for the NDP in this riding. L-NDP Swing Riding

Vancouver Quadra: The Liberals have won the last six elections in this riding, culminating in a dominant twenty-seven point victory last year. Stephen Owen collected 52.4% of the vote, almost doubling his Conservative opponent. Sure he will lose some support, but it would take a collapse on an epic scale for him to lose the riding. Will be closer than before, but the Liberals should hold the seat. L-C Swing Riding

Vancouver South: Ujjal Dosanjh won a huge election last time around thanks to a friendly split. He collected 44.5% of the vote while both the Conservative and NDP came in around 25% mark. This riding has an incredibly strong Liberal tradition (bordering on Montreal levels) and it seems completely impossible for a collapse of this scale to occur. This could get competitive if Donsanjh falters of the Liberal slide gets worse in the province, but this looks like a likely Liberal hold. C-L-NDP Swing Riding

Victoria: David Anderson won this riding in a narrow race over his NDP opponent. The Liberal candidate received 35% of the vote while the NDP got 32.5%. The CPC’s Longan Wenham was well back at 22%. The riding has historically been competitive with all three parties holding the seat at times in the last twenty years but the Liberals have controlled it for more than a decade. Almost 20% of the riding is over 65, which may lead to a larger portion of lost Liberal support swinging to the CPC. If the NDP can hold on to their vote from last year they should win, but it could go to any of the three big parties. L-C-NDP Swing Riding

BC Totals: Liberals: High 7, Low 0, Likely 3, Conservatives High 35, Low 15, Likely 23, NDP High 19, Low 1, Likely 10

Conservative Quote of the Day

2005-04-18T00:37:00.000-04:00

Today we're going to have several quotes since some right wingers complained yesterday that Harper's comment was just a slip of the tongue. This series of comments by Calgary West MP Rob Anders drew up quite a firestorm from the media and the public. The fuss started over a motion to make Nelson Mandela an honourary citizen of Canada. Anders, of course, was furious.

"[Honouring Nelson Mendela is a] total political-correctness poster-boy thing... He was a Communist. He was a terrorist... The Liberals always deprive us unanimous consent on all sorts of provisions. They wouldn't allow us to honour the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen with regard to their wedding anniversary..."
- Calgary West MP Rob Anders, June 2001.

The comments obviously generated a great deal of animosity. So Anders was asked to clarify and generally given plenty of opportunities to back away from his disgraceful statements. He chose a different path.

"I don't think that, you know, anybody would argue that if Nelson Mandela was saying, you know, 30 years ago, that you should go around with matches and necklaces and strangle people or burn them out of their homes, that is not terrorism."
- Anders, 2001

So, then we can assume that his party was incredibly embarassed of him, right? Wrong.

"Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."
- Stephen Harper

Rob Anders was gleefully accepted by the new unified Conservative Party. Barely a whisper was raised about his disgusting remarks. Today, the Conservatives vehemently deny suggestions that they are racists and suggest those who accuse them of racism are 'fear mongering'.

The newspaper articles, however, are eternal.

"Rob Anders: Incredibly, Anders went one wackier after he trashed honorary Canadian citizen Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and a communist last spring. When the former South African president phoned for a peacekeeping chat in November, Anders refused to take the call because he wasn't granted enough time to outline his many concerns. In a Commons loaded with lightweights, Calgary West's MP almost defies gravity."
- Never a dull moment with magnificent seven. The Calgary Herald. Jan 13, 2002.

"Rob Anders is a callow 29-year-old Canadian Alliance MP for Calgary West, an Opposition cipher of high dudgeon and low intellect, a sadly misguided voice who knows little of history and shamefully less of global politics....
If Anders had limited himself to attacking the Liberals for pushing the citizenship honour through Parliament without a proper debate in the House, he would have been on sturdier procedural ground. Instead, the redneck disgraced himself and his party by describing Mandela, 82, as "a Communist and a terrorist." Despite getting slapped about the head by colleagues and opponents, Anders was defiantly unapologetic, albeit pathetically ill-informed on Mandela's background....
I feel honoured that Nelson Mandela would accept Canadian citizenship.
I feel ashamed that Rob Anders is a Canadian citizen."
- Citizen Mandela triumphs over a callow MP The Toronto Star, June 13, 2001.

Wonder how Conservatives will explain this one...

Reading the Polls: The Prairies

2005-04-17T18:00:00.000-04:00

Next in the series, the Prairies.

This is the Conservative hotbed, where they are hoping to pick up enough seats to make up for a dismal showing in the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec and Ontario. Last year they picked up 46 of 56 seats and garnered 53% of the vote. The Liberals claimed 6 seats with 25.4% and the NDP picked up 4 seats and 15.3%. The Environics poll unlike previous regions, however, Manitoba and Saskatchewan included some very tight races. The NDP could have easily picked up another half dozen seats in the region. The three Prairie Provinces have quite distinct heritages. Alberta is a right wing stronghold and has been for the better part of the last century. Manitoba and Saskatchewan, however, have a strong left wing tradition. So here we go, moving from West to East.

Alberta
The birth place of the Alliance and the home of Stephen Harper is the Conservative stronghold. Last year they won 26 of 28 seats, losing only two close races in the Edmonton area. The Conservatives received 61.6% of the vote; the Liberals grabbed 22% and the NDP 9.5%. EKOS has the province 70% Conservative, 15% NDP and 10% Liberal. The Grits squeaked out two victories in the province last year, as David Kilgour took Edmonton-Beaumont by under 200 votes and Deputy PM Anne McLelland took Edmonton Center by under a thousand. Given the collapse in liberal support in response to adscam it seems to be a perfectly reasonable assumption to declare all 28 of Alberta’s seats ‘Safe Conservative’. Just to be on the safe side I’ll say that the Conservatives have a low of 27 while the NDP and Liberals each of a high of 1, but if Harper’s gang lost a single seat in the province I would be shocked.

Saskatchewan
The province is home to fourteen seats, all but one of which the Conservatives took last year. However, they took only 41.8% of the vote and many races were incredibly close. The Liberals took over 27% and the NDP claimed 23.4%. The EKOS poll has the NDP in the lead in Saskatchewan and Manitoba with 37% of the vote with the Conservatives hot on their tails at 35%. Taking a hit from adscam, the Grits have dropped to 23%. Of course, the Environics poll paints a much more bleak picture for the Liberals, but the NDP and Conservative numbers are about the same. Unfortunately, it’s really difficult to tell given the inclusion of Alberta in the ‘Prairies’ category in the Environics poll. It’s also key to note that Saskatchewan contains two different kinds of ridings: rural ridings where the Conservatives pull in Alberta-esque numbers and urban ridings where the NDP and Conservatives are engaged in incredibly tight races.

As such, we can call almost half the province’s ridings ‘Safe Conservative’. These are: Battlefords-Lloydminster, Blackstrap, Cypress Hills Grasslands, Prince Alberta, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin and Yorkton-Melville.

Still, there’s a lot of really tight races we need to take a look at…

Churchill River: This huge Northern Saskatchewan is almost 50% native, the third highest rate in the country. Native Rick Laliberte won with the NDP in ’97, then ran as a Liberal in 2000 and won again. Last year, he ran as an independent and claimed 10% of the vote, as Conservative Jeremy Harrison won with 37.4% of the vote while the Liberals got 30% and the NDP 20.1%. Liberal support is certain to collapse, but the Conservatives are going to take a lot of heat for the litany of racist native remarks made by members and former members. If Laliberte runs for the NDP or doesn’t run at all then the NDP could pick up the seat. A ‘swing riding’ that leans Conservative. C-NDP Swing Riding

Palliser: Last year Conservative Dave Batters took this seat away from the NDP which had held power for the last eight years. However, he only won the riding by 124 votes and the Liberals placed a strong second collecting almost 25% of the vote. Assuming they collapse (as the polls indicate they will) the NDP should be in a very strong position. The Conservatives could still be competitive, but this seat leans NDP in a big way. C-NDP Swing Riding

Regina-Lumsden-Lake Center: At first glance this looks like another seat which the NDP could pick up given the tight three way split. However, Larry Spencer ran as an independent and picked up 5% of the vote last year. The former Reform MP is a right wing lunatic who made disgusting homophobic comments (worse than the Conservative norm) and was kicked out of the party. His votes all go to the Conservatives, so we’d need a big collapse for the NDP to take the seat. This will be a swing riding, but it leans Conservative. C-NDP Swing Riding

Regina Qu’Appelle: This former NDP stronghold (20+ years in power) was taken by the Conservatives last year because of an ugly three party split. Andrew Sheer defeated Lorne Nystrom by less than a thousand votes while the Liberals posted a strong third with 28% of the vote. Assuming the Liberals drop to about 15-20%, this race is the NDP’s to lose. Still competitive, especially as the Conservatives appear to be in the driver’s seat nationally. Still, the NDP will be targeting this seat and it leans to them. C-NDP Swing Riding

Saskatoon-Humboldt: This again looks like a swing riding as the three parties were all within 435 votes of each other, but Independent Candidate Jim Pankiw picked up 20% of the vote. Pankiw was actually the incumbent and was elected with the Reform party in ’97 and 2000. He was kicked out of the party because of a dispute over Stockwell Day’s leadership and has not been allowed in the Conservative Party. Assuming he doesn’t run almost all of that support should go to the Conservatives and they should win a comfortable victory.

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar: The Conservatives won a reasonably comfortable victory last year, but the riding has a history of going NDP and with the party polling so strongly in the province it’s impossible to rule them out. The Liberals only got 15% of the vote, so the NDP will need to steal some support directly from the Conservatives. Tough sell, might be possible but the riding definitely leans Conservative. C-NDP Swing Riding

Souris Moose-Mountain: Another riding that looks like it could be close; it should actually be a landslide. Former Conservative Premier Grant Devine ran as an independent and finished a very strong second. Assuming he doesn’t run again almost all that vote should swing to the Conservatives. This rural riding shouldn’t be close.

Wascana: Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will be fighting for his political life this time around. He’s held the seat since ’93 and won his last race by almost 12,000 votes. However, in 2000 the margin was only 1,752. The Conservatives are polling second and are unlikely to pick up much of Goodale’s lost support as the riding voted NDP twice before electing Goodale. Goodale would need to lose about half his support for him to be in serious danger. That doesn’t seem likely, but anything is possible. Leans Liberals. L-C-NDP Swing Riding

Saskatchewan Totals: Conservatives: High 13, Low 8, Likely 11, Liberals: High 1, Low 0, Likely 1, NDP: High 5, Low 0, Likely 2

Note, while I think 11/2/1 is the most likely right now this province is really volatile. We haven’t even seen the election called for christ’s sake, I personally think the NDP will end up with three seats in the end. Still, I’m basing this on the polls right now.

Manitoba
This is the weakest of the Prairie Provinces for the Conservatives, as they poll under 40%. Still, they collected half of Manitoba’s fourteen seats. The NDP got four seats with 23.5% and the Liberals three seats with 33.2% of the vote. The Liberals probably lost a great deal of support, and the NDP should be polling stronger while the Conservatives appear to be holding steady according to EKOS. As previously stated, Environics’ methodology makes it hard to figure out what they are getting in Manitoba, but the Conservative and NDP numbers from EKOS are probably pretty similar.

Once again, we get a situation where rural ridings vote Conservative in Alberta-esque numbers and these seats won’t even be close. We also have a number of two way Conservative-Liberal races which the Conservatives narrowly won over the Liberals which should no longer be close. As such, we can say that: Brandon Souris, Charleswood-St. James, Dauphin-Swan River, Portage-Lisgar and Provencher, Selkirk-Interlake.

However, here we can also say a few ridings are perfectly safe for the NDP, either because of massive victories last year or because of 10% victories over the Liberals with the Conservatives polling a distant third: Churchill, Elmwood-Transcona, Winnipeg-Center and Winnipeg-North.

That leaves only four ridings which ought to be competitive, and even most of those won’t be tight, I just want to play it safe. So here goes…

Kildolan-St. Paul: Last year the Conservatives took this riding for the first time ever, beating the Liberals by 278 votes and the NDP by more than 5,000. So why’s this riding in the ‘swing riding’ category? Only 8% of people in this riding list ‘Canadian’ as their ethnicity, Lorne Mahoney was a weak candidate and 39% of the riding comes from strongly NDP Winnipeg North. On top of that, the NDP held the riding from 1962-1988. The NDP came in at 22.5%, but the NDP will have momentum in the province and will have their eyes on this riding. A big Liberal collapse could hand this riding to the NDP, but it still leans Conservative. C-NDP Swing Riding

Saint Boniface: Raymond Simard won this Winnipeg riding huge last year, collecting 46% of the vote and defeating his Conservative opponent by over 15%. The NDP was a distant third with 18% and the party is not strong in this riding. The Liberals have controlled Saint Boniface since 1988 and have only lost the riding three times since 1925. The riding has a strong francophone presence and lots of immigrants, a segment of the population the Conservatives will have great difficulty picking up. The Liberals will lose support, but just how much? We could see a tight three way race here, but I think it still leans Liberal. L-C-NDP Swing Riding

Winnipeg South: The Liberals have only lost this seat twice since 1963 and Reg Alcock won last year by 6,500 votes with over 51% support. The Conservatives lagged far behind with 34% and the NDP was not a factor with only 11%. Five percent of the population in the riding is francophone and there are a large number of immigrants. If the Liberals bleed support then Alcock is in trouble, but he’s a big wig in the party and won’t go down without a fight. L-C Swing Riding

Winnipeg South-Center: This riding is essentially a new riding (as of ’86) using an old riding’s name. The Liberals have held it since it’s rebirth in ’86 and this was Lloyd Axeworthy’s seat. Anita Neville won the seat by 7,500 votes collecting 47% support and easily defeating evenly split NDP (21%) and Conservative (27%). Neville is Chair of the National Liberal Women’s Caucus and the party is going to give her a lot of backing. She’d need to lose around a third of her support to lose the seat, that seems unlikely but this is a swing seat none the less. NDP might play the role of the spoiler, simply reducing the number of votes the Conservatives will need to win, but it’s tough to imagine a scenario where they vault past both the Grits and the Conservatives. L-C-NDP Swing Riding

Manitoba Totals
Liberals: High 3, Low 0, Likely 1; Conservatives: High 10, Low 6, Likely 8, NDP: High 8, Low 4, Likely 5

Prairies Total

Liberals: High 5, Low 0, Likely 2, Conservatives: High 51, Low 41, Likely 47, NDP: High 14, Low 4, Likely 7

There ya have it folks…BC and the territories are up next.

Conservative Quote of the Day

2005-04-17T11:58:00.000-04:00

Here's a new daily post I'm introducing, bringing you the opinions and beliefs of the vaunted Conservative Party. Known worldwide for their compassion, intelligence and respect for our nation, the Conservatives appear poised to assume power in Canada.

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status..."

- Stephen Harper, 2000. It is Time to Seek a New Relationship with Canada.

Idiot of the Week

2005-04-17T01:34:00.000-04:00

Don from All Things Canadian.

This political genius, who has been assaulting Warren for the better part of the year, was kind enough to clue me in to Quebec's political landscape. Apparently, his mathematical formula proves that Westmount is going Conservative this time around. Now, Lucienne Robilliard won the riding by over 40% last year and the Conservatives were a distant fourth, but apparently I just don't understand politics in Quebec. See, despite the fact that the riding has an average income of over $110,000 per year and is one of the wealthiest in Canada, more than 20% of the population is going to vote NDP and another 8% will vote Green. On top of that, roughly 20% is going to vote Bloc even though Westmount has the third fewest number of francophones in the entire province. This, naturally, allows the Conservatives to squeak through with a narrow victory while receiving just over 11,000 votes. All this occurs despite the fact that the Liberals have only lost the riding once in the last eighty years and almost always poll over 50%.

Oh, and FYI, we're also going to lose Mount Royal despite the fact that Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler won the riding by almost 70% last year. Just want to keep everyone up to date on the latest gospel according to Don.

Of course, his own party's pollsters and Liberal organizers disagree with him -- but what does that matter to a political genius of Don's caliber?

Looks like the 'pros' agree...

2005-04-16T21:32:00.000-04:00

"We'll be wiped out outside Montreal and Hull" -- Liberal Organizer quoted in Star article

You don't say? Who would have thunk it. Certainly not insane right wing bloggers who are predicting one Liberal seat in Quebec! Then again, this is the same guy who's gone on an anti-Warren crusade for the better part of the year and is using some sort of mathematical formula to make his predictions. Shows you how much the 'blogging tories' know. Thanks guys, keep up the good work.

Reading the Polls: Quebec

2005-04-16T20:17:00.000-04:00

Last year the Bloc claimed 48.8% of the vote, the Liberals 33.9%, the Conservatives 8.8% and the NDP 4.6%. New polling paints a new picture though, Environics has the Bloc at 51.4%, the Conservatives at 18.9%, the Liberals at 13.5% and the NDP at 12.2%. EKOS has the Bloc at 50%, the Conservatives at 18%, the Liberals at 15% and the NDP at 10%.

I’m breaking the 75 Quebec ridings in to three categories: Bloc Victories from Last Year, Small Liberal Wins and Big Liberal Wins. From these categories, I’m calling 52 of the 54 Bloc ridings safe, withholding only Louis-St. Laurent which was a reasonably tight three way race last year and Richmond-Arthabaska which voted PC in ’97 and 2000. Close Liberal victories are races where the Grits won by fewer than 6% over the Bloc. These are almost entirely in mixed language ridings which lack a strong history of voting Liberal. Given the drop in support for the Liberals, all but one of these ridings appears guaranteed to go Bloc.

That leaves 13 ridings which the Liberals won big, plus three others which we should take a closer look at. One, Papineau, is Pierre Pettigrew’s seat which he won by only 2.5%. The other two are areas where the Conservatives could make a move.

That still leaves the question, however, of where will the Liberals lose their support? To suggest they will lose support equally across the province is ludicrous, it will be heavier in some regions that in others. So where will it be strong? The obvious answer is that it will be strong where Liberal support is the least solid – in Bloc ridings. Generally, the Grits poll around 25% in ridings they lose, while the Conservatives get around 10%. I would expect those numbers to be reversed pretty much across the board. On top of that, the Liberals will also lose a lot of support in in ridings where there is a tight fight with the Bloc.

In both cases, the reason is simple – the Liberal vote is not a pro-Grit vote, but rather an anti-Bloc vote. It’s vital to remember that the BQ is a far left party and while Quebec is largely more left wing than the rest of the country there are still some who oppose their social and financial agenda. Further, there are lots of people who oppose sovereignty and vote against the Bloc based solely on that. Almost all of those voters are likely to abandon the Grits. I suspect a large portion of the Liberal loses fall in to this category. In fact, if the Liberal lost 2/3rds of their support in ridings they lost, that would account for a 40% drop in their polling numbers – almost all of what they have lost according to the latest polls.

However, voters who have a long history of supporting the Liberals and are legitimately voting for the Liberals rather than against the BQ are far less likely to abandon the Grits. In reference to the above categories: Bloc wins are all strenghtened as the Liberals lose a great deal of support, Close Liberal victories disappear but ridings which were huge Liberal victories are likely to stay in the Liberal column. In short, predictions that the Liberals would drop to one seat in the province are riduclous.

Here’s the rundown of the sixteen ridings to watch:

Bourassa: This North Montreal riding has voted Liberal every election since 1968 except for ’88 and ’93 (lost by 53 votes). Last year, Denis Coderre got 50% of the vote and won by just over 12%. However, in 2004 parts of two Bloc ridings were added to Bourassa which has made it a much more competitive riding. According the 2001 census over 30% of the population lists neither English nor French as their first language. It will be a tough race, but the Liberals should be able to hold on to this seat.

Hull-Aymler: This riding on the border with Ontario has voted Liberal ever time since 1917. Over 75% of the riding opposes sovereignty and Marcel Proulx collected 42% of the vote last year and defeated his Bloc opponent by 9%. This is a riding where the Liberals won’t be losing their support to the Bloc, but rather to the Conservatives. Will Proulx lose that much support? Tight race, but the Liberals should hold the seat.

Lac-St. Louis: This Southwest Montreal area riding has gone Liberal every election except ’84 and ‘88 since 1966. The Bloc is not a factor in this riding, and Liberal Frank Scarpaleggia got 64% of the vote and defeated his Conservative opponent by 52%. Is this a riding where the Conservatives can make a big move? Will the Liberals drop the 30% they would need to for the Conservatives to win? Seems unlikely, but it’s a race worth watching. If the Conservatives make this competitive it will be a good sign for the party.

Lasalle-Emard: Paul Martin’s riding has voted Liberal every election since ’68 save one. Martin won by 26% over his Bloc opponent last year, collecting almost 57% of the vote. Conservatives pulled in under 5% in the last election and there is no chance they will win this year. A bad split could hand the seat to the Bloc that but that seems really unlikely.

Laval-les-Ilse: This is going to be a tough riding for the Liberals to hold, as Raymonde Falco won by only 10% over his Bloc opponent. Worse, the riding has voted Conservative in the past so there could be a strong swing away from the Liberals. Conservatives won’t be able to take the seat unless the Liberals lose almost all their support and it goes almost entirely to the Conservatives (ie. impossible), but a split will likely hand the seat to the Bloc.

Mount Royal: Lac-St. Louis, but with a bigger split (76%-9%), a superstar candidate (Attorney-General Irwin Cotler) and a stronger history (Liberal since 1940). Much like Lac-St. Louis, the Conservatives will target this seat, but I’d be shocked if they lose it. The Liberals will lose support here, but it won’t all go to the Conservatives, and there simply won’t be a big enough drop in support for Cotler to lose the seat.

Notre Dame-De-Grace-Lachine: The Liberals have held this Montreal area riding since 1962 and Marlene Jennings defeated her Bloc opponent by over 30% last year. The Conservative candidate pulled in only 10% of the vote, so it would take a brutal drop for the Liberals to lose this seat.

Outremont: Jean Lapierre, the Minister of Transportation, is in serious trouble. Despite getting 41% of the vote and defeating his Bloc opponent by almost 8%, this will be an incredibly tough seat to hold. The NDP claims 14% of the vote here, so we may see an interesting split destroying Lapierre and giving the seat to the Bloc. Liberals have lost the seat only once in the last seventy years. Tight race and one which should be really fun to watch.

Pierrefonds-Dollar: The Liberals have lost this seat twice in the last 50 years and Bernard Patry collected 64% of the vote and won by almost 50 points over the Bloc. If the Liberals lost 40% of their support and it all went to the Conservatives it wouldn’t matter in the least. Even if it all went to the Bloc they would still probably win. Solid Liberal hold.

Pontiac: This riding near the Ontario border could be the most interesting race in Quebec. Liberal David Smith won the race with 38% of the vote, the Bloc pulled in 29% support, the Conservatives 22%, NDP 6% and Greens 5%. The riding voted Conservative twice in the 80s but has been solid Liberal territory besides that. French is the mother tongue of the vast majority, so the Liberals will likely take a pounding. This could be the Conservatives’ break through riding.

Saint-Laurent-Cartierville: Superstar candidate (Stephan Dion) who won by almost 50% (66.8%-17.3%) in a riding full of immigrants (46%) while only 33% speak French in this Montreal riding. The Conservatives finished fourth in this riding behind the NDP. They’ve held the riding was created in 1988. Easy hold for the Liberals.

Saint-Leonard-Saint-Michel: The Liberals have held this Montreal area riding since 1979 and Massimo Pacetti took 64% of the vote and won by 42% over his Bloc opponent. The Conservatives came in fourth in this riding, so baring an absolutely brutal split the Liberals should hold the riding. However, this was Alfonso Gagliano’s riding so it is possible that the Liberal backlash will be stronger here than elsewhere. Seems unlikely, should be an easy Liberal hold.

Westmont-Ville-Marie: The Liberals have dominated this riding for almost a century, and Lucienne Robilliard won last year with 56% of the vote. The next four parties were relatively evenly split, with the Bloc picking up 14%, NDP at 12%, Conservatives at 10% and Greens at 6%. Unless the entire opposition manages to gather around one party then the Liberals will hold on to the seat.
Louis-St. Laurent: This riding has voted for an incredible number of different parties, electing members of four different parties. Bernard Clearly of the Bloc won last year with 38% of the vote, defeating his Conservative opponent by 7% while the Liberals lagged behind with 22%. Will the Liberals lose enough support for the Conservatives to take the seat? This will be one for the Conservatives to watch, a big chance to break through in Quebec.

Papineau: Minister of Foreign Affair Pierre Pettigrew is in for the fight of his life. In fact, he’s almost certain to lose, but I’m putting it here just because he’s a senior member of cabinet in a visible post. He only won last year by 1% of the vote over his Bloc opponent. Still, the area has a huge immigrant population with 46% reporting neither English nor French as their first language. Should be a Bloc pick up.

Richmond Arthabaska: Andre Bellevance took this riding easily for the Bloc last year, collecting 56% of the vote and defeating his Liberal opponent by 28%. The Conservatives got only 10% of the vote, but the PCs won the seat in ’97 and 2000. However, Andre Banchard was against the merger and quit politics after Stephen Harper took over the party. The Conservatives will be looking for a strong showing here, but the Bloc are almost certain to win this seat.

So here's the breakdown:

Liberal High: 13 Low:4 Likely:9
Cons High: 3 Low:0 Likely:1
Bloc High:69 Low:59 Likely:59

Skipping over Ontario, next up Prairies...

New Ipsos-Reid Poll

2005-04-15T17:39:00.000-04:00

Ouch

Reading the Polls: Atlantic Canda

2005-04-15T16:15:00.000-04:00

Since there is no longer any doubt that we will be seeing an early summer election, it’s time to start reading the tea leaves. In response to Don’s recent posts forecasting a seat count based on the latest polls, I’m posting my own slightly more accurate and in depth look at what these polls mean in terms of seats. Unlike the American system, we don’t have swing states, rather we have swing ridings. I’m going to make six posts – one for each region, plus an extra for Ontario – where I examine each riding, pointing out which are safe and which are ‘swing’ ridings.

So here is the first in a six part series, beginning in the east, Reading the Polls: Atlantic Canada

In 2004, Atlantic Canada was split 44% Liberal, 30% Conservative and 23% NDP. EKOS has the region Conservatives 43%, Liberals 39% and NDP 17%. CBC-Environics has the region Liberals 38%, Conservatives 32.4%, NDP 29.6% (note, this introduces my method of eliminating the abstains and assuming the undecided break along the same lines as the decided).

Newfoundland
In 2004, the Liberals claimed 5 seats (with 48% of the vote) and the Conservatives won 2 (with 32.3%) while the NDP was shut out (with 17.5% of the vote).
Avalon – Safe Liberal, they’ve held the seat since ’88 and also from ’72-’84. John Efford won with almost 60% of the vote. Safe Liberal
Bonavista-Exploits – This North-East Newfoundland region is our first ‘swing riding’ and will be an early indicator of which way the election is going to swing. The NDP is not a factor here (8% in ’04), but in recent years this has been a reasonably tight race. If the Conservatives steal the seat it could be a long night for Martin’s Grits. The Liberals held the seat from ’74-’02, before Rex Barnes won the seat in a bi-election by only 721 votes. Liberal Scott Sims won the seat last year 48.2% - 41.6%.L-C Swing Riding
Humber-St Barbe-Baie Verte – Another safe Liberal riding, the Liberals have held the riding since 1980. Gary Byrne won with 62% of the vote last year.Safe Liberal
Labrador – Another safe Liberal riding, they’ve held the seat since 1972 and Lawrence O’Briend won by almost 40% last year.Safe Liberal
Random-Burin-St. George – An interesting swing riding here, it will indicate how much of the left the Liberals have lost. The Conservatives should not be a factor in this seat as redistribution weakened their power in the area (they only got 18% of the vote after winning the seat in ’97). Liberals held the seat from ’49-’84 but this could be a tight fight between the Grits and the NDP and is another ‘swing riding’. Liberal Bill Matthews won last year with 46.7% while his NDP opponent claimed 33.2% of the vote. Leans heavily Liberal, but an upset is possibleL-NDP Swing Riding
St. John’s North – In previous years this would have been a ‘swing riding’, but this year it’s safe Conservative. Norman Doyle retained the seat last year by almost 5% of the vote and is all but certain to win a third term this year. Safe Conservative
St. John’s South – Much more so than it’s northern counterpart, this riding is rock solid Conservative. They held the riding from ’68-’88 and from ’97 until today. Loyola Hearn should win his fourth election quite handily. Safe Conservative
Newfoundland Total: Liberals 3, Conservatives 2, NDP 0, Swing 2 (Lib-Cons and Lib-NDP) My Bet: Liberals take both Bona-Vista and Random.

PEI
The Liberals won all four seats in the province last year, winning 52.5% of the vote while the Conservatives claimed only 30.7%. This ought to be a clean Liberal sweep. They won all four ridings (Cardigan, Egmont, Charlottetown and Malpeque) by more than 19% last year and the Grits have held all four since 1988. If they lose any of the four it will be a catastrophe for the Liberals and a harbinger of really bad things to come.
PEI Total: Liberals 4, Conservatives 0, NDP 0, Swing 0

Nova Scotia
Last year the Liberals won 6 seats (39.7%), the Conservatives 3 (28%) and the NDP 2 (28.4%). This is where the real battle for the Atlantic provinces will take place.
Cape Breton-Canso – This new riding ought to be safe for the Liberals. While the NDP won the seat when it was created in ’97, the Liberals won in 2000 and Roger Cuzner won by defeated NDP candidate Shirley Hartley by almost 30% last year. Safe Liberal
Central Nova – Conservative Deputy Leader Peter McKay’s seat is perfectly safe. He won by over 15% last year while the NDP and Liberals split the vote. Safe Conservative
Dartmouth-Cole Harbour – This Halifax area seat is a key ‘swing riding’, one which the Liberals must hold if they are going to form the next government. The NDP won the seat in ’97 and 2000 while the Liberals were victorious in ’88 and ’93. Last year NDP Incumbent Wendy Lill had to retire for medical reasons and the Liberals won the seat by 10% of the vote. The Conservatives shouldn’t be a fator, but if they make noise in this riding it could indicate they will form the government. L-NDP Swing Riding
Halifx – Former NDP Leader Alexa McDonough should be perfectly safe, as this looks like a prime riding in which the Liberals will take a nose dive. The Conservatives are not a factor here, winning less than 15% of the vote last year. Safe NDP
Halifax West – After redistricting the Conservatives don’t have a chance in this riding. Liberal Geoff Regan won the riding by almost 20% last year, but the NDP could be a factor. The Liberals will hold the seat, but just how close it is will indicate how tight a nationwide race we’re going to have. Safe Liberal
Kings-Hants – This is an interesting race, one which the Liberals should hold but the Conservatives will desperately want to win. Scott Brison was a member of the PCs but joined the Liberals in 2003 and won re-election by 16% (46%-30%). Unfortunately, right wing extremism won’t play well in this riding and the Liberals should cruise to victory if Brison can paint his opponent as a fanatic. Safe Liberal
North Nova – This rural riding will be a blowout as Bill Casey will win another term with ease. Last year he collected over 50% of the vote and defeated his Liberal opponent by more than 24%. Conservatives won in ’97 and 2000. Safe Conservative
Sackville-Eastern Shore – This southern riding is safe for the NDP, as Peter Stoffer collected 46% of the vote and defeated his Liberal opponent by nearly 18%. The Conservatives are not a factor here and this seat is a sure bet. The NDP won the seat in ’97 and 2000Safe NDP
South Shore-St. Margaret’s – Gerald Kennedy won the seat by just 6% over his Liberal opponent last year, but the Conservatives won the seat in every election from ’68-2004 except for 1993. The Liberals don’t have a chance here, but the NDP could make a move if Liberal support completely collapses. The riding borders on Halifax and the party claimed 26% of the vote last year. Still, this should be a lock. Safe Conservative
Sydney-Victoria – Redistribution has greatly benefited the Liberals in this riding, one in which they were already the dominant power. The Grits won every election from ’79-2004 except for 1997 when the NDP won. Mark Eyking claimed 52% of the vote last year and defeated his NDP opponent by almost 25%. Safe Liberal
West Nova – This riding has been a constant battle between the Conservatives and the Liberals for more than two decades, but recent redistricting strongly favours the Liberals. 20% of the Kings-Hants riding was added to West Nova and Roger Thibault won the riding with 42.6% of the vote over his Conservative opponent (33%). Still, a real collapse in Liberal support could swing this riding to to the Conservatives. The key for the Conservatives will be trying to split Liberal and NDP (21%) support. A toss-up, but it leans Liberal. L-C Swing Riding
Nova Scotia Total: Liberal 3, Conservatives 3, NDP 3, Swing 2 (L-C and L-NDP). My Bet: West Nova goes Liberal, Dartmouth-Cole Harbor goes NDP

New Brunswick
New Brunswick has ten seats, of which the Liberals won 7 in 2004 with 44.6% of the vote, while the Conservatives claimed 2 (31.2%) and the NDP 1 (20.54%)
Acadie-Bathurst – The NDP’s lone victory in the province in ’04 almost certain to stay in the party fold this year. Two-term incumbent Yvon Godin claimed 54% of the vote and defeated his Liberal opponent by 21% last year. It won’t be any closer this time around. Safe NDP
Beasejour – A riding which has been renamed several times during it’s existance, but has remained loyal to the Liberals despite its name. Dominic Leblanc won the seat with 53.4% of the vote last year, 25 points ahead of his Conservative challenger. If this riding is even close the Liberals are in deep trouble. Safe Liberal
Fredricton – This will be an interesting test of just how far the Liberals have fallen. In ’93 the Liberals broke the Conservative hold (’57-’93) on the seat and have claimed it ever since. The races have been quite close over the last four elections, and this one promises to be again. Liberal Andy Scott won by 4,700 votes last year and will face a stiff challenge this year. A real toss-up, look to this seat as an indication of which party will form the government. L-C Swing Riding
Fundy – The Conservatives have lost only one election in this riding since 1917, and this year will be no exception. Last year Rob Moore won the seat with 44.8% of the vote, defeating his Liberal opponent by a safe margin. Safe Conservative
Madwaska-Restigouche – Born from the old riding of Madwaska-Victoria (which the Liberals dominated for thirty years), this riding was created in 1996’s redistribution. The PCs won in ’97 and the Liberals claimed the seat in 2000 and ’04. Jean-Claude D’Amours won the seat with 44.7% of the vote by a 5,500 vote margin over nearly equally split Conservative and NDP opposition. If the Liberals lose this seat it will be a long night for Paul Martin. Safe Liberal
Miramichi – A Liberal stronghold, the Grits have only lost one election in the riding since the riding’s inception. Charles Hubbard received 48% of the vote last year and will cruise to victory again this year. Safe Liberal
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe – The Grits have only lost this seat once since 1979 and Claudette Bradshaw won 59% of the vote last year. Safe Liberal
St. Croix-Belisle – The recently renamed riding has been historically tight, but the Conservatives dominated last year winning 53.1% of the vote and defeating the Liberals by 7,000 votes. With the dropping Liberal support it won’t be any closer this time around. Safe Conservative
Saint John – Elsie Wayne owned this riding for more than a decade, but with her retirement in ’03 the Liberal Paul Zed claimed the seat last year with 43.3% of the vote and 3,500 more votes than his Conservative opponent. The Liberals have only claimed the seat three times in the last forty years and it will be difficult for them to hold on to the seat. Leans Conservative, but still a swing riding. L-C Swing Riding
Tobique-Mactaquac – This is perhaps the toughest riding in the country to predict, history is of zero use. The riding was created in 1996 from pieces of various ridings with a different characters. Andy Savoy claimed the seat in 2000 by just 147 votes, and increased his margin to 3,000 claiming 48.23% of the vote last year. The NDP and Greens account for just 12% of the vote, so this is a two party race. Could go either way, but leans Conservative. L-C Swing Riding
New Brunswick Totals: Liberals 4, Conservatives 2, NDP 1, Swing 3 (All L-C). My Bet: Savoy holds on to Tobique, the Conservatives pick up Saint John and (flip a coin) Fredricton goes Liberal.

Overall Safe Bet Totals: Liberals 14, Conservatives 7, NDP 4, Toss-Up 7

My Bet: Liberals 19, Conservatives 8, NDP 5

Next Up, Quebec...

Conservatives Accepting Nominations

2005-04-15T13:46:00.000-04:00

Bound by Gravity is reporting that the Conservative Party is accepting nominations for candidates to run in a forthcoming federal election.

Way to keep it under wraps Stephen, and keep up that charade that you're only weighing your options. What's your next lie?

Trustworthy? Fliiiiiip-Flooooooop....

2005-04-14T18:50:00.000-04:00

"Stephen Harper not only opposes Kyoto, but he refutes the science. He’s back in the dinosaur era. Harper is just totally out of it."

- David Suzuki on Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper

Well may not, there's an election coming don't ya know? Time to lie your way in to power. Way to go Stephen.

Kilgour Quits

2005-04-14T16:05:00.000-04:00

Edmonton MP David Kilgour has quit the Liberal party, claiming that he can no longer live with himself. I say good ridance, all of these so called Liberals who are against gay marriage can go join the Conservatives and announce their homophobic agenda to the world. We will win preaching sanity and compassion, not elitism and hatred.

So long Mr. Kilgour and please take the rest of your ilk with you.

Public Buys In to Media Sensationalization

2005-04-11T11:08:00.000-04:00

A new EKOS poll produced for the Toronto Star has shown once and for all how powerful the media is, and their incredible power to sway the electorate. All it took was a week of sensationalization over a some unsubstantiated accusations and blammo! New Prime Minister. Awesome. Thanks a lot guys.

Now we geit te take care a dem dare homos eh?

We're baaaaaaaaaaaaack!

2005-04-10T20:02:00.000-04:00

With such incredible political news coming out right now, I'm just going to have to find ways to post here. This is going to be a really exciting summer. It's critical to prevent the so called liberal media from spreading Conservative propaganda to far.

Computer Broke, No More Blog

2005-03-30T10:44:00.000-05:00

My laptop has died on me and I can't really afford a new computer right now. As such, I really can't keep this blog going anymore. I want to thank everyone who read it while I was posting, but that's past now. There are plenty of other good Canadian blogs out there, I hope you continue to enjoy them.

Tit for Tat

2005-03-03T22:12:00.000-05:00

For the past week our American neighbours have complained that they feel betrayed by Canada's refusal to participate in the missile defense program. Our concerns and complaints have been completely ignored by our so-called allies who claim that we are a bunch of free-loaders. Until recently, nobody was willing to stand up to the American juggernaut, then Lloyd Axworthy stepped up to the plate. He was quickly followed by Quebec Premier Jean Charest. Now support has come in from an unexpected direction.

People across the country have been concerned about Frank McKenna's objectivity in his new role as Ambassador to the US, today he showed those worries might be unwarranted. Speaking from his new home in DC, McKenna directly blamed American policy towards Canada for our refusal to participate in the missile shield.

"Let me say this, that this [missile defence] issue in some ways perhaps could be construed as the direct result of letting fester some of the transactional issues," he told reporters at the Canadian embassy. "From a Canadian perspective, you can understand how the atmosphere has not been conducive to creating a political environment where a different decision might have been achieved on the ballistic missile defence issue."

McKenna specifically cited the softwood lumber dispute, the ban on Canadian beef and the damage they have caused to the Canadian economy for the plan's defeat. Prime Minister Martin abandoned his support for the program largely because the Canadian people are strongly opposed to the plan. The Ambassador went on to explain his comments, pointing out how exactly better treatment from the US might have led to Canadian cooperation.

"One can't say definitively, [but] I think one can say we would have had a much lower temperature in Canada in which to operate.... It is my belief that the temperature in Canada has, in part, been at a pretty high level as a result of these ongoing irritants. So the logical extension of that is that if you could turn down the temperature, you would have a different political environment in which to operate."

These comments come as a big surprise to most Canadians who saw McKenna as a puppet who would largely do whatever the Americans told him. The Ambassador is strongly connected to the Carlyle Group and the Republican Party, but yesterday's comments indicate his loyalty to his country is strong as well.

For years Canada and the United States enjoyed one of the closest alliances on the planet. However, since the election of George W. Bush our relationship has taken a drastic turn for the worse. Despite the claims of the American media, the simple fact of the matter is that the change has occurred on the American end. Finally, Canadians appear willing to point that out, to stand up on our own, to scream to the world about the injustices of the Bush regime. Axworthy, Charest, McKenna...let's keep the list going. We have to stand up to these thugs if they're ever going to treat us with respect.

Thank You Quebec

2005-03-03T20:37:00.000-05:00

After spending much of the 90s villainized by the rest of Canada, Quebec has stood up and saved this nation several times in the last few years. After a decade spent figuring out how to leave the country, La Belle Provence is now exporting their ideals to the rest of the country - and we owe them all our thanks.

It's largely because of Quebec that Paul Martin opted out of missile defense. The plan was woefully unpopular in province and could had cost the Liberals a dozen or more seats. They also went to the mattresses for gay marriage, with support for legalizing same sex marriage more popular in Quebec than anywhere else in the country. Just last week, Quebec's ideology was exported again in the form of the national daycare program. Time after time they have saved us from right wing policy and today they stepped up to the plate again.

Speaking in Brussels, Premier Jean Charest urged NAFTA reform, specifically citing the EU model as something to which we should aspire. While at first glance it might look like a capitulation to American dominance, could we really believe that from Quebec? In truth, it's a none to subtle jab at illegal and immoral American trade policies.

“Now with NAFTA we’ve gone through a whole series of panels, but every time we get a panel decision which is invariably in favour of Canada, the United States goes on to another panel decision and that ends up, I think, questioning whether NAFTA is working or not,” Charest told reporters."

Charest, obviously, has a point. The WTO has already declared the American Byrd Amendment illegal and given authority to dozens of nations to impose tariffs on American goods.

Canada and the US have established the world's largest trading partnership, but in recent years the Americans seem more interested in taking advantage of their allies than work cooperatively with them. Thus far, Canada has, by and large, bent over for our erstwhile allies - until today. While Mr. Dithers has begged for Bush's forgiveness, Jean Charest and Lloyd Axworthy have stepped up to the plate and defended the honour of our nation. Now it's time for the rest of this country to follow their lead.

Standing Up for Canada

2005-03-03T18:30:00.000-05:00

Lloyd Axworthy may not be the Minister of Foreign Relations anymore, but he's doing a better job than Pierre Pettigrew right now. While Martin's Minister was kissing up to the Americans and begging for forgiveness, Jean Chretien's foreign relations point-man took it to Bush and his cronies.

Axworthy is now the the President of the University of Winnipeg. Today, the Winnipeg Free Press published an open letter from Axworthy to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. If only our current leaders had the balls of Chretien's crew...

The article is by subscription only, but the text follows:

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

In friendship, Lloyd Axworthy

More Payback?

2005-03-02T21:30:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week Canada opted out of the missile defense program and concern rapidly spread that our erstwhile allies would retaliate. Already, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has cancelled a state trip to Canada. Tonight, another blatantly anti-Canadian action was taken south of the border; is this the second wave in a petty game of international payback?

US District Judge Richard Cebull has delayed the planned opening of the border to Canadian beef. The industry has lost over $7B in the 22 months that the border had been closed. Prime Minister Paul Martin pledged to the people that he would get the border opened, and the issue was a major part of the meeting between Martin and President Bush last year.

Belinda Stronach has already jumped on the issue, pointing out that the issue highlites the failure of Mr. Dithers to improve relations with America:

"When the prime minister should have been nurturing support throughout the American political system to keep the border open, he and his cabinet were skulking away from a proper discussion of missile defence with the U.S. government,' she said in a release.

"The border closure on BSE is a perfect example of the kind of real-world situation where Canadian interests would be looking for maximum help from the administration."

American administration officials insist that this is a temporary measure which will be resolved shortly. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns reiterated that the border will open shortly.

Andy Mitchell, Canada's Minister of Agriculture, pointed out that this is the action of one American judge, not the American government. Still, the fact of the matter is that Canadian beef will still not be crossing the border come Monday, and another chance to at least give the appearance of improving relations has gone by the wayside.

Playing into your Enemy's Hand

2005-03-01T17:48:00.000-05:00

For months, Stephen Harper has stood atop his soap box screaming to anyone who would listen about the slippery slope involved in legalizing gay marriage. The Conservative leader claimed a slew of undesirable events would occur as a result of same sex marriage. Supporters of equal rights across the country have scoffed at the suggestion, but today the Young Liberals decided to prove Harper right.

The Young Liberals of Canada are putting forth what is certain to be a controversial measure at this weekend's Biennial Liberal Policy Convention -- a motion to decriminalize prostitution.

Prostitution is not technically illegal in Canada. Rather, it is illegal to operate a brothel, communicate for the purpose of prostitution or procure customers for a prostitute. The Young Liberals claim removing those barriers would improve the safety of the sex trade.

"We believe that what this does is it forces sex trade workers into a position where they have to hide themselves and try to avoid the public eye and put them in dangerous situations," Jason Cherniak, a Young Liberal National executive member, told globeandmail.com.

The Young Liberals specifically cited recent tragedies in Vancouver and Edmonton as a motivating factor for the motion, but one must wonder if there is not a better way to make prostitution safer. Vancouver police have already enacted numerous measures in an effort to protect the city's sex workers, why not give those time? Why not simply invest more in such programs?

While decriminalizing prostitution would certainly improve the safety of such a vulnerable demographic, this motion certainly carries a downside. The political ramifications of this discussion are likely to be disastrous. The Conservatives have tried for months to make inroads in the gay marriage debate without success. Despite spending a small fortune, working in cooperation with religious groups and receiving beneficial media coverage, the Conservatives have been unable to convince the public as to the merits of their case. Now, the Young Liberals have gone and done it for them.

Stephen Harper should phone young Mr. Cherniak and tell him 'thanks'.

Childish Diplomacy

2005-03-01T01:51:00.000-05:00

President Bush has been criticized around the world for his abrasive demeanor and denigration of former allies. The simple fact of the matter is that the United States has been perfectly willing to throw away friendships in order to make a point about obedience. Now, it appears as though Canada is the newest victim of America's punitive foreign policy.

Despite government claims that all is going well in the aftermath of the missile defense decision, CTV is reporting that US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has cancelled a planned trip to Ottawa in April.

A senior state department official, who was on a London-bound flight with Rice, confirmed that the cancellation of the visit was a direct consequence of Prime Minister Paul Martin's decision, CTV News reported.

Officials indicate that the meeting may be re-scheduled at a later date, but the simple fact of the matter is that an international meeting has been cancelled because of a disagreement over policy. And it's not as if America cancelled a meeting with some nation with which they have no relationship. Our two countries share the largest undefended border in the world, the same electrical grid and we are vital economic partners.

The American government has been lobbying Canadians on the issue for years and they seem to genuinely believe that it is in our national interests to participate. More importantly, Canadian participation would lend an air of credibility to the controversial program. In that light, it's perfectly understandable that the Americans are upset. However, such a public rebuke serves no real purpose except to try to shame, threaten and cajole a sovereign nation.

If you're friend snubs you it's understandable to be upset, but grownups don't take their toys and storm home. That's for children...and Republican Presidents.

Liberals, Natural Governing Party or Something Worse?

2005-02-28T21:12:00.000-05:00

Marc-Boris St-Maurice led the Marijuana Party from its inception in 2000 until last December, but is planning a formal announcement for tomorrow that he is now a member of the Liberal Party. St-Maurice made the decision for a simple reason - the Marijuana party is meaningless and it's easier to create change from within.

"Obviously the Marijuana Party is not going to be drafting legislation and passing it through the House of Commons any time soon, so that's where that decision came from," he told globeandmail.com."

St-Maurice ran against Paul Martin in the Quebec riding of Lasard-Emard and received only 0.8% of the vote.

The issue of legalizing marijuana will be further discussed at the Liberal convention this weekend, but St-Maurice's decision reflects a larger problem in Canadian politics. The Liberal Party has become an institution of power.

They have moved beyond the stature of being the 'natural governing party' and taken on a position of being the permanent political authority in the country. In order to effect change, you must work from within the Liberals. Our entire political system is now based on this dynamic, the Liberals are the party in power and always will be. Whether or not it's a majority or minority is meaningless, the Liberals run Canada. Every other party is seen simply in terms of their relationship to the Liberals.

Such a position of power is incredibly dangerous. It leads to stagnation, corruption and an 'old boys club' mentality. Prime Minister Martin is the ultimate failure of years of slow decline. A man who has been waiting in the wings for a decade to assume the position of ultimate of power and is showing himself to be an incredibly poor leader.

The real problem is that the situation shows no indication of improving. The Conservatives and NDP will never be successful in Quebec which completely hampers their ability to form the government. Until another truly national party emerges, the perception of Canadian politics will continue to be that the Liberals are the source of all power and they will, in turn continue their corrupt politics.

Gay Marriage Debate

2005-02-28T21:06:00.000-05:00

A week or so ago me and Andrew from Bound by Gravity and me had a little exchange on gay marriage. We exchanged a few comments followed by emails. At that point, we could have gone the usual blogosphere route and just flamed eachother on our respective blogs. Instead, we decided to do something more intelligent and mature.

The gay marriage debate has been pretty inflammatory thus far. It has consisted or a large number of blog entries which almost universally ignore the points raised by the opposing side. In an effort to change that, Andrew and I agreed to conduct a debate on our respective blogs. I'll post here, he will reply on his blog and visa versa. We're going to get this started pretty soon, so keep your eyes open for what will hopefully be an intelligent debate on the matter.

In an effort to facilitate a better conversation on the matter, I'm going to try to turn comments back on. I've had them disabled for ages because of a bug with blogspot. In the past, when people comment the majority of my template is deleted and the page doesn't work. I've talked to blogspot about it a few times and the recently suggested that their new comment system would fix the problem. I'm willing to give it a test, so in that spirit I'm going to turn comments back on tomorrow at some point. I've backed up the template, so if anything does go wrong I'll be able to fix it quickly.

Conservatives and BMD

2005-02-28T02:14:00.000-05:00

Despite the fact that the Conservative Party abandoned BMD, Republican North Bloggers still seem to be backing the system. Andrew from Bound by Gravity has taken this to a new level, launching a point by point rebuttal to left wing complaints about BMD. Unfortunately, his rebuttal fails to address the core flaws of the American plan.

Andrew raises six points some of which I really take exception to:

It is Star Wars
When people claim that BMD has nothing to do with the militarization of space I grow concerned about the feasibility of discussing the matter with them. On a basic level, the DoD currently has no operations in outer space. BMD will be run by the DoD and thus will involve giving the DoD a role in outer space. In the minds of many, that's an incredibly dangerous proposition. For me, I don't see it as one of the major complaints. Still, there can be no doubt that BMD = Militarization of Space.

It Doesn't Work
Andrew compares BMD to AIDS research and that's simply preposterous. American involvement in AIDS research does not require disregarding international agreements. Even worse, AIDS is not countering American investment with massive spending of their own in an effort to defend themselves against the vaccine. The analogy is simply illogical and incorrect.

Feasibility of it Working
Andrew suggests that the new Russian missile will one day be able to be stopped, that just because it can't be stopped by the unfinished version of BMD does not mean it will never be stopped. In truth, BMD can't even stop missiles from the early 90s. BMD's tests have been staged in situations where it was rigged to succeed. Real missiles launch balloon dummies to trick interceptors, BMD tests do not use such devices. Further, tests are always done in good conditions when weather is not an issue. Andrew seems to think the system is near to working. In truth, it's at least a decade away from anything even resembling adequate defense against mid-90s missile technology.

It Has Sparked An Arms Race
In by far the most baffling part of his rebuttal, Andrew suggests that since the Russians have already invented a new missile an arms race is inevitable. I'm not sure whether or not he's implying that BMD isn't responsible for that missile, but it's irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that the United States has decided to invest in a new weapons system and in retaliation other countries have beefed up their own military research.

Andrew further suggests that as long as the US has enemies then there will be an arms race. That suggestion is simply incorrect. By the early 80s the arms race had all but concluded, yet nobody would dream to suggest that the USSR and America were anything but enemies. During the 90s there was no arms race, but America still had plenty of enemies around the world. The increased focus on American defense spending has led to reciprocal behaviour from the rest of the world.

Andrew further suggests that the list of US enemies is growing rather than shrinking, and that somehow this suggest BMD is needed. I'm not too sure what kind of missiles Osama bin Laden has, but they sure as hell aren't getting anywhere near North America. Even North Korea's missiles pose little threat to our continent. Americas new enemies are terrorists, who would be using a backpack bomb. Not nation-states armed with ICBMs.

The last two points I am willing to concede. Financial matters have no impact on Canadian involvement, this is an argument raised by concerned Americans. As to the last, that seems to be a more radical interpretation of Andrew's first point which I've already entirely disproven.

BMD is a matter of cost-benefit analysis. Do we want to be involved in a program which is decades behind the weapons it is designed to protect us against? A program which has angered the rest of the world? A program that involves tearing up international agreements? A program which would make us a target for the enemies of America? A program which could never defend against the preferred method of attack of the new nemesis of the 21st century?

Paul Martin's government made the right decision. They made that decision in a terribly ineffective and embarrassing way, but they still made the right decision.

Fahrenheit 911 Wins Razzies...In a Good Way

2005-02-27T23:20:00.000-05:00

I really don't care about the Oscars too much. The Rasberries on the other hand, those are lots of fun.

The Razzies are the opposite of the Oscars, given out annually to the worst films of the year. This year, some glamour was added to the usually tame ceremony by the presence of Halle Berry. The Oscar winner showed up to receive her Worst Actress Razzie for her performance in Cat Woman. It marked the first time since 2001 that a winner actually showed up to receive their award.

Of more interest to politicos, however, was the numerous wins by Fahrenheit 911 -- not for Worst Film, but for poor acting performances. President George Bush took home the award for Worst Actor, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld won for Worst Supporting Actor and Britney Spears took home the award for Worst Supporting Actress.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also took home a prize, the lifetime achievement award for having received the most nominations during the first twenty-five years of the awards.

Chris Rocks mocking of the President may not have received the laughs it deserved, but at least one award show is still a part of the reality based community.

BC Election

2005-02-27T14:17:00.000-05:00

When the party in power starts campaigning, the time has come to start talking about a forthcoming election. This weekend, Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals came out swinging so now it's time to start talking.

It's tradition in BC to start spending money in the weeks before elections. Forty years ago, the government built roads all over the interior, today they build schools in Surrey. Yesterday, Surrey-Cloverdale MLA Kevin Falcon announced the construction of a new $6.1M elementary school which will be able to hold 330 students and opens in September 2006.

Premier Gordon Campbell also launched a pre-emptive attack on the NDP. The right-wing Liberal leader went on a tirade about his opposition's tax policy:

"They don't talk about it before elections but after the elections they add taxes and more taxes and more taxes," said Mr. Campbell.

"If it works, they say regulate it. If regulations don't work, tax it. If it's dead, subsidize it. That's NDP economic policy," Mr. Campbell said.

Yesterday, Mr. Campbell took the stage at the meeting of BC Liberal Executives to chant of BC's back and exclaimed that the Liberals would win because they have turned the economy around.

Expect a lot more news about this race ahead of the May 17th election. In the mean time, keep an eye on a couple of good sites from BC: Rush the Vote and Election Prediction's BC page. Also take a look at the STV issue, perhaps the most important part of this election. I'm a huge proponent of it as are most left wing activists. There are several great sites on the matter, but this is my favourite.

Update on Arash Sigarchi

2005-02-27T13:06:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week Arash Sigarchi was sentenced to fourteen years in prison for espionage and insults to various leaders. The charges stemmed from Arash's blog which spread the truth about the Iranian state. The site has been removed, but it was formerly at this address.

Tuesday became an international day of action for bloggers, Free Motjaba and Arash Day. Now, it appears that America may be responsible the arrest of Arash, as a letter from Sigarchi indicates that he was 'outed' during an interview with American funded Radio Farda.

"In truth the biggest portion of the accusations against me pertained to Radio Farda. You will be interested to know that some of it had to also do with the sounds broadcast during the time of my interview. I was doing the interview with a pen name and then suddenly they would announce that they were doing an interview with Arash Sigarchi. Believe me I placed no hope in them [Radio Farda] and I still don't ... I don't expect anything from radio stations, but it might not be a bad idea if a movement developed that familiarized them with their responsibilities to those of us who face a thousand dangers in Iran."

Sigarchi's letter is available in the original Farsi here. The above is a translation taken from DailyKos.

Visit the Committee to Protect Bloggers to get a better understanding of what is going on with the persecution of bloggers across the world. This is not something limited to Iran, it has spread throughout the world and is something we should all be concerned about.

Truth About Canada-US Relations

2005-02-26T19:52:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of Paul Martin's refusal to participate in missile defense, critics of the Canadian left have suggested the decision is emblematic of a knee-jerk rejection against all things American. While it may be politically beneficial for conservatives to make that claim, it's far from true. In truth, the Canadian left's discontent is not with America as a hole, but rather with its current neoconservative leadership. Far from growing further apart, Canada and the 'Blue' States are developing an ever closer relationship.

While there can be no denying that Federal relations between Canada and the United States have reached a nadir, a series of regional groups have grown in power and represent a new avenue of relations between our two countries. PNWER (Pacific Northwest Economic Region), the NEG/ECP (Council of New England Governors and East Coast Premiers) and the Council of Great Lake Governors have linked our two nations in ways that our leaders have been unable to do.

Jeremy Rifkin recently published an article in Walrus Magazine (no link, they don't publish feature articles online) suggesting that ties between Canada and the Blue States will continue to grow stronger. The article, however, largely ignores the already strong relationship and strong accomplishments of these transnational organizations.

PNWER covers five Western states in addition to two Canadian Provinces. Their website boasts that if a nation they would have the world's tenth largest economy and covers a landmass roughly the same size as Australia. The group lobbied hard for President Bush to remove the ban on Alberta beef and also backed Vancouver's winning bid for the 2010 Olympics. The organization boasts twelve working groups designed to foster cooperation and find solutions for regional problems.

The Council of Great Lake Governors includes eight states as well as Ontario and Quebec. The group controls 1/5th of the world's fresh water and is responsible 60% of North America's steel and automobile manufacturing. Based on their mission of promoting economic growth while respecting the environment, the Council has enacted several environmental measures to protect the region"s environment. The group also has shared trade offices around the world, fostering economic cooperation between the Great Lakes region and foreign nations like Brazil, South Africa and Australia.

The NEG/ECP was established in 1973 and is perhaps the most effective of all the groups. The group has created internal climate change legislation which has effectively put many New England states in line with Kyoto. Additionally, they have created strong economic ties and trade agreements.

The 'Blue' States are involved in heavy trade with Canada, particularly in the realm of energy. New England gets a large portion of their electricity from Quebec hydroelectric plants, while Washington receives the same from similar facilities in British Columbia. Along the same lines, BC provides water to west coast States and Alberta exports millions of barrels of oil south of the border annually. Detroit is no longer the sole hub of the auto-industry, but rather a link in a chain that runs up to the suburbs of Toronto. We're also seeing an explosion of intellectual cooperation, as professional schools develop joint programs. From the Osgoode Hall - NYU join degree in law to the Kellogg-Schulich joint MBA, academic institutions in Canada and the Northeastern States are showing an increasing level of cooperation.

Canadian conservatives have been complaining of the left's hatred of the US, while Republicans claim Canada is becoming increasingly irrelevant. We on the left must ignore their rhetoric and spread the word of the increasing levels of cooperation between our two great nations. This is not an issue of Canada's dislike of the United States, but rather Canada's dislike of George Bush and his policies.

Dithers Fires Back

2005-02-25T20:07:00.000-05:00

Paul Martin is so desperate to escape his new pseudonym that he's willing to risk our relationship with the US to do so. Today, Martin responded to suggestions that Canada would lose control over its airspace in the event of an incoming missile, and he did so with conviction:

"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."

Conservatives and American officials foud the Prime Minister's suggestion laughable. Foreign Affairs critic Stockwell Day openly mocked Martin's claim, wondering if the Prime Minister thought the Americans would dial a 1-800 number in the midst of a national emergency.

As usual, NDP leader Jack Layton did his best to tone down right wing rhetoric and bring the debate back to reality.

"These are the kind of hypothetical questions that (George) Bush has tried to create in the minds of people to elevate a sense of fear.

"The fact is that if Canada is a part of a program like this, then we become a target."

Why is it that the Liberals can't bring themselves to say that? Why is it that they completely ignore facts and bring up the talking points of right wing fanatics?

Canada is not in any danger of a missile attack, and it is our duty as a sovereign nation to voice our displeasure with the foreign policy of the Bush administration. They have violated countless treaties, engaged in unjustified wars and attempted to overthrow democratically elected governments. Now Stephen Harper and the so-called Liberal media want us to endorse that behaviour by legitimizing the latest in their long string of follies?

Plea For Help

2005-02-25T15:22:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to code the HTML for the new site myself, and it's really not going well at all. I'm not very good with computers, I do the HTML in posts by rote. If anyone who's decent would be willing to donate a few hours to helping me out I'd really appreciate it. You can email me at gracchi@starmail.com.

Thanks a lot.

Pope has a Tracheotomy

2005-02-24T20:11:00.000-05:00

Pope John Paul II was admitted to hospital for the second time in a month this evening, and this time the situation is worse than before. The Pontiff had an 'elective' tracheotomy to assist with his breathing. The procedure took roughly half an hour and involved cutting a small hole in the Pope's throat and inserting a tube to help him breath.

According to a spokesperson for Italy's Prime Minister, the Pope is conscious and "serene".

Elena Curti, editor of a London-based Catholic publication, is quoted by the CBC as saying that it was "painful" to hear the Pope speak on Wednesday. She added that "This pontificate has been in its twilight for some time now, for a year or more."

Curti also suggested that Vatican officials have begun to look at possible successors to the aging Pontiff. The leading candidates are thought to be Dionigi Tettamanzi, a Conservative Italian Cardinal favoured by Opus Dei, and Francis Arinze, a black Cardinal from Nigeria. Outsiders include an American, a Jew, an academic who's under 60 and a Brazilian.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves here. I'm not a religious person, but my girlfriend and her entire family are practicing Catholics. If for no other reason than that, I truly hope the Pope pulls through this. He's done a phenomenal job in most regards and has brought the church into the 21st century.

Budget Falls Short

2005-02-23T21:00:00.000-05:00

Paul Martin's minority government delivered its first budget today amidst great fanfare and ceremony. For weeks it had been known that the government would have to compromise in order to get the budget through commons. Ralph Goodale held dozens of meetings with opposition MPs in an effort to reach an agreement. And that they did. The Liberals made a deal with the devil.

Paul Martin's government needed twenty votes from outside the party for the budget to pass and the government to survive. That number could have easily been met from the NDP and the Bloc, but instead Canada's left will be voting against the Liberal budget en masse. Paul Martin will pick up the votes he needs from the Conservatives.

"There's nothing in this budget that would justify an election at this time," Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said before Goodale had even finished reading the budget speech in the House of Commons.

"In fact, I'm a lot happier than I thought I'd be. The major priorities in this budget are Conservative priorities."

That's definetly what I want to hear, that the priorities of the Liberal budget are Conservative priorities. The left is, obviously, furious:

"A lot of money for the army but nothing for the unemployed," groused Gilles Duceppe, leader of the 44-MP Bloc Quebecois.

"We can't support that. We'll be against that budget."

NDP Leader Jack Layton said corporate tax cuts "came completely out of the blue," while money for cities is being rolled out painfully slowly.

The highlites of Ralph Goodale's budget read like something from the Conservative platform: $7B in tax cuts that only provide an $400 to middle income families. $13B in new military spending, a 2% corporate tax cut, increased RRSP limits etcetera etcetera.

Well that's excellent. Let's hand some more money over to the wealthiest Canadians and huge multinationals. And let's give the military more money, that way we might be able to stand up to an invasion by Luxenbourg. Let's not spend money where it's needed, let's not make sure Kyoto is enforced properly, let's not give real money to the cities, let's not give a real tax cut to our poorest citizens, let's just throw away the surplus.

On top of that, much of the new spending is backloaded, not actually coming today but promised for the future. This is the first budget in years that includes spending to occur five years from now. Of particular concern in this regard is municipal spending which will be handed out at a snail's pace over the next half decade. The vaunted $1B 'Clean Fund' actually only gets $10M of funding this year and $50M next year. Spending on Kyoto is only $86M this year and $166M next year before jumping to $511M. All of this spending is, of course, tied to the promise of the Liberals being re-elected, because a Conservative government would certainly want to create their own financial targets. Therefore, this budget is more of a campaign promise than an honest attempt to use our surplus to make the country a better place.

In the end, it was Jack Layton who best summed up the feelings of many Canadians tonight.

"There's a certain sense of betrayal right now setting in."

You're telling me...

Now Canada is Out of BMD

2005-02-22T22:51:00.000-05:00

Earlier today incoming Ambassador to the US Frank McKenna claimed that Canada was already part of the missile defense plan. Minister of Defense Bill Graham spent the next few hours defending the party in commons saying that no decision had been reached. Looks like Bill's out of the loop, because the CBC's reporting that Paul Martin informed President Bush that Canada will not take part in the continental Missile Defense program.

CBC's french language network reported late tonight that the Prime Minister will make the announcement as early as Thursday. The decision is a huge change of direction from Martin, who pledged support for the program during the leadership race.

The US has been putting significant pressure on the government to join the program, but the CBC's sources indicated that domestic concerns - namely polls indicating the public is massively against participation - outweighed foreign concerns.

Federal officials apparently told the Canadian Press that the Prime Minister informed President Bush that Canada will not take part at the NATO Summit in Brussels:

"[The Americans] were told we will not participate," a federal official, who asked to remain anonymous, told the agency.

"It is a firm 'no.' I am not sure it is an indefinite 'no.''

The Liberals had been expected to debate the issue during their policy convention in two weeks time.

The question now is what was happening this morning and when exactly did Martin tell Bush? Was it after this morning's mess? Why is our top ambassador so far out of the loop?

Canada Signed on to Missile Defense?

2005-02-22T14:21:00.000-05:00

Frank McKenna made his big splash, and not in a way most Canadians will like. The country’s next ambassador to the United States appeared before the foreign affairs committee in commons today, then went outside and told reporters that Canada has already signed on to George Bush’s controversial missile defense program.

Asked directly if Canada is already part of the program, McKenna responded: “We are. We’re part of it now and the question is what more do we need?”

At first, this appears to be a serious issue and it still may be. But we need clarification. The media has already jumped all over the issue, with the Globe, The Star and Canada.com leading with the story. But the question remains, just how have we signed on? Is this the full level of our planned involvement?

NDP foreign affairs critic Alexa McDonough raised a key point during her comments before reporters:

“But of course we know what else the Americans want is Canada to be the fig leaf — Canada to give the aura of credibility and respectability to the U.S. decision to go ahead with this missile-defense madness.”

Canada has clearly not yet done this, and polls indicate the public is overwhelmingly against the Prime Minister giving the plan such strong endorsement. The question now is whether or not the Liberal grassroots will carry enough power at the party’s policy convention to prevent that from happening.

If not, Bush may soon find the aura of legitimacy he seeks and the Canadian people will likely be overruled again, as Mr. Dithers and his band of fools cave in to the militarization of space.

[Update 2:35] - Bill Graham just got hammered during question period. He argued that McKenna was talking solely about the NORAD ammendment which discussed BMD and that our participation was not yet a done deal. However, the NDP and Bloc jumped on the issue in a huge way. Both the Minister o Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister were not in Commons today, but I would expect the fuss to continue tomorrow. At the very least, this will likely bring the issue back to the forefront in the weeks before the Liberal policy convention.

Michigan Considering Raising Dumping Fees

2005-02-22T01:28:00.000-05:00

Normally it's not an issue that would be a much import: a state in a foreign country raising the price of dumping garbage within it's borders. But when Michigan announces they're considering increasing dumping fees by 3,500 per cent, Toronto residents get a bit jumpy.

Toronto ships one million tonnes of garbage a year to Michigan landfills, and the state's Democrats aren't too pleased about it.

We don't hate Canada, we just want our state to be a Great Lakes state, not a Great Waste state," Democratic Representative . Kathleen Law, a leader in the battle against out-of-state garbage, said yesterday.

Toronto has pledged to stop sending garbage south of the border by 2010 and has already made great strides with recycling program which diverts 43 per cent of garbage away from landfills.

Still, the Democrats are the minority party in the Michigan state legislature (although Gov. Jennifer Granholm is a Democrat) and the motion may not pass. Even if it does, it is unclear whether or not Toronto's dumping costs would increase. The city has a contract with an American company which handles garbage transport and dumping for $52 per tonne -- a level at which the company could likely still turn a profit even the prices were increased.

However, even if the situation is not a guaranteed calamity, the mere threat of drastic increases in the city's dumping fees should be enough to encourage Torontonians to continue to take advantage of our city's fantastic recycling program. For those who are still confused about the new Green Box program, take a look at the city's site for a full explanation. Remember, recycling saves the city tens of millions of dollars per year in addition to keeping the planet clean. Take the time, it's worth it.

Free Motjaba and Arash Day

2005-02-22T00:38:00.000-05:00

Motjaba and Arash are two Iranian bloggers who have been arrested for simply telling the truth on the internet. Arash Sirachi is to be sentenced today, while Motjaba is currently free on bail. There only crime is speaking out against the Iranian government on their blogs. The Committee to Protect Bloggers has organized today as the international Free Motjaba and Arash Day. I implore bloggers from around the world to do whatever they can to raise awareness about this issue.

Update: 10am - fourteen years, are you kidding me?

McGuinty has a Point

2005-02-21T21:35:00.000-05:00

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been complaining about the Offshore Energy deal for weeks. In his mind, the Prime Minister’s side deal with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is only the tip of the iceberg in a series of inequalities. The media hasn’t been giving him to much credence, but the fact of the matter is that he’s got a point – Ontario is getting a raw deal.

The Premier has made a big deal of the fact that Ontario receives $23B less in transfer payments than the province pays out without making an impact in the media. Perhaps if he used other numbers his case would be better received.

Ontario is second to last in per capita transfer payments, getting $1,322/resident. Quebec receives $1,757, Manitoba $2,428, Nova Scotia $2,445, Newfoundland $2,449, PEI $2,930. Only Alberta receives less (by $1) and they’re constantly livid with Ottawa and the birth place of the new Western separatist movement. On top of that, part of the transfer payments are specifically earmarked for post-secondary education; Ontario has eighteen major universities, Alberta has three. Even worse, Alberta posted a $4.1B surplus in 2003-’04 while Ontario ran up a $5.4B deficit.

The situation is replicated when it comes to immigrants. Ontario receives $864 per immigrant who comes to the province, while Quebec gets $3,252. The national average is $1,200 and 60% of all immigrants end up in Ontario.

The citizens of Ontario have no problem with helping out the other provinces, but there is a line between generosity and being taken advantage of. Giving money to PEI so that they can get 39% of their provincial budget from transfer payments because they have a tiny population and no industry is crossing the line. There’s no problem with giving money to a province so that they won’t be impoverished. It’s quite another to continue to give money to provinces that have abundant natural energy reserves and great potential for future growth.

Ontario accounts for 39% of the country’s population and 41% of the GDP. The province’s GDP of $494B makes Ontario’s economy roughly equal to those of nations like Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland. If our economy goes in the tank the entire country goes down with us. If we do well, the country does well.

So why is Ontario getting screwed?

Fun with Polls

2005-02-21T13:57:00.000-05:00

Ipsos-Reid and the Globe and Mail have released a new poll, one with dizzying contradictions and no clear indication of the country's direction. The poll was conducted on February 15th and 17th in anticipation of the Federal Budget and is accurate to within 2.2 percentage points. But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

Eighteen percent more Canadians think the Liberals deserve to be re-elected (47%) than did so last year, but the same number actually plan to vote for them (37%). The Liberals have almost returned to their previous levels of support in Atlantic Canada in the aftermath of the Offshore Energy deal, pulling in 48% support compared to 33% for the Conservatives.

In Ontario, the Liberals have the support of 43 per cent of the population and the Conservatives 28. In Quebec, the population seems to be ignoring Gilles Duceppe's excellent work and the Gomery Inquiry, as the Bloc's support has dropped from almost 50% on election day to 39% today, while Liberal support has remained relatively steady at 34%.

Of course, the confusion doesn't stop there. 56% of Canadians think Mr. Martin is a good leader, but 39 per cent say their opinion of the Prime Minister has worsened since he was elected.

So, another week, another poll and more confusion. Overall, the consensus of the last three polls seems to be fairly steady: Canada doesn't like Martin so much, but they like Stephen Harper and the Conservatives even less.

More SSM Debate

2005-02-21T09:53:00.000-05:00

Conservative MP Jason Kenney went on CTV's Question Period last night and suggested gay people should not be allowed to get married because they couldn't have children.

"I think most Canadians recognize that there's something about the complementarity of the sexes, a man and a woman together which creates a setting for, an ideal setting for the regeneration of society, and there's a social interest in that"

Thankfully, NDP MP Bill Saskay, who's openly gay, was also on the show and pointed out the obvious flaw in Kenney's argument.

"I hope that Mr. Kenney isn't suggesting that people who choose not to procreate, or who can't procreate, have any less than a valid marriage than other Canadians"

The Conservatives are desperate for a winning angle on this debate. They have tried religious grounds, protecting the rights of other minorities and now they are suggesting that procreation is the basis for marriage. And still opposition to SSM is polling below 50% and the public views the issue as unimportant. One can only wonder what they will come up with next...

Psychology of Discrimination

2005-02-20T23:39:00.000-05:00

In recent weeks the topic of gay rights has become one of the dominant issues on Canadian blogs. Until now, the question has been whether or not same sex marriage should be legalized. However, critical to that discussion is whether or not preventing homosexuals from getting married would be a form of discrimination. Critics of the legislation have claimed that since they would still be granted human equal rights, it does not represent a form of discrimination. Recent research into the psychology of discrimination suggests otherwise.

While the public only knows one form of discrimination and racism, psychologists have long been aware of a second and even more dangerous form of prejudice: averse (or ambivalent) discrimination. Gaertner and Dovidio did the most famous study on averse racism and the findings were presented in the book Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism.

People who display averse discrimination are not the kind of people we generally view as prejudiced. They value equality and their prejudice is hidden almost all the time, only appearing when there is a non-prejudiced explanation for their actions or when social norms allow for it. That is, they will act in a discriminatory manner when around others who are acting the same way, or when they can blame their discrimination on other factors. Dovidio and Gaertner performed numerous experiments which showed that a large part of the population displayed racist (their experiments focused on African-Americans) tendencies under these circumstances.

Marilyn Brewer of UC Santa Barbara authored another study which is critical in this situation, In-Group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation. Brewer found the tendency amongst prejudiced people was not towards out-group bias, but rather in-group favouritism. In other words, bigots do not try to take away rights from subordinate groups, but rather seek to give themselves privileges that the subgroups don’t enjoy.

Opponents of gay marriage have reasons to justify their beliefs and they have supporters across the nation. They can even claim that they’re offering gays the exact same rights as they have, just with a different name. They can say whatever they want, as far as psychologists are concerned they’re prejudiced bigots.

No Hope

2005-02-19T23:42:00.000-05:00

Obviously there was no deal today. Rumours are flying as to what happened, I won't repeat any of them here. If you want to read them go to Eklund's blog. If I thought Wednesday was bad, this is a thousand times worse.

Game On?

2005-02-18T18:13:00.000-05:00

Ever since the cancellation of the season, there have been rumblings that the players were unhappy with union leadership. This response is entirely predictable, especially given the fact that Bob Goodenow lied for months, claiming there was no way he would ever accept a salary cap then caving at the last moment. Had he made that concession earlier the season could have easily been saved. From all indication, Ted Saskin was the only person on the players' side truly interested in a deal. There have been suggestions that the players would fire Goodenow and make a deal without the union, the Gretzky and Lemieux were huddled up and making a deal which they would present to both sides and a myriad of other suggestions. Today, these conspiracy theories appear to be on the verge of becoming reality.

Earlier today, Bill Guerin was supposed to appear for an autograph session in Dallas. That event was hastily cancelled as Bill Guerin told AM 1310 (the organizers of the event) that he had to leave town immediately and could not explain where he was going. Though initially reported only on Eklund's questionable hockeyrumors blog, this has now been confirmed by other media sources. Bill Guerin is a member of the union player executive, and if any last ditch effort was being made to save the season he would certainly be involved.

Further, TSN and Sportsnet had both downplayed rumours earlier this week. However, they both jumped on the bandwagon today, as did the Canadian Press. All three ran stories about the possibility of a deal being struck this weekend and the season being saved.

Meanwhile, Eklund's blog is now reporting that Ted Saskin and three high profile NHL players, including two executive members (Guerin would be one) are en route to NYC to present an offer to Gary Bettman. He suggests the league will accept it by Sunday at the latest. Eklund has been a figure of great controversy throughout the lockout, offering unsubstantiated rumours at his blog and generally having a positive outlook on the chances of a settlement. After the season was cancelled the site was swarmed with negative comments by people who felt lied to, and he's since turned off comments. Take anything he says with a grain of salt, but he has been right about a lot of things.

The strong suggestion before Wednesday's deadline was that an offer of $45 million would be acceptable to both sides. If the rumours are true, and where there is this much smoke there's almost certainly fire, we'll probably know soon.

For all my rage on Wednesday, I could definitely find myself forgiving the league and the players if it turns out that they were led astray by their leadership. Gary Bettman claims the league would lose a great deal of money with a $49M cap. I'm tempted to believe him. If Ted Saskin and the players come to NYC with a real offer to save the season and enter in to a reasonable cooperation with the owners...well let's not count our chickens before they hatch, but it'll be a whole new ballgame.

Conservatives' Gay Mantra

2005-02-18T15:00:00.000-05:00

Liberal-minded Canadians have wondered for years just how crazy Stephen Harper is. This week, he answered that question -- he's absolutely batshit.

With his recent speech in parliament on gay marriage, Mr. Harper has identified himself not only as a dangerous fanatic, but also as someone so desperate for an advantage that he's willing to say and do anything.

The Conservative leader delivered a fifty minute speech during the second reading of the Liberals' same sex marriage act. Harper has consistently claimed that he is the only tolerant leader on the gay marriage issue. And he set out to prove it:

"Let us not forget it was the Liberal party that said none is too many when it came to Jews fleeing from Hitler. It was the Liberal party that interned Japanese Canadians in camps on Canada's West Coast, an act Pierre Trudeau refused to apologize or make restitution for, leaving it to Brian Mulroney to see justice done."

Harper's logic is perfect; the Liberals used to be racist, therefore they are being prejudiced today! That makes sense right? Or maybe he means something else...

Prime Minister MacKenzie King's actions during World War II were deplorable, but Harper is horribly misinterpreting the importance of those actions. The Liberals made a terrible mistake half a century ago, but rather than try to learn from it, the opposition seems determined to use that as an excuse to repeat the mistake.

Half a century ago, the Liberals restricted human rights, treated a certain social group as sub-human and were proud in doing so. That era became the shame of the party, a black eye which we are stuck with sixty years later. The Conservatives seem determined to repeat the mistake, and with Stephen Harper at the helm they are leading the charge of hatred and bigotry.

Now, the have found their battle cry, a phrase that should be repeated far and wide, across the country for all to hear: The Liberals used to be prejudiced, therefore we are allowed to be prejudiced today!

Economist Rips in to Martin

2005-02-17T23:54:00.000-05:00

The prestigious British magazine has joined the ever growing hoard of Canadian citizens who are disappointed in Paul Martin. And they're not mincing words:

"Mr. Martin, a successful finance minister for almost a decade until 2002, cannot quite shake off the impression that Canada's top job is too big for him," says the Economist in its Feb. 17 edition.

"His faltering leadership has earned him the sobriquet of 'Mr Dithers.' "

Obviously, the Prime Minister is taking exception to the article. But the Economist is right on target with their list of complaints, which places incredibly weak federalism at the top of their list of complaints. They even site the offshore energy deal with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia as a serious problem.

Martin must be happy, now his incompetence is getting international attention. Well done Paul...

McGuinty Continues the Attack

2005-02-17T00:44:00.000-05:00

Back from my self imposed exile over the hockey lockout. Well, more accurately I've sobered up enough to post, and the news didn't stop during my exile.

Premier McGuinty came out on the attack about the inequity in the equalization program again yesterday. This time, he included a few not so subtle jabs at Newfoundland and Premier Danny Williams.

"We will not lower the Canadian flag. We will not stamp our feet and hold our breath. We will do this in the Ontario way," McGuinty said on his way into a Liberal cabinet meeting.

"I'm not going to go away on this."

The simple fact is that Premier McGuinty has a point. Canada has climbed out of a fiscal catastrophe on Ontario's back, they've built a strong economy on our back and now we need a chiropractor. Ontario is running a huge deficit, largely because of the inept Conservative government, and we need help. We helped Ottawa, now it's their turn to help us. Or at least treat us fairly.

Quebec is given $3,800 for each immigrant who comes to the province. Ontario gets $800. That sound fair?

Even Joe Volpe (MP, Eglinton-Lawrence...my MP and a nice guy) admits that's ridiculous:

"Well, nobody wants to justify disparities like that," Volpe told CBC Radio.

There are countless other examples of inequities in the system, this is just the most obvious, and the time has come to fix them. If Paul Martin is going to give special treatment to Newfoundland he had better do the same for us or he will feel it at the polls.

Game Over

2005-02-16T13:10:00.000-05:00

Gary Bettman began his press conference by apologizing to the fans. Bob Goodenow didn't apologize until he was prompted to do so. They will both be sorry soon.

I am the kind of fan that the NHL is counting on coming back. Saturday night is a religious experience for me, I haven't missed a Leafs game in years. I haven't missed a playoff game in years, I've paid hundreds of dollars for scalpers tickets, I've lived and breathed hockey for most of my life. And I will never watch another NHL game.

The fans have moved on. We've found other things to focus on, other things to do on Saturday nights, other people to love, other teams to follow. TSN's ratings haven't plummeted, neither have Sportsnet's. Hockey has been gone for five months and the sky has not fallen, the sun's still rising and Canada is still functioning. Hockey has lost it's place in our hearts.

Bob Goodenow claimed the players were sorry they could not entertain the fans this year. What a crock of shit. Gary Bettman said they were doing this for the good of the fans. What a fucking liar.

Did they learn nothing from baseball's strike? It took a decade and juiced-up players breaking records to win back the fans. And there is no end in sight here. The players have seen the best deal they will ever see -- and they turned it down. Next year the pie will be much smaller and the players will be lucky to come away with a $35 million salary cap.

I wouldn't bet on us getting hockey back next year either. Both sides took their last offer off the table in the aftermath of the season being cancelled, so we're back to square one. The owners win by simply dragging this out indefinitely and the players have proven they can't get the WHA off the ground. If the league does call an impasse and use replacement players then they are putting all their chips in and the strike will be over quickly. Either fans come see the replacement players and the PA has to cave, or they don't and the league has to cave.

Either way, one fact has become apparent: these people are not worthy of our admiration, they are not worthy of our money and they are not worthy of our time. These people are not worthy of their fans, and we've finally realized it.

NHL's Final Offer

2005-02-15T18:39:00.000-05:00

Gary Bettman has made a final offer to the NHLPA: $42.5 Million hard cap, with a luxury tax at some level below that. Bettman claims they are unwilling to negotiate off of this number. He has given Bob Goodenhow an 11am deadline to respond to the offer. The NHL's press confrerence to announce a deal or cancel the season is set for 1pm EST in New York City.

Here's the text of Bettman's letter to Goodenhow.

Dear Bob:

We attempted to reach out to you with yesterday's offer of a team maximum cap of $42.2MM ($40MM in salary and $2.2MM in benefits) which was not linked to League-wide revenues. As Bill told Ted, "de-linking" a maximum team salary cap from League revenues and total League-wide player compensation has always been problematic for us, especially since we cannot now quantify the damage to the League from the lockout. This presents the risk we will pay out more than we can afford. As you know, if all 30 teams were to spend to the maximum we proposed, and if the damage to our business is as we discussed at our meetings in New York, then the League would continue to lose money.

I know, as do you, that the "deal" we can make will only get worse for the players if we cancel the season – whatever damage we have suffered to date will pale in comparison to the damage from a cancelled season and we will certainly not be able to afford what is presently on the table. Accordingly, I am making one final effort to reach out to make a deal that will let us play this season.

We are increasing our offer of yesterday by increasing the maximum individual team cap to $44.7MM ($42.5MM in salary and $2.2MM in benefits). This offer is not an invitation to begin negotiations – it’s too late for that. This is our last effort to make a deal that's fair to the players and one that the Clubs (hopefully) can afford. We have no more flexibility and there is no time for further negotiation.

If this offer is acceptable, please let me know by 11:00 A.M. tomorrow, in advance of my scheduled press conference. Hopefully, the press conference will not be necessary.

Sincerely,
Gary B. Bettman
Commissioner

Talk about the 11th hour...

24 Hours for a Deal

2005-02-15T13:00:00.000-05:00

Gary Bettman's press conference to cancel the NHL season will begin in exactly 24 hours. Not only is the NHL season in danger, but the very future of the league and the sport is at risk. But now, finally, we are seeing some progress.

Last night Bill Daly and Ted Saskin met in secret in Niagara Falls. There, for the first time ever, Saskin made an offer which included a hard salary cap. The NHLPA made a huge concession, offering a hard cap of $52M. The offer also included a series of luxury taxes, beginning at 25% for $40-44M, 50% on $44-48M and 75% on payrolls from $48-52M. Teams would also be allowed to go over the cap three times during the next six years, but would have to pay a 150% luxury tax on payrolls over $52M.

The league rejected the proposal, countering with their own offer with a hard cap $40M. The offer also included a luxury tax of 50% on payrolls fro $34-40M.

TSN reported that there would be more talks today, and Eklund claims he has information indicating talks resumed at 11am today.

TSN is also reporting that the NHL is unwilling to negotiate the $52M figure unless the league puts forth a revenue sharing plan. Meanwhile, the league may not be willing to go much higher than the $40M figure they proposed.

The simple fact of the matter is that after months of complete failure, we are now very close to a deal. Twelve million dollars apart. Twenty-four hours to negotiate. A league and a sport on the line. A nation waiting with bated breath.

Let's get this done.

Martin and McGuinty Trade Barbs

2005-02-15T12:48:00.000-05:00

Prime Minister Martin has replied to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, and he didn't do so favourably. Martin claimed that the Premier was complaining out of purely political reasons, seeking an advantage against Queen's Park's powerful Tories.

"It is the essence that every province be treated fairly and Ontario is certainly being treated fairly...Sometimes provincial governments think the best way to get re-elected is to run against the federal government; that goes back 150 years."

Newfoundland and Nova Scotia were recently given incredibly generous equalization deals which guarantee the provinces $2.6 and $1.1 billion respectively. In addition, they will not lose any of their offshore energy income.

Premier McGuinty has complained that the deal violate the principles of the equalization program. He has further pointed out a series of injustices Ontario suffers for the benefit of the rest of the country. The province contributes $23B more to the Feds than it receives in return and also gets significantly less money per immigrant than the other provinces get from Ottawa.

Immigration Minister Joe Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence), my MP, recently spoke with the Premier and attempted to explain to him other ways in which the feds help the province.

"I pointed out all of the advantages to Ontario of federal government decisions in the course of the last 10 years, the kind of decisions that have helped Ontario prosper and to make the kind of contributions that everybody envies."

74 Liberal MPs come from Ontario, and they have unanimously backed the Prime Minister.

Byron Wilfert, MP Richmond Hill, exclaimed that "The time to raise it is not after the fact ... We're not an ATM machine".

BC Premier Gordon Campbell suggested that his province will expect the same kind of deal should they ever discover offshore energy resources. Meanwhile, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams repeated the suggestion that McGuinty was doing this for political gain.

At this point, it appears as though the situation can only escalate. The Premier cannot back down and this point and now the Feds cannot either. Once again, the Prime Minister has backed himself into a corner with no safe way out. Congrats Paul, well done.

State of American Journalism

2005-02-14T17:06:00.000-05:00

The past year has seen an unprecedented wave of media scandals south of the border. Beginning with the Jayson Blair fiasco at the New York Times in 2003, the media has been rocked by lies, corruption and plagiarism. With the latest round – the Gannon / Guckert affair – American news media seems to have reached a new all time low. In fact, some are beginning to question the very future of information distribution.

This latest affair must be put in context, so here’s a brief rundown of the media scandals of the past twelve month:

March 2004 – USA Today star reporter Jack Kelley is caught plagiarizing articles. The paper’s editor is forced to resign as a result.

September 2004 – CBS ‘memogate’ over Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. Independent investigation reveals that CBS did not adequately research the memos. Dan Rather resigns as news anchor largely as a result of the flap.

October 2004 – Sinclair broadcasting airs a blatantly anti-Kerry documentary in the weeks leading up to the election. They force local stations to air the show and gain most of their information from Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. Thousands of complaints are ignored. Information later shows that Sinclair executives made massive contributions to the Bush election campaign.

January 2005 – Propaganda month arrives! Three journalists are caught on the government’s payroll. Armstrong Williams was paid $240k to support ‘No Child Left Behind’, Michael McMannus was paid $10k to support traditional marriage and Maggie Gallagher was paid $21.5k to promote the administration’s tax cuts.

February 2005 – CNN’s Eason Jordan resigns as the station’s Chief News Executive because of inappropriate comments made at a party.

The James Gannon / Jim Guckert affair is the latest in a long line of media problems, and by far the most embarrassing to the government. Gannon served as the Talon News White House Correspondent, and was famed for lobbing soft balls at government officials when they got in trouble. Gannon’s only journalism training was two days of training at the right wing “Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism”. Gannon was denied a congressional press pass, and was thus denied a permanent White House press pass (as the former is a requirement for the latter). Instead, Gannon was given a steady stream of daily passes so that he could pursue his unique brand of journalism.

So why exactly was Gannon given daily passes? Well, there’s no proof of that, but there’s plenty of reasons not to give him one. He owes $20k to the state of Delaware in back taxes and he’s a former gay prostitute. On top of that, he’s lied on the record about both problems. In an era of such tight security where nobody is supposed to be able to get close to the President, how exactly does a gay prostitute with a criminal past a no qualifications get daily White House press passes?

Just what is his involvement with the White House? Gannon was given exclusive access to secret information naming Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. That information was later made public and an investigation was launched into how exactly this happened. Gannon was called to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the matter, but his testimony remains sealed. Further, Gannon is famous for being a right wing propagandist. His questions during press scrums often saved administration officials from difficult situations. His articles were full of outright lies and he tried to organize partizan protests during the election.

What is truly concerning is the fact that the so called liberal media was not involved in the Gannon investigation at all. It was led by SusanG of Propagannon and various other bloggers around the world. Only through them has the mainstream media picked up the story, although they are now starting to report it in earnest. The situation mirrors the events of the November election, when the media ignored inconsistencies between polls and results as well as election problems occurring in Ohio. Only after a torrent of emails did Keith Olbermann of MSNBC begin to report on the problems.

These incidents point to the new role of the media in the 21st century. They have become naught but tools for propaganda, sources of biased information. Instead, bloggers have become the investigative journalists of the 21st century, filling the shoes of Bob Woodward and the real reporters who proceeded him. Undoubtedly we will soon see more instances of blogs discovering the news and having to convince the media to report it.

In today’s world, the mainstream media is of increasingly little import while the people rise in power. Welcome to the information age. Welcome to democracy.

Captain Obvious

2005-02-14T09:32:00.000-05:00

Dene Moore of the Globe and Mail wrote one of the most ridiculous pieces in recent memory today, informing us all that maybe the Offshore energy deal wasn't a good thing for the federal government! He even found a brilliant Professor from Dalhousie who said that the deal "diminishes the power of the federal government".

Big story in tomorrow's Globe: Sun Rises in the East

Thanks guys.

Support for BMD Drops

2005-02-12T12:14:00.000-05:00

Looks like Martin's government won't be able to join the missile defense plan without being severely punished for it. A new poll conducted by the Toronto Star and EKOS shows that support for the plan has fallen to an all time low. More importantly, unlike gay marriage, the population feels this is an issue worth fighting an election over.

54 per cent of the population is now opposed to the plan, up 1 per cent since October. However, support for the plan has dropped three points to 34 per cent. 12 per cent remain undecided.

Frank Graves, President of EKOS, claims support for the plan have fallen by 20 per cent in recent years. In his mind, the issue has become a referendum on the Bush Presidency:

"I don't think Canadians feel that intensely about missile defense, in and of itself. I think it's become a proxy for deeper anxieties about what the American administration (is) doing"

The Bloc and the NDP are almost unanimously opposed to the plan and are supported by a vocal minority within the Liberal caucus. While the government doesn't need parliament's support, pushing it through without a vote might make the matter even more troublesome for the Liberals.

Paul Martin is, once again, stuck between a rock and a hard place. Martin's people are largely opposed to the plan, but President Bush is all but demanding Canadian support.

Defense Lobbies have suggested that Canada must join the plan in order to have some 'input' into how the system operates.

The simple fact of the matter is that Martin has, yet again, managed to put himself in an untenable situation. If he refuses to join he loses all leverage with our neighbours which will undoubtedly lead to worsening relations and lower numbers in the polls. If he joins, the public will be livid and the Liberals will be guaranteed to drop in the polls. Net result? Liberals drop even more in the polls.

And the hits just keep on coming...

Liberals in Serious Trouble

2005-02-12T10:46:00.000-05:00

Twelve months ago the Liberals were a powerhouse, holding over 170 seats in the House and poised to win another strong majority. Months later, Paul Martin had derailed the train and the Liberals limped across the electoral finish line with 135 seats and a minority government. Now, things are getting even worse.

The Liberals are fighting a war on two fronts, and have been taking a beating on a nearly daily basis. Both gay marriage and the Gomery Inquiry have proven catastrophic for the party. The Liberals look like fools in Quebec, as the population is told daily how Prime Minister Chretien tried to buy the province’s support. On the other end of the spectrum, social conservatives have found a rallying cry and unified under the banner of traditional marriage.

At the same time, a series of regional issues are also doing incredible damage. The Offshore row caused great damaged to Martin’s reputation in the Atlantic provinces, problems with beef exports have continued to plague the Liberals in Alberta and the party has gained a bad name in BC thanks to the legislature raids. And to make matters worse, other provinces are now angry about the Offshore deal and clamouring for their own handout.

Common sense would dictate that the party should have been plummeting in the polls for the last year, but the Liberal aura seemed to protect them. Polls continued to show them holding strong, but now a new SES poll shows that aura is wearing off.

The Liberals are down ten points in Ontario, ten points in Atlantic Canada and three points nationally. Even worse, the Conservatives are picking up most of the Liberal support, gaining six points in Ontario, eight in the Atlantic provinces and three nationally.

The poll was taken January 28th-February 2nd , before Gomery turned extremely negative and before same sex marriage went south. In fact, the poll shows the Liberals up in Quebec, and that almost certainly won’t be true when Gomery is done with his witch-hunt.

Sure, SES uses small samples, but this poll fits with media coverage of politics and fits with what one assumes should be happening.

And the bleeding hasn’t even stopped. Today, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty threw down the gauntlet. The Premier exclaimed that Ottawa’s equalization deal with the Atlantic provinces was the last straw in a string of unfair moves by Ottawa. The province has simply had enough:

Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara said the 74 federal Liberal politicians in the province will pay at the ballot box if the Martin government doesn't listen.

"If we don't get the money from Ottawa, there will be a significant political price for Liberal MPs"

Paul Martin has created a completely untenable situation and it can only get worse. The Conservatives need an eighteen seat swing. If the Prime Minister does not get his act together he may be remembered as the Kim Campbell of the Liberal Party.

Look Who Was Right

2005-02-11T15:07:00.000-05:00

Last week I complained about Martin's pathetic federalist attitude. I pointed out that the provinces were going to push him around, specifically citing the Offshore deal, Saskatchewan demanding similar treatment and rumblings from Ontario. Well now those rumblings have gotten louder, and Dalton McGuinty is starting to threaten the Prime Minister.

"If we don't get the money from Ottawa, there will be a significant political price for Liberal MPs. We have stretched the foundations and principles of equalization to the limit."

Ontario Finance Minister Brian Sorbara could not be more clear, the simple fact of the matter is that the Provinces have seen that the Prime Minister is a weakling, and they're going to take advantage of him.

Where we go from here is anyone guess, but damn near anything is starting to look better than the Paul Martin fiasco.

Same Old Boring Mistakes

2005-02-11T13:13:00.000-05:00

Martin's testimony before the Gomery Pyle Commission was predictably lame, falling under the "I Didn't Do It" banner. Still, some of his ridiculous lines about the role of the Minister of Finance should provide great fodder for the opposition during our next election.

The simple fact of the matter is that Paul Martin has woefully misunderstood this scandal. The problem is that he is trying disassociate himself from the scandal, all the while neglecting the fact that the entire Liberal Party is embroiled in it. As long as the Prime Minister persists in this strategy the opposition and the so-called liberal media will continue to hammer away at the very principles of the program.

Jean Chretien has the right attitude and the right defense - admit mistakes, but defend the ideology of the program. His tactic shifted the commission into a fact finding mission rather than an inquisition. Only because of the efforts of one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century have Gomery and his Inquisitors been forced to look for who is at fault rather than condemning the entire party.

The man who ran one of the worst campaigns in Canadian history and is one of the weakest Prime Ministers in Canadian history has pulled yet another one. And apparently he's going to get 90% approval at the Liberal policy convention. What in god's name is wrong with this picture?

Great Cartoon

2005-02-10T13:10:00.000-05:00

Saw this over at Warren's, and it's just too funny.

NYT Has a Classified 9-11 Report

2005-02-10T01:07:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has managed to acquire an unedited version of the 9-11 report, and it's incredibly critical of the FAA. President Bush has kept large portions of the commission's findings classified for over five months -- against the wishes of the authors. Now, we get our first glimpse at the reasons why.

From April 2001 to September 10th, the FAA received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch indicating a potential threat from Osama Bin Laden. Those represented half of the total intelligence reports during that time. Perhaps more damaging was the content of the individual reports. Five indicated specifically dealt with Al-Qaeda training in hijackings, while two focused on suicide operations.

The report was exceedingly blunt in its assessment of FAA policy in the months leading up to 9-11:

Throughout 2001, the senior leadership of the F.A.A. was focused on congestion and delays within the system and the ever-present issue of safety, but they were not as focused on security

The question at this point becomes what else is locked away at the President's request? What other damning information has he kept hidden from the public eye? How else has he, his administration and their appointees failed the American public?

Gomery Updates

2005-02-09T23:01:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, I'm incredibly busy right now and haven't been able to pay nearly enough attention to the blog, especially when so much great stuff is going on in Canadian politics. Since I don't have time to post anything thoughtful right now, I'm going to link some of the better blogs rather than post something half assed.

CalgaryGrit has by far the best analysis of Chretien's testimony at the Gomery Pyle Commission. Brilliant.

TDH has a good post with pictures.

Not surprisingly, right wing blogs like Brock on the Attack didn't post anything about Chretien's powerful testimony.

On a sad note, the countdown to the end of the NHL season can officially begin. The players rejected another offer today, and a drop dead date has been set for the end of the weekend.

Hopefully things will quiet down for me soon.

Standing Up

2005-02-08T10:38:00.000-05:00

This morning Jean Chretien began his testimony at the Gomery Pyle commission - and he came out swinging. If only our esteemed Prime Minister had showed such fortitude and conviction this would have never been an issue. Congrats to Chretien, Gagliano, and anyone else who has the balls to stand on top of a mountain and shout to the world that they did the right thing.

Complete text of Mr. Chretien's statement:

Mr. Commissioner,

I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today. Government is serious business and democracy requires that the trust that citizens confer on those they elect must always be respected. I have been looking forward to this occasion because it gives me the opportunity to try to put certain things in their proper perspective for you and the Canadian public, and to set out clearly on the basis of 40 years in Parliament, 27 years around the Cabinet table, and 10 years as Prime Minister of Canada my views on how government works in practice.

The sponsorship program was not created in a vacuum and cannot be understood in isolation. Any serious examination of it must take full account of the circumstances in Québec when it was created and the climate of political uncertainty in Québec during the entire time it operated.

When I became Prime Minister, the official opposition in the House of Commons was the Bloc Québecois, a party dedicated not like normal opposition parties to forming the next Government of Canada, but a party dedicated to the separation of Québec from the rest of Canada. Then in September 1994, Jacques Parizeau was elected Premier of Québec. He pledged to hold a referendum within eight to 10 months of taking office and he acted quickly. There was the draft law on Québec independence tabled in the Québec National Assembly on December 6, 1994. Article one said, "Québec is a sovereign country".

The draft bill was sent at public expense to all homes in the province. Then a Committee of the National Assembly crisscrossed the province, at public expense, to promote separation. And there was the constant subliminal advertising of the Québec government and its agencies to promote separation. We learned subsequent to the referendum about Mr. Parizeau's plans if the answer to his ambiguous question on October 30, 1995 had been yes, which only reemphasized the gravity of the issues at hand.

Most of all, you will recall, as we all do, watching your television set on that night of October 30, 1995 where only a few thousand votes separated us from a crisis of incalculable proportions and then, the announcement the next day of Mr. Parizeau's resignation as Premier and his replacement by Lucien Bouchard shortly thereafter.

There was the concern that Monsieur Bouchard would quickly use what seemed to be his immense personal popularity to hold and win another referendum. It is amazing that some say today that the Québec government after 1995 turned its attention away from preparing another referendum. Have they forgotten Monsieur Bouchard's pledge to hold the referendum whenever he determined "winning conditions" were present? My government took that pledge of Monsieur Bouchard very seriously.

I am certain that you recall in the aftermath of the referendum, the criticism, justified or not, of the federal government for having been too complacent, too absent, that I was sleepwalking, that I had almost lost the country. You remember the gloomy period after the referendum, the despair of the federalist forces, the omni presence in Montréal for years of "for sale" and "for rent" signs, all the boarded up windows you saw every morning as you drove through the streets of Montréal from your home to the Court House; you recall the sense among some of the inevitability of another referendum, this time with a different result.

I can tell you, Mr. Commissioner, that we as a federal government realized that whatever we did before the referendum to promote Canada in Québec was not enough. For the next eight years, the unity of Canada was my number one priority as Prime Minister. It was never an issue of party; it was always an issue of country. I was determined that there would be no winning conditions for the proponents of separation. I had a personal commitment as a Canadian to the country I love and a duty as Prime Minister to keep it united. I was not prepared to be guilty of inaction.

My Cabinet was united in its determination to do what it takes. Canadians expected their government and their Prime Minister to act decisively on a whole range of fronts. Our whole post-referendum strategy in Québec was much more than simply advertising and sponsorship. No one in government believed for a moment that federal sponsorship of community events alone would convince Québecers to remain in Canada, but we were certain that the absence of a visible federal presence hurt the cause of Canada. Federal visibility was merely one element of a very comprehensive approach.

We acted quickly. Before Christmas of 1995, we introduced a resolution in the House of Commons on the distinctiveness of Québec society, and we introduced legislation providing a veto for each region of Canada including Québec on constitutional change. Both were approved by Parliament. I committed to negotiate a delegation of jurisdiction over manpower training to Québec.

Right after the referendum, I asked Marcel Massé, then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to chair a Cabinet committee to make recommendations to me on an action plan for national unity. Mr. Massé was well known as a proponent of rigorous expenditure controls in government. The Massé Committee made many recommendations which covered a variety of issues that included but went well beyond federal visibility in Québec. His report was discussed in detail in Cabinet on the 1st and 2nd of February 1996, and the recommendations, including increased federal visibility were all approved unanimously. We acted on all of them over the next days, weeks, months and years.

The committee said that "a good government agenda which includes fiscal responsibility is essential to achieving the objective of defeating separation". So our whole economic strategy over the next years to put the books of the nation in order was also an integral element of our national unity agenda.

In January 1996, as part of a national unity strategy, I brought in two new ministers, to strengthen Québec's representation and give new focus to the promotion of federalism in Québec. Mr. Dion played a particularly important role in succeeding years with his famous letters to Premier Bouchard to set the record straight, with his promotion of the need for a secession reference, with his arguments for clarity, and with the introduction of the Clarity Bill.

So you can see, Mr. Commissioner that the sponsorship program was only one part of a comprehensive strategy. The whole machinery of government did not revolve around all the minute details of that one program, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I expected the senior advisors in my office over the years to focus on all our priorities such as, amongst others, jobs for Canadians, budgets, research in universities, Kyoto, Iraq, reform of political party financing. I obviously expected my most senior advisers to be heavily involved in Québec strategy because it was the most important priority. But they focused on all elements of the Québec strategy, not just federal visibility.

For example, the Prime Minister's Office worked closely with Department of Justice lawyers and outside counsel in preparing and drafting the factum which federal counsel presented to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Secession Reference despite the fact that the Prime Minister's Office did not normally work on Supreme Court cases.

While the Prime Minister's Office was only peripherally involved in the negotiations of manpower delegation to other provinces, my office was directly involved in the negotiations with Québec on the delegation of manpower training.

Because of the absolute need to promote a federalist message in all parts of Québec, my office was fully involved in preparing ministerial tours which crisscrossed Québec. We wanted to show that there was a national government committed to serving the interests of the citizens of Quebec.

Because of its overriding importance to our national unity strategy, the Clarity Act was drafted in conjunction with my office; drafting sessions took place between my staff, Department of Justice lawyers and outside counsel.

Much of this could be described as unusual, but it was necessary and essential in the circumstances.

I now turn from the overall context to the purpose of the sponsorship program in Quebec.

The visibility in Québec of the Government of Canada had been significantly reduced from the mid-1980s until I became Prime Minister. The visible face of the Government of Canada had even been removed from post boxes, from the airport in Montréal, even from immigration courts. There was a vacuum and the vacuum was being filled by the Québec government, with constant subliminal messaging. Our approach particularly after the referendum was very clear. We would ensure that the threat of a new referendum was would be removed and that "winning conditions" would never be allowed to develop.

We were going to restore the visibility of the Government of Canada in Québec. Whatever Québec's Parti Québecois government was doing, which, in our view, directly or indirectly promoted separation, we, as the Government of Canada would at least match to promote a united Canada. If they were putting up billboards, and they did, the Government of Canada would put up billboards, and we did; if they were advertising on radio and television, and they did, the Government of Canada would advertise on radio and television, and we did; if they were sponsoring community events, and they did, the Government of Canada would sponsor community events, and we did.

Sponsorship is much more than just billboards, flags and word marks. It is involvement with organizers of community events, people who are often opinion leaders in their communities, letting them know that there is also a Government of Canada that relates directly to citizens, that the Government of Canada does more than just collect taxes while the Québec government delivers programs. This type of federal presence amongst community leaders was part and parcel of our overall strategy. That is why we committed to spending a significant amount of money every year to be part of community events. And we did not restrict the program to Québec because the Government of Canada should be present in communities across the country.

I regret any mistakes that might have been made in the course of this program, or any other government program. As Prime Minister, I take ultimate responsibility for everything good and everything bad that happens in the government. Those mistakes that were made in good faith can be excused. Any that were made in bad faith are inexcusable. If some people acted in bad faith for personal gain, they betrayedthe Prime Minister, the government and the country. They should be identified and punished, subject, of course, to due process of law. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it would have been a totally unforgivable mistake to leave the field of sponsorship of community events in Québec to the Parti Québecois government alone.

I knew that if we did all of that and, if we governed well, Québecers would take pride in being Canadian. By the end of 2003, support for Canada in Québec had increased substantially from where it was in the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

Mr. Commissioner, I signed a number of Treasury Board submissions when I was Prime Minister, normally for expenditures relating to the Privy Council Office and other organizations for which I was directly responsible. I also signed Treasury Board submissions to fund national unity initiatives, including sponsorship. I wanted to give a clear signal to ministers on the Treasury Board that this element of the national unity strategy, like all of the strategy, was a priority and needed to be funded despite the fact that very few new spending initiatives were being approved in 1996 as a result of our determination as a government to get the finances of the country in order after years of deficit spending, The Treasury Board submission which I signed was clear that all the rules, regulations, and guidelines had to be followed. It said:

"Public Works and Government Services Canada will ensure that the creative services, media buys, sponsorships, promotions and any other marketing initiatives conform with established Treasury Board policy and guidelines and that they provide added value to the Crown. In addition, they will continue to ensure that all communications services, including advertising and public opinion research, are competitive as required and subsequently that appropriate contracts are issued."

I insisted on that because, regardless of the context or purpose of any government program, there is no excuse and no justification for wasting money or using taxpayers' money for personal or partisan gain. There is no excuse for breaking rules and regulations in a manner that results in the misspending of taxpayers' money. As the Prime Minister whose government balanced the budget for the first time in decades by taking very painful decisions, and then paid down twelve percent of the national debt, I was always particularly preoccupied with controlling spending. I was entitled to presume that the language I put in the Treasury Board submission that contracting be in compliance with all the rules and regulations, and guidelines would be carried out to the letter. I could not have imagined that anyone at any level in a department responsible for contracting could come to the conclusion that he should stay out of the way and not ensure rigorous administration of the sponsorship program simply because I was committed to taking measures to increase federal visibility in Québec. When problems were identified by internal audits, we asked the Auditor General to conduct an investigation, we changed the administration of the program and we referred files to the RCMP.

Mr. Commissioner, I want to clear up misunderstandings about the source of funding for some sponsorship and other national unity related initiatives. There are a number of reserves established every year in the fiscal framework by the Minister of Finance at the time of the budget. They are for expenditures that will likely be made during the course of the year, but which are not necessarily easily identified at the beginning of the year. For example, there is money set aside in a reserve for natural disasters, but no one can predict in advance whether it will be a hurricane in Halifax or a flood on the Red River. There is money set aside in a reserve to pay court judgments against the Crown without knowing in advance what they will be. In the case of national unity, the reserve existed under Prime Ministers Trudeau and Mulroney. During the course of my administration, the Minister of Finance and I always agreed to set aside fifty million dollars a year for expenditures related to national unity that would be decided upon during the course of the year. As Prime Minister, I considered it my duty to determine the priorities to which those funds would be allocated. I was prepared to answer and take full responsibility for those priorities in the House of Commons. Once the priorities were determined, the actual spending of the money by departments, like in the case of all reserves, became the responsibility of the departments and were subject to normal Parliamentary appropriations and Treasury Board procedures.

The sponsorship program was not partisan. It was not about the Liberal Party. It was about promoting the visibility of Canada in Québec. A conventional wisdom has nonetheless been created about "Liberal friendly" advertising agencies. We have to be very careful about labels. In Québec, there are basically two types of advertising agencies - those who are "separatist friendly" and those who are "federalist friendly". Federalist friendly agencies tended to support the Conservatives when they were in power and the Liberals when they were in power. I do hope the Government of Canada used "federalist friendly" agencies to promote the visibility of Canada in Québec, not because the agencies contributed to the Liberal Party until we abolished corporate contributions, but because the only alternative in practical terms was to use "separatist friendly" agencies. If unscrupulous people used that program or any other program of the Government of Canada to line their own pockets or for inappropriate partisan ends, I repeat what I have always said. They should be found out and punished.

If anyone thinks that we were making decisions based on the financial interests of the Liberal Party, how do they explain our decision to turn down bank mergers or to support the Kyoto Agreement even though we received significant contributions from banks and from the oil and gas sector?

Mr. Commissioner, the question is not whether some action is unusual. The question is whether it is necessary and whether it is right. I am firmly convinced that our national unity strategy was necessary and right. Were some mistakes made in everything we did? I am sure they were. After all, we are all human. Mr. Commissioner, you and I are both trained in the civil law. One of the first things we both learned at law school was the article of the Québec Civil Code that provides a presumption of good faith. I have explained that the sponsorship program was conceived in good faith. Its objectives were noble. When there is a presumption that a program is designed for sinister or corrupt partisan reasons, it is easy to draw all sorts of conclusions about ulterior motives of anyone associated with it particularly when there are hazy recollections of long ago meetings or memos.

A presumption of good faith leads to very different conclusions. For example, there has to be a recognition that people who every day for years dealt with dozens of memos on a whole variety of important issues and who attended sometimes dozens of meetings every day on every conceivable subject may not have total recall about any of them. There is one other important point. As Prime Minister, I received many memos from the Privy Council Office providing advice on every conceivable subject. Most often I accepted the advice. Sometimes I questioned it and my officials convinced me they were right; sometimes I convinced them that my judgment was right. Sometimes, like every prime minister, I did not accept the advice I received. The job of a prime minister, or a minister or a chief executive officer is not to rubberstamp every memo he receives.

In all my years, I never ceased to marvel at the professionalism of the public service of Canada, at the dedication to country of public servants and those in all political parties who operate at the political level. The public service and those on political staffs who work on government programs do so in good faith and for the best of motives. Like all of us in all sectors of society, they may make mistakes in the course of their work. Their good faith should not be doubted unless there is solid evidence to the contrary. But if you find any wrongdoing, Mr. Commissioner, I hope you allocate individual responsibility and do not tar our entire institutions with the inappropriate actions of the very few.

Mr. Commissioner, you have heard a lot about the role of ministers and prime ministers and political staffs and their relationship with the public service. With respect to some who have testified, some of what you have heard is highly theoretical and impractical andwould make governing impossible in any parliamentary democracy. Governments are elected to govern. Ministers and prime ministers are there to make decisions and set policy directions. Public servants are there to implement policy decisions. But in practice there are no watertight compartments. Elected officials and their staffs work with public servants on a daily basis. They talk to each other. They seek advice from each other. They exchange views and opinions, they debate issues, they transmit representations. Sometimes they do so formally; sometimes, informally.

Unless staff in ministers' offices or the Prime Minister's Office and public servants can walk in and out of each other's offices, call each other on the phone, seek advice and counsel from each other, the job of government simply does not get done. I urge you not to make recommendations that unwittingly will make it difficult for governments to function and to serve Canadians, difficult for ministers to do their jobs, for members of Parliament to pass representations on behalf of constituents onto public servants, for public servants to work seamlessly with elected officials and their staffs.

I would just conclude in saying that a prime minister has heavy responsibilities and must make decisions that no one else can make, not even auditors general. The single most important priority of every prime minister since 1867 has been to preserve the unity of the country. We all may have been criticized at some time or another for our approach to national unity. But in the case of the unity of Canada every prime minister from Sir John A Macdonald to myself has always put country ahead of anything else.

New Iraqi Government Demands Islamic Law

2005-02-07T10:12:00.000-05:00

You won't read it in the New York Times, you won't see it on CNN, it won't be reported in Newsweek or the Washington Post, but the Iraqi election didn't go quite as planned. Initially it looked like a slam dunk for Bush and his cronies. 60% turnout with minimal casualties, a smooth election after months of chaos. But now, as the results pour in, that image is starting to change.

With 3.3 million votes counted, Grand Ayatollah Sistani's Shiite United Iraqi Alliance is beating Washington backed candidate Ayad Allawi and his 'list' by a 5:1 margin. Even more startling, al-Sistani and his top deputies are demanding that the koran be the sole source of law in the new Iraqi state.

Last month's election were to form a national assembly to draft a constitution for the country. Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani is the figurehead for the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, and the leader of the marja al-taqlid (the country's five most important clerics). The marja had presented a more moderate stance prior to the election, but when victory became clear their tune changed rapidly. Yesterday, the marja made they opinion public in a statement released by Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad:

"All of the ulema (clergy) and marja, and the majority of the Iraqi people, want the national assembly to make Islam the source of legislation in the permanent constitution and to reject any law that is contrary to Islam"

A fundamentalist Iraq is completely contrary to the wishes of the United States. This past year a public conflict emerged between US administrator Paul Bremer and Iraqi officials over the language of the interim constitution drafted under the US-led occupation.

The latest American rationale for war was that Iraq presented a threat to American security. President Bush constantly suggests that Iraq is the focal point in the war on terror, an assertation which is frequently challenged by the rest of the world. However, an Islamic Iraq still reeling from the savage US occupation would become a massive breeding ground for terror.

The United States has suffered 1,449 casualties in the conflict, and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have perished.

No Troops in Iraq: Pettigrew

2005-02-07T09:58:00.000-05:00

After a weekend which saw headlines warning of the possibility that Canadian troops might be sent to Iraq, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew came out swinging.

"Prime Minister Martin has always been very clear that our contribution to the reconstruction of Iraq would not bring boots to the ground"

Pettigrew commented from Jordan in the midst of his journey to the Middle East. Canadian officials are expecting the US to press NATO to aid with training of Iraqi forces at the group's summit February 22nd in Belgium.

Pettigrew did raise the possibility of training forces in a neighbouring country, but pledged that Canada would not place troops inside Iraq.

The opposition had a field day this weekend when word leaked that Canada might yet send troops to Iraq. However, Conservative Defense Critic Gordon O'Connor voiced support for training Iraqis in a neighbouring nation.

A group of twenty Canadians are already stationed in Jordan where they are training Iraqi police in Western law enforcement techniques.

1,449 Americans have been killed in Iraq, while over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have perished in the conflict.

Super Bowl XXXIX

2005-02-06T23:01:00.000-05:00

A truly fantastic game, exciting from beginning to end. Andy Reid deserves to be fired for his terrible coaching though, that was some of the worst time management I've ever seen. Donovan also choked in a big, big way. Deion Branch won the MVP award, undoubtably the biggest accolade of his career. The wideout set a Super Bowl record with eleven receptions, but didn't score a touchdown.

The dynasty is now sealed. This is the Pats' decade.

Tomorrow politics...today, recovery from a day of drinking and football.

Last Man Standing

2005-02-05T11:46:00.000-05:00

While the official vote is still a week away, there won't be any other candidates -- Howard Dean is the new DNC Chairman. Several days ago, Martin Frost dropped out. The following day, Simon Rosenberg threw in the towel. Today, Donnie Fowler, Dean's last foe, officially withdrew from the contest.

"Today it became clear that Howard Dean has the votes to become DNC chairman.

I got in the race because I wanted to see change in the Democratic Party. I know from experience that local people know better and that strong state parties and successful elected officials should teach the rest of the Party their best lessons. I want to see the DNC get back to its real mission: to help each candidate and assist state and county parties to achieve new standards or performance.

With Howard Dean as its next chair of the DNC, the Party will have someone who not only understands change, but knows how to make it happen."

Finally the party can undergo some changes. Finally it will be led by a reform Democrat. Finally they will join the 21st century.

Torie Infighting

2005-02-04T10:27:00.000-05:00

A split appears to be brewing between Conservatives and the Canadian Republican Party. Real Conservatives are sick and tired of religious fanatics taking over their party, and they are getting ready for a fight at next month's policy convention.

Moderate Conservatives complain that they are being frozen out of the party by Stephen Harper. They point to Harper's control over delegate selection, suggesting that Harper is only allowing hard-line Republican North delegates. Socially liberal Conservatives are upset about the wingnut Conservative ideology on same sex marriage and abortion.

It appears as though real Conservatives have a lot to complain about. Delegate selection meetings have recently been dominated by anti-abortion activists who only recently joined the party. A recent delegate selection meeting in Moncton was cancelled because the party didn't have a membership list. It was reconvened later with a list produced by Harper's cronies rather than local executives.

Real Conservatives have been fighting back against their Republican friends and have put forth several measures to be debated at the convention. One, if accepted, would ensure abortion rights. Another would spell out the scenarios in which the party would use the notwithstanding clause -- an effort to block Harper from promoting the use of the clause to block gay marriage.

This fight has been in the making ever since the Republican's takeover of the Conservative party. Members of the party are increasingly concerned that Stephen Harper's right wing social agenda will ruin the party's chances in Central and Eastern Canada. But Stephen Harper is more concerned with promoting his radical agenda than with what's best for the party, the country, or even himself.

God Forsaken Blogspot

2005-02-03T13:24:00.000-05:00

Blogspot decided to delete the coding for my blog again. I didn't have any recent changes backed up, so I've had to go back to an old version of the site that isn't nearly as aesthetically pleasing.

That just about does it for me and blogspot. I've bought a domain and I'll start coding a new site tonight. I'll get it up as fast as I possible can.

Cleaning Up the Homeless

2005-02-03T11:39:00.000-05:00

A day after protestors burst into city hall, Toronto Mayor David Miller managed to pass his Homeless Plan. Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) once again sent protestors to the council, but this time the debate continued, and the measure passed 28-9.

The plan comes with a hefty price tag, $18.4 Million in the first year, and local civil rights activists are concerned that the plan simply won't work.

The plan calls for:

- A ban on sleeping in Nathan Phillips Square and other public spaces.
- Six new outreach workers to provide one-on-one counselling for people on the street.
- An addition of $11.2 Million to a city fund to build 1,000 affordable housing units per year.
- A new homeless shelter to be opened by next year.

The ban on sleeping outside has been the source of much of the outrage. The simple fact of the matter is that the city does not have enough homeless shelters. It seems as though every day there are more homeless people on the streets, and nowhere for them to sleep.

Considering that the affordable housing fund has been in the works for years with no progress and there has been talk for years of opening a new shelter, activists are justifiable concerned about the plan. It's one thing to promise something, it's another to actually follow through on it. Supporters of the homeless are also concerned that the bylaw will open the door to persecution of society's most desperate.

OCAP has also pointed out that the promise of building a new shelter and affordable housing rings hollow given the situation at 590 Jarvis St. The city owns a large six-story building at that address which could easily be used for affordable housing, but the city has chosen to sell the structure to a condo developer instead.

Councillor David Shiner (Ward 24, Willowdale) echoed OCAP's fears:

"We can't even fix the TTC. We can't keep the wheels on the buses. We can't buy subway cars. How are we going to build 10,000 units of housing? We're going broke. So we're giving false promises."

Other councillors pointed out that building new housing is completely unnecessary given that the city's vacancy rate is over 4%. Instead of spending $11.2 Million to build housing for the homeless, the money could simply be used to rent existing vacant apartments.

All in all, if Miller actually follows through on his plan, it holds the potential to be a great success. However, the likelihood of that occurring is minimal. Instead, this is almost certainly yet another in the long string of attacks by the city of Toronto against its homeless.

State of the Union

2005-02-03T01:15:00.000-05:00

Bush delivered his State of the Union address tonight, and as per usual it was full of pompous rhetoric, outright lies and hidden messages to his religious backers. Tonight there was an added twist, purple fingers! Iraqi voters had their index fingers marked with purple ink to prevent fraud, and the President's supporters marked their fingers with purple ink for his speech tonight.

Much more on this tomorrow, but for now just some links to useful information:

Jesus's General had a great spoof before the speech.

Here's the text of the speech.

The Democrats weren't quiet tonight, Senate leader Harry Reid and House leader Nancy Pelosi both made speeches of their own, lashing out at Bush's ridiculous claims.

No Referendum on SSM

2005-02-02T23:48:00.000-05:00

Justice Minister Irwin Colter has said that there will be no referendum on same sex marriage. His pledge comes the same day as a new National Post/Global poll revealed that the majority of Canadians are in favour of a referendum.

The famed right wing newspaper's poll showed that 66% of the public was against gay marriage, and more than two thirds would rather see a plebiscite decide the matter. Colter was quick to reply, saying that if it had come to a referendum to decide whether or not the franchise should be extended to women, they likely would have lost.

There are times when our political leaders must be 'ahead' of the public. If we were to rely solely on opinion polls women never would have been granted the vote, civil rights never would have been granted to blacks, and natives would still be persecuted across the country. This may seem like a contentious issue today, but a century from now our grandchildren will wonder why it took us so long to do the right thing. This is a matter of human rights, of equality, of political correctness, of freedom, of justice, of peace, of conscience.

This is a matter for elected leaders knowledgeable about the law and the constitution to handle -- not uneducated, hate-filled religious zealots.

Martin's Federalism

2005-02-02T20:33:00.000-05:00

Our constitution has long placed Canada in a unique position in the world. Federalism has been the modus operandi of the government and throughout the history of our nation a relative balance of powers has been achieved. Pierre Trudeau mastered the role of balancing Ottawa and the provinces. He won respect across the country for standing up to the provinces, fighting for what was best for the entire nation, for putting his country before his province. Now, the Liberal Party is taking a different path.

Less than a week ago, Paul Martin struck a deal with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia over offshore energy revenues. Initially, the Prime Minister claimed the deal was a great success, exclaiming:

"It is a great day for Canada," Martin said as he announced the deal last night. "There have been hard words spoken. ... There have been very, very difficult negotiations. ...We really all have come through something together."

Four days later, the deal is beginning to look like a catastrophe.

Newfoundland and Nova Scotia undoubtedly won themselves an incredible deal. The two provinces will receive billions of dollars which is in contravention of the equalization program's spirit. Newfoundland receives massive sums of money precisely because they are a poor province. If they stand to make a fortune in oil revenues, why should they continue to receive the same amount of money in equalization payments? As it currently stands, this deal appears to be blatant favouritism for a region the Liberals desperately need to hold. And the other provinces have noticed.

On Monday, Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara insisted his province was entitled to $4.8B of the Federal government's projected $12 Billion surplus. Specifically citing the Offshore Energy deal, Sorbara noted that Ontario contributes $23B more than it receives from the Feds. Ontario is responsible for 40% of the nation's GDP, so they figure the province should get 40% of the surplus. Given the sweet deal Newfoundland got, Sorbara and McGuinty believe Ontario shouldn't be mired in a fiscal catastrophe while Ottawa piles up record surpluses.

Saskatchewan followed suit yesterday, as Premier Lorne Calvert announced that he would press Ottawa for a deal similar to that reached with the Atlantic provinces. Saskatchewan loses approximately 90% of its energy royalties to equalization cutbacks, and has just recently joined the ranks of the 'have' provinces -- largely due to high oil prices. Premier Calvert estimates that the province would have saved $4 Billion over the last decade if they'd had a deal similar to that recently reached with Newfoundland.

The Prime Minister's deal with the Atlantic provinces is rapidly becoming his albatross, as other provinces point to what Martin gave Danny Williams and ask for their share. How will Martin say no to Ontario given the fact that the province is the sole reason he is Prime Minister? How would saying no to Saskatchewan impact the party in the West? How will he continue to run a surplus when every province is holding out their hand waiting for their turn? Is Paul Martin even aware of what he has gotten himself in to?

Saskatchewan Joins Chorus Demanding Special Deal

2005-02-01T16:11:00.000-05:00

The aftermath of the Offshore Energy deal continues. Today, Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert is looking for a similar deal to that recently brokered between the Atlantic Provinces and Ottawa.

For the past year the province has been airing grievances similar to those Danny Williams brought to the public's attention. Saskatchewan loses approximately 90% of provincial royalties on oil in the form of equalization payment cutbacks. Calvert estimates that had Saskatchewan been operating under the same deal as Newfoundland and Nova Scotia recently negotiated they would have taken in an extra $4 Billion.

Saskatchewan becomes the second province to demand a special deal in the aftermath of the Feds Offshore Energy deal.

Frost Drops Out

2005-02-01T15:31:00.000-05:00

Reports indicate that former Texas Congressman Martin Frost has dropped out of the race for DNC Chair. If true, this would all but seal the deal for internet favourite Howard Dean.

Frost's decision came after the AFL-CIO decided against endorsing him in the race. The support of the nation's largest union was, essentially, Frost's last hope and squeaking out a victory.

Dr. Dean, the insurgent candidate for President last fall, was already well ahead in the race, but Frost had hoped that an 'anti-Dean' movement would coalesce around him. Celebrations have already started at major and minor internet blogs alike, most notably DailyKos, where Dean has a particularly strong following. The only other candidates who remain in the race are New Democratic Network founder Simon Rosenberg and party insider Donnie Fowler.

The vote for chair takes place February 12th.

Gomery Pyle

2005-02-01T11:50:00.000-05:00

Warren has been referring to it as the 'Gomery Pyle' inquiry for weeks, but I've held off. Hoping beyond hope that there was some glimmer of fairness and necessity at work. Today, that hope died and was replaced with the realization that this inquiry is the biggest waste of time and money in recent memory.

Justice Gomery has refused to step down following the petition from Jean Chretien's lawyers. The former Prime Minister was concerned about unethical comments made by the judge in December. Gomery even acknowledged that the comments were inappropriate, but insisted they did not disqualify him from serving. Gomery went so far as to blame the comments on his inexperience with the media.

Mr. Gomery has, conveniently, overlooked the fact that he is offering up a ridiculous reason for immoral and unethical behaviour. Those comments suggest that Gomery clearly has already begun to form an opinion in the case. Gomery outright stated that he was beginning to 'reach some conclusions about the program' -- months before the conclusion of testimony. Still, Gomery had the audacity to insist that he was un-biased.

"After giving the matter careful consideration, I am firmly of the opinion that a reasonable, well-informed and fair-minded person understands the difference between committing an error and being biased."

Unfortunately, Mr. Gomery seems to have admitted that the comments were out of line, not the sentiments behind them.

Chretien's lawyers are likely to appeal to the Federal Court and have 30 days to do so. In either case, Chretien will testify before the commission next Tuesday.

This was not the only news on the sponsorship inquiry today. Word leaked out from the office of the Minister of Public Works that the budget for the Gomery Inquiry was jumping from $20 Million to $60 Million -- significantly more than the annual budget of the program it is investigating.

Jean Chretien's Liberal government instituted the program in an effort to stem the tide of Quebec nationalism. Former Minister of Public Works Alfonso Gagliano stands by the program 100%, saying it was critical for national unity.

Stephen Harper's Conservatives are desperate to gain political capital in any way they can. The opposition has been the major driving force behind inquiry, complaining to the media at every opportunity and accusing the Liberals of a coverup. Sadly, Paul Martin has capitulated entirely to his political foes. Rather than stand up and fight for a program which was designed to hold the country together during a period of great divisiveness.

If Martin had stood up to the pressure this program would have become an accepted part of government policy. Instead, the Prime Minister ran from the legacy of his predecessor; creating a firestorm of controversy, hurting the reputation of his party for years to come and damaging national unity.

And now, we're spending $60 Million to destroy the reputation of one of our greatest leaders ever and parading the ills of our nation for all to see. Gomery Pyle...

Big News Day Tomorrow

2005-01-31T18:39:00.000-05:00

Today was a little light on news, but don't expect the same tomorrow. The Liberals will introduce same sex legislation and Justice Gomery will announce whether or not he will remain in charge of the sponsorship inquiry.

Stay tuned, should be interesting.

After Offshore, Ontario Wants Their Piece Too

2005-01-31T14:23:00.000-05:00

The predictable aftermath of the offshore oil flap has begun. Greg Sorbara, Ontario's finance minister, has demanded $4.8 Billion of the 2004-'05 Federal Surplus.

Currently, Ontario contributes $23B more to Ottawa that it gets back. Ontario is the engine of the Canadian economy and, in the view of many residents, it's an engine that doesn't get the respect it deserves. Sorbara has previously complained that he is tired of the Feds racking up huge surpluses on Ontario's back while the province is mired in a fiscal emergency.

"The Canadian fiscal system has got some very serious cracks in it and those cracks must be addressed and must be repaired. The system is very badly skewed ... I think lopsided is a fair description," he said.

The $4.8B figure is based on the fact that Ontario is responsible for 40% of the nation's GDP. Sorbara has argued that they are, therefore, entitled to 40% of the $12B, or $4.8B.

Provincial and Territorial Finance Ministers are meeting in Ottawa today.

In just over a year in office the Prime Minister has all but institutionalized regionalism. His deal with the Atlantic Provinces is only the latest in a stream divisive acts, from the Health Care Summit to failure to adequately handle trade disputes with the US. Paul Martin's offshore energy deal may have ended his flap with Danny Williams, but it will become an albatross over the coming months and years.

Why Gay Marriage is Important

2005-01-30T18:18:00.000-05:00

Parliament returns from their winter vacation this week and the first item on the agenda will be Same Sex Marriage. Initially thought to be a slam dunk, the legislation has become a hot button issue in recent weeks as a coalition of right wing elements have risen to fight for traditional marriage. Led by Stephen Harper, these groups argue that legalizing gay marriage would destroy the moral fabric of society, opening the door to higher divorce rates, pornography and even polygamy. The simple fact is that they are ignoring the underlying issues at the heart of the debate and employ a series of arguments with dangerous implications for the future of our nation.

A recent article in the journal Human Genetics identifies three chromosomes which appear to control sexuality in men. Additionally, zoologists have long been aware of homosexual animals. There are even a pair of gay penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo which have been mates for more than six years. Opponents of same sex marriage have long argued that homosexuality was a lifestyle you "chose", something which increasingly appears to be untrue. If homosexuality is in fact a genetic mutation, and all indications are that it is, then persecuting gays not only opens a dangerous door for the future, but harkens back to a dark period in the history of humanity. Only in the last century did we truly make progress in ending racism and already conservatives have found a new genetic difference upon which to base their persecution.

The conservative mantra also ignores the most important document in Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms could not be more clear on this issue. Section fifteen clearly states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination". Courts across the country have, in recent years, affirmed that section fifteen guarantees homosexuals are constitutionally guaranteed the right to wed.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper has claimed that he is the only tolerant Canadian politician on the issue of gay rights. He insists Prime Minister Martin and others are ignoring the beliefs of the public, putting the minority before the majority. Harper sites an internal Conservative poll which shows Canadians are against gay marriage; unfortunately, this goes against almost every independent poll ever taken on the issue. This past December, an Environics Research Group poll found that 54% of Canadians were in favour of passing same-sex legislation. What exactly was the methodology of his internal poll?

Harper and other right wing leaders have long suggested that the introduction of legalized gay marriage will lead to the destruction of 'traditional' families. They insist that changing the definition of marriage will open the door to legalizing all sorts of 'immoral' behaviours, polygamy in particular. What the right fails to acknowledge is the fundamental difference between polygamy and gay marriage. One is about granting equal rights to all citizens, the other suggests creating new rights for all. The two are polar opposites, yet the right claims they are closely linked. The only reason for doing so is to cloud the fact that their ideology is based on prejudice, discrimination and homophobia.

Conservatives' arguments against gay marriage are based almost entirely on morality. Such individuals are generally very religious, and often site their religious texts as the source of their moral outrage. This raises a simple question: are we a nation based on democracy, reason, law and order or are we a nation of fundamentalist zealots? Canada is supposed to have separation of church and state. In fact, our political leaders frequently speak out against fundamentalist nations, citing their intolerance and abuse of human rights. Do these same rules not apply to us? Is the foundation of our country the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or is it the bible?

The debate over gay marriage is far from over. The Knights of Columbus are in the process of sending out tens thousands of letters, American religious leaders are getting involved, and Stephen Harper is preparing for a valiant last stand in Commons. In these days to come, the opinion of the masses will be of growing import. It is vital for people to remember that the issue here is not what we believe in, but what is legal and what is right for the future. Do we want to have a society based on religion, intolerance and persecution of those who are different, or is our goal an inclusive society based on equality?

Offshore Deal

2005-01-29T10:15:00.000-05:00

Late last night Prime Minister Martin and the Atlantic Premiers reached a deal over the months long offshore energy row. The dispute stems from equalization payments and the new found oil reserves off the Atlantic coast. The energy resources should fall under the control of the Federal Government. The Premiers have been demanding that they not only get all the oil money, but also continue to receive their massive equalization payments.

Last night's deal essentially involved the Prime Minister caving in every regard. Newfoundland.

Here's how it worked before last night's deal: for every dollar Newfoundland and Nova Scotia earned in offshore-oil revenue, they lost a dollar in equalization payments. But then Ottawa sent a cheque a rebate cheque, in effect to give them 30 cents for each of those lost dollars.

Martin's promise was to bump that 30 cents up to one dollar. For Newfoundland that would mean about $134 million for the 2004-05 fiscal year; for Nova Scotia, about $30.5 million.

So, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are going to keep getting paid as if they're a poor province, even after they are making tons of money from offshore oil. The deal runs eight years, and by the end of that time Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are likely to be two of the wealthier provinces in the country.

Paul Martin has caved completely in the face of pressure. Crumpled like a deck of cards under pressure from the Conservatives. Equalization payments serve a purpose - to help provinces in need of financial assistance. They are not tool for political favours and gamesmanship. As a citizen of Ontario, one who's tax dollars will now be going to Newfoundland under the pathetic pretext of 'equalization', I'm livid. And every Canadian should be as well.

It's Official, Campaign Promises Can Be Broken

2005-01-29T02:58:00.000-05:00

Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Rouleau has ruled that politicians can break their campaign promises. In fact, he went a little further and suggested that anyone who believes otherwise is incredibly naive.

The ruling stems from a suit brought to court by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The group is upset with Ontario's new health car premium, which they claim violates Premier McGuinty's promise not to raise taxes without the 'permission' of the electorate. The future premier signed a 'pledge' amidst much fanfare during the chaotic 2003 campaign. The president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was present at that signing ceremony.

Justice Rouleau pointed out that McGuinty is far from the first politician to break a campaign promise and suggested that it is up to the electorate, not the courts, to punish dishonest politicians.

Hopefully this will quiet the Taxpayers Federation for a while. Their banter has grown truly ridiculous is recent months. The Liberals inherited a $5.2 Billion deficit from the Conservatives, the fact that all they have done is introduce a new health care premium is remarkable. Further, the premium is not exactly steep. It only applies to individuals making over $20,000 per year, and the fee ranges from $60 to $900. This is a tiny fee, and when taken in comparison to the actions of other provinces suffering through fiscal difficulties it is obviously minor.

Why exactly the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has decided to make such a big deal about this is beyond me. What exactly they hope to gain is far from obvious. Do they want the Conservatives to return to power? Is John Tory the leader they want? A typical corporate hack who couldn't care less about the poor? Or are they going to back Howard Hampton's NDP, a party that doesn't have a hope of winning in the post-Rae era? Or are the simply having a hissy fit because they were lied to?

One thing, however, is certain -- the most frivolous lawsuit in the history of the province has been thrown out of court. About time.

Martin to Back Gomery

2005-01-29T00:48:00.000-05:00

On Monday, lawyers representing Prime Minister Paul Martin's government will argue in support of Judge Gomery remaining in charge of the sponsorship hearings.

Jean Chretien earlier this week argued that Gomery should be removed from the inquiry because of biased statements made this past December. Opposition leader Stephen Harper had put pressure on Martin to defend the integrity of the inquiry.

However, the news that Martin will defend Gomery comes as new questions are raised about Gomery's choice of chief counsel, Bernard Roy. Alfonso Gagliano's lawyer has recently raised questions about Roy's ties to the Conservative Party. Roy served as principal secretary to Brian Mulroney from 1984-'88.

Sadly, recent events surrounding the players in the inquiry have taken the focus off of the facts of the case. The Liberals paid $250 Million for services which were of questionable worth. That is undisputed. Gagliano claims that the money was well spent, a critical part of keeping the Quebecois happy. Even so, this 'scandal' doesn't even compare to similar problems in other countries. The US has given billions of dollars worth of contracts to Dick Cheney's former company, much of it for work that was never done.

$250 Million for a program which some of its architects strongly support. This policy is being attacked by a party which opposes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is in favour of two-tiered health care and is trying to foster a relationship with the American Republican party.

That makes sense, right? It's not just political gamesmanship, an attempt to bring down their opponents. The Conservatives are above that, right? Right?

Same Sex Marriage Will Pass

2005-01-28T14:44:00.000-05:00

Prime Minister Paul Martin is certain his same sex marriage bill will pass, and dissidents within his own party seem to share the belief.

"I am very confident we will win that vote," Martin said at the end of a three-day caucus retreat in Fredericton a meeting at which the same-sex marriage controversy was a simmering issue under all the displays of upbeat Liberal unity.

Opponents of same-sex marriage within the Liberal caucus are also quietly acknowledging they are resigned to almost inevitable success of the bill to recognize gay and lesbian marriage.

Liberal MP Paul Steckle, one of the dissidents' leaders, acknowledged that the battle was lost, but vowed to continue to fight.

Martin is able to pass the bill in spite of his own dissidents because of aid from the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. While the Conservatives are almost unanimously against same sex marriage, the NDP and Bloc easily make up the difference.

Canada will soon join the legion of nations who have acknowledged civil rights for all -- not just a select group. We will join Denmark, Germany, Holland, and Sweden. We will become members of a community of nations who believe is fairness, equality and justice. We will be civilized. We will be at the forefront of the next great civil rights battle. We will be a beacon of light for our brethren to the South, lost in a sea of despair.

I Am...American?

2005-01-28T09:51:00.000-05:00

Molson Inc. shareholders voted by an overwhelming margin to approve the proposed merger with American brewer Adolph Coors Co.

Class A shareholders approved the deal by 80.2% and Class B shareholders by 84.3%. The new beer giant would have annual sales in excess of $6 Billion US. Coors shareholders will vote on the merger next Tuesday in Colorado.

Molson was founded in 1786 by John Molson, who started the company in Montreal. The company employs over 3,800 people across the country. Molson is one of the longest operating companies in North America and the continent's oldest brand of beer.

So much for the "I Am Canadian" slogan.

And Yet Another Corrupt Journalist

2005-01-28T00:54:00.000-05:00

On the same day that President Bush ordered his Cabinet Secretaries to stop paying journalists to promote his policies, Salon.com uncovered yet another journalist on the government's payroll.

Michael McManus, a syndicated ethics columnist, was paid to endorse Bush's plan to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' by the Department of Health and Human Services.

No Pundit Left Behind!

Remembering Auschwitz

2005-01-27T20:40:00.000-05:00

Sixty years ago today, one of the greatest tragedies in the history of humanity came to a close. On Jan. 27, 1945 Soviet Troops liberated the Auschwitz and the neighbouring Brezinka camp. A million and a half people had perished at the two camps.

Auschwitz survivors from around the world returned to Poland to commemorate the occasion. Political dignitaries from around the world were in attendance, most notably Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland and Moshe Katsav of Israel. German President Horst Koehler was also in attendance, but was silent throughout the ceremony in recognition of his nation's role in the disaster.

Canada was represented by Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson.

Ealier in the day, US VP Dick Cheney commented that the tragedy hadn't happened in some far off place, but rather "in the heart of the civilized world."

Are the Americans the ones who really want to be reminding the world of the fact that so-called 'civilized' nations are capable of evil too? The country which is about to name an Attorney-General who believes in torture and thinks the Geneva Conventions are 'quaint'? A country which went to war and killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis without thought? A country which has repeatedly tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela? A country which sexually abused prisoners at Gitmo?

Thanks Dick, I hadn't realized that civilized countries could go bad.

Global Warming Worse Than Previously Thought

2005-01-27T13:19:00.000-05:00

A new study led by an Oxford University Professor has discovered that the Global Warming problem is twice as bad as previously believed. Researchers from across Britain used computer simulations to discover that under a 'worst case scenario' London would be underwater and the average global temperature would shoot up by 11 degrees Celsius.

The 11C rise is twice the increase predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Such high temperatures would melt most of the polar ice caps and glaciers, increasing sea levels by approximately 20 feet.

David Stainforth of Oxford University, the chief scientist of the latest study, said the results of the study indicate that the planet is more vulnerable to temperature changes than previously believed. Global warming estimates generally envision a time when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice the levels seen before the Industrial Revolution. It is generally believed that the planet will reach those levels some time in the middle of this century.

Mr Stainforth said: "An 11C-warmed world would be a dramatically different world... There would be large areas at higher latitudes that could be up to 20C warmer than today. The UK would be at the high end of these changes. It is possible that even present levels of greenhouse gases maintained for long periods may lead to dangerous climate change... When you start to look at these temperatures, I get very worried indeed."

When studies like this are being released on a monthly basis, the continued resistance of world leaders to take action is preposterous. Conservatives across the world demand more research and question the impact of environmental laws on the economy. Which is more important, jobs or human existence?

"Myles Allen, of Oxford University, said: "The danger zone is not something we're going to reach in the middle of the century; we're in it now." Each of the hottest 15 years on record have been since 1980."

Surgery Shutdown Feb. 11

2005-01-27T11:18:00.000-05:00

Ontario's anesthesiologists will be walking off the job February 11th, according to a report published in The Star this morning.

The doctors are protesting the government's program for shortening wait lists and the snail-like pace in contract negotiations with the government. The walk out will require the cancellation of all elective surgeries at the seventeen targeted hospitals on the 11th.

The 'reason' for the walkout is to allow the doctors to participate in a day long contract negotiations meeting in Toronto.

"This isn't a job action," Dr. Geraint Lewis, chair of the anesthesiologists section of the OMA, said yesterday. "This is a business meeting to discuss business issues."

However, the Star uncovered an email which suggests the complete opposite.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of surgeries across the province will have to be cancelled if the walkout goes through.

Last Minute Deal?

2005-01-27T10:56:00.000-05:00

Three meetings in seven days, the first real talks in almost a year, the first signs of progress since '94. The clock is seconds from midnight, the drop-dead date for any semblance of a season is almost certainly sometime this week, but we just might be able to squeak this one out.

Following up on last week's meetings initiated by NHLPA President Trevor Linden, the two parties met yesterday in Toronto. The owners were represented by Vice-President Bill Daly, Flames owner Harley Hotchkiss, outside counsel Bob Batterman and surprise guest Devils GM and CEO Lou Lamarillo. The players were represented by Linden, PA Senior Director Ted Saskin and outside counsel John McCambridge.

Lamarillo's presence was apparently requested by the players, who view the Devil's head huncho as one of the few executives who actually wants to make a deal.

There were also unconfirmed sightings of Penguins owner Mario Lemieux. The 'Magnificent One' had cancelled his appearance at the Bob Hope Charity Classic Golf tournament, citing a 'meeting' in Toronto.

Specifics from the meeting are sketchy at best, as both sides have imposed a media blackout in the hope that a repeat of last week's debacle can be avoided. The media was told the meeting was taking place at the Sutton Place Hotel but was not allowed inside. However, the meeting actually took place a few blocks away at the Park Hyatt without the media ever catching wind.

Talks are set to resume either today or tomorrow in New York

Bush Confused About Social Security

2005-01-27T10:36:00.000-05:00

According the TalkingPoints, President Bush has been down this road before. Running for Congress in 1978, George W. Bush predicted social security would be bankrupt within a decade. He also claimed the system should give people the opportunity to invest money in the way they feel is best.

The Texas Observer ran a story in 1999 recounting similar tales from the same failed Congressional run.

Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("a misuse of power," he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves.

The President of the United States has been lying for two and a half decades. Social security is not going to go bankrupt, it is, rather, one of the most vital social programs in the US.

He didn't fool the people of Texas twenty-seven years ago, don't let him fool you now. Find out what you can do to save social security.

Seymour Hersh Predicts the Collapse of an Empire

2005-01-27T10:09:00.000-05:00

Famed reporter Seymour Hersh seems to be growing more and more fearful for the future. Hersh recently delivered a speech on the nomination of Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, criticizing the government for it's role in torture from Gitmo to Abu Gharib and Vietnam.

Hersh took direct aim at the neocons, naming nobody in particular, but referring to them in extremely strong language, all but comparing them to fascist dictators:

The amazing thing is we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government. Just how and why and how they did it so efficiently, will have to wait for much later historians and better documentation than we have now, but they managed to overcome the bureaucracy and the Congress, and the press, with the greatest of ease. It does say something about how fragile our Democracy is.

Hersh cited the recent CIA purges as a specific example of the neocons' power. This purge was a topic of great discussion in blogosphere, but was largely ignored in the mainstream media:

What they have done is neutralize the C.I.A. because there were people there inside -- the real goal of what Goss has done was not attack the operational people, but the intelligence people. There were people -- serious senior analysts who disagree with the White House, with Cheney, basically, that's what I mean by White House, and Rumsfeld on a lot of issues, as somebody said, the goal in the last month has been to separate the apostates from the true believers.

Hersh's prediction for the future is rather bleak. The man who uncovered Abu Gharib, has won countless awards and is one of the most respected journalists in the world, is predicting the collapse of the American Empire:

It's going to go very bad, folks. You know, if you have not sold your stocks and bought property in Italy, you better do it quick. And the third thing is Europe -- Europe is not going to tolerate us much longer. The rage there is enormous. I'm talking about our old-fashioned allies. We could see something there, collective action against us. Certainly, nobody -- it's going to be an awful lot of dancing on our graves as the dollar goes bad and everybody stops buying our bonds, our credit -- our -- we're spending $2 billion a day to float the debt, and one of these days, the Japanese and the Russians, everybody is going to start buying oil in Euros instead of dollars. We're going to see enormous panic here. But he could get through that. That will be another year, and the damage he's going to do between then and now is enormous. We're going to have some very bad months ahead.

Even though Hersh is not the greatest orator, it is a phenomenal speech, full of passion and intelligence. Read the transcript, judge for yourself.

Hacking the Vote in Ohio

2005-01-27T10:01:00.000-05:00

The following entry is taken directly from a Kos diary entry by Jamboi. The second part is from an email, it contains numerous spelling errors but is left in it's original form.

The following story was mistakenly posted to a recount mailing list Sunday Jan 9th 2005. The poster did not intend to release it to the mailing list but was working on two e-mails simultaneously and switched the title and destination. So instead of sending it to an MSM outlet with the hopes they might cover it (don't hold your breath) it was sent to the list. Perhaps a fortunate mistake.
I saw the subject line and wondered what it was about (since the subject was so irrelevant to the e-mail list). I doubt many others looked at it due to the odd title. Upon opening I immediately recognized its significance and posted it here and my http://jamboi.mydd.com blog. I was contacted by "Bozos for Bush"/"Bozos Rnot4 Bush" and together we verified the story and passed it to Larisa Alexandrovna at RawStory. Larisa investigated it and took it several layers deeper. The result is the subject of my other DK diary today, today's breaking RawStory about Ohio Election Fraud.

Larisa instructed me to delete the DK and myDD entries to protect the witness. Now that the story has broken, here it is again...

"I Know the vote was hacked..." Ohio Recounter

Based upon my observations as an Ohio recount witness for John Kerry in Clermont County, Ohio I do not accept the validity of the electoral votes from Ohio. Clermont County used a ballot system where voters blackened circles next to the candidate they selected. The ballots were then scanned by a machine to determine the vote tallies for all races.
I know the vote was hacked, since I witnessed the following problems during the recount:

1.) Board of Elections (BOE) selected there own 3% hand count sample, not conforming to any scientifically valid sampling procedure. The hand count sample deviated from the official machine count. The BOE attempted to offset differences in overvotes and undervotes from 1 precinct to another, but it still would not balance. Although Ohio state law requires a 100% hand recount if machine and hand counts do not match, the director of the BOE refused us a 100% recount and deemed any difference immaterial.

2.) Unique oval-shaped white stickers were placed over the circles next to candidate Kerry's name and the circles next to Bush's name were blackened. The BOE staff and officials all denied any knowledge of how the stickers came to adhere to the ballots, although they were identical to stickers used to identify switches and knobs located on the ballot scanning machines at the board of elections. When the ballots were scanned the machine registered a vote for Bush. The effect of the stickers was to change an overvote to a vote for Bush, or a vote for Kerry into a vote for Bush depending on whether the voter or an official blackened the circle for Bush. When this anomaly was discovered by the witnesses the BOE insisted on counting the ballot for Bush.

3.) I discovered non-security keys for ballot boxes lying around the BOE scanning rooms. I repeat, the keys were just lying around. At one point, Director Bare came in asking if anyone had a key for the ballot boxes. In another instance a worker announced she found her key. The locks for the ballot boxes were Master 1.5 inch key locks. All ballot boxes were identically keyed. The keys resembled a mailbox key, and they were not security keys, nor were they labeled "do not duplicate." Any BOE employee, county employee or witness for any one of 4 political parties could have taken a key and made a copy at anytime. Also, another Kerry witness stated ballot boxes were not in compliance Ohio state code.

4.) I observed a ballot box with 678 ballots in a precinct, Union Township E, with 1190 votes for president. The BOE Director explained this anomaly as resulting because a different ballot box had 522 ballots for a 3 column zoning referendum. Yes, the number of ballot box pages balanced, but that still did not account for 1190 votes for president. When I queried the BOE employees, Director Bare screamed at me for continuing to ask questions about a precinct with ballot pages equaling number of votes for president. Director Bare refused to acknowledge this anomaly and threatened to remove me from the BOE premises if I mentioned the subject again. Since, I was the only Kerry witness present that day, I stopped for fear of leaving Kerry without a witness.

5.) Ralph Nadar's Name appeared on the ballot, although Ralph Nadar was not running for president in the state of Ohio. Director Bare explained this anomaly because he was told by the printing company he had insufficient time to reprint the ballot. Bare later said he was concerned that the county "would have no ballots for the election. We thought that leaving Nader's name on the ballot was less of a problem." A worker at the Board of Elections told us that Clermont County was "first in line at the printing company, and Dan didn't want to lose that place in line."

(Witness' name removed)

While these claims by no means indicate there was any 'hacking' of the vote, they only add to the mountain of evidence which indicates there is a critical need for an in depth examination into the 2004 vote and all future votes in the US. Unfortunately, such a study would be impossible without a Democratic Congress and, should accusations of a 'hacked vote' be accurate, we will likely never see one again.

Record US Budget Deficit

2005-01-26T14:30:00.000-05:00

The White House projects this year's buget deficit will reach a record $427 Billion. This comes on the heels of news that the Chinese now own a third of the current account deficit.

That's good for the US economy, right?

Gomery Update

2005-01-26T13:38:00.000-05:00

Last night saw a flurry of activity with the Gomer Inquiry. Former Prime Minister Chretien filed a motion to have Mr Gomery recuse himself from the trial, citing 'biased' comments made by the veteran judge. In response, opposition leader Stephen Harper implied Prime Minister Martin was behind the moved and warned Mr. Martin not to interfere in the case. Mr. Martin then replied by saying he could not comment on his predessesor's legal challenge.

For once in his political career, it appears as though Mr. Harper is acting in a reasonable fashion. The Canadian public has lost an incredible amount of faith in their politicians. Not only the Liberals -- although they are the cause of it -- but politicians from all parties and all walks of life. Judy Sgro's strippergate and pizzagate, the sponsorship scandal and now the gay marriage farce have all damaged the long held view of our politicians being above the fray.

If they are to ever win back our trust and our faith, they must not be allowed to sweep past transgressions under the table. Rather, they must come forth in all honesty and admit their faults and promise to do better in the future. Jean Chretien was a phenomenal Prime Minister, regardless of his role in the Sponsorship Scandal. He kept this country out of Iraq, defeated the seperatists, defeated right-wing extremists, presided over a strong economy, and built a solid global image for our nation. Even heroes must be allowed some flaws, and if Mr. Chretien's government squandered $200 Million I can forgive him for it -- and I am sure the rest of the Canadian public can as well. What we cannot, and will not, forgive if an aura deceit and obfuscation from our leaders.

Another Journalist on the White House Payroll

2005-01-26T01:48:00.000-05:00

I appears as though yet another journalist was on the White House Payroll. Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher was paid $21,500 by the Department of Health and Human Service to promote Bush's tax cuts. The Washington Post will run a story on it in their morning edition.

What happened to freedom of the press? Given the press's involvement in the lead-up to the Iraq War, the help in getting Bush re-elected and their pathetic coverage of his regime, how can we not think that dozens of other reporters were on the payroll? How can we ever trust anything they tell us again?

Blogs are the only source of truth left to the public. If only they knew it...

No on Gonzales

2005-01-25T23:24:00.000-05:00

Today, I am joining the call initiated by Kos, joining the chorus of bloggers from across the world voicing their dismay at Bush's selection of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General is supposed to defend the US Constitution, to ensure it is protected against all assaults. Mr. Gonzales has spent a lifetime attacking that document, and during the last few years has extended his attack to international agreements as well. Mr. Gonzales referred to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint", he has suggested that the President is not bound by the Constitution and drafted a document which all but condoned torture.

This is not a man who will protect the Constitution, this is a man who will attempt to destroy it. The United States was once the pride of the Western World, the birthplace of freedom, a beacn of hope for people all over the world. John Ashcroft has done enough damage to that image, do not let Alberto Gonzales finish the job.

Liberal Dissidents

2005-01-25T19:39:00.000-05:00

Next week's vote on the gay marriage issue will be an open vote, only cabinet ministers will be required to tow the party line. Today, Liberal dissidents launched a last ditch effort to ensure gays are deprieved of the civil liberties. They held a closed door meeting with the Liberal caucus, desperately trying to convince their colleagues to join with them in their homophobic protest vote.

Ontario MP Paul Steckle even had the audacity to claim that the bill would be defeated if Cabinet members were not required to vote with the party. A gay rights website which has been following the vote claims that there are currently 153 in favour of the bill, 134 against and 20 undecided.

The people need to speak out, to let the Liberals know we will not tolerate hate, racism, homophobia, intolerance, un-justified war or the militarization of space. Go to the Liberal convention in March and reclaim our party.

Harper Claims He is Tolerant

2005-01-25T19:24:00.000-05:00

Apparently Stephen Harper thinks Canadians are stupid. Shortly after beginning an ad campaign attacking the Liberals for supporting gay marriage, the Conservative leader is claiming he is Canada's most tolerant leader on gay rights. In an interview with the National Post, Harper also dismissed concerns from anti-racism groups and those within his own party whom are concerned the move could alienate voters.

Mr. Harper claims he is the only political leader taking into consideration how other minority groups feel about gay marriage. Such a pathetic attempt to gain the moral high ground cannot be tolerated by the Canadian government, nor by the media and the people. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is quite clear on this matter. That document is the basis of our nation, not the bible, not the torrah, not the koran. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Former leadership candidates Peter McKay and Belinda Stronach have spoken openly against the ads, claiming they would not have run them. However, Mr. Harper and his supporters claim that the move is a win-win situation which divides the Liberal caucus. Harper's detractors within the party are concerned the Conservatives may see a repeat of the '04 election flop. On the cusp of victory, the party crumbled in the face of Liberal ads which painted them as extremist. Given that the courts of the nation have already ruled on the matter, the party certainly seems vulnerable to such criticism.

It is time to call the Conservatives what they are: liars, extremists, homophobes, Republicans.

Martin Willing to Go to the Polls Over Gay Marriage

2005-01-24T14:50:00.000-05:00

Paul Martin is going to stand up for fairness, for equality, for dignity and for human rights. Speaking during his Asian Economic tour, Prime Minister Martin stated his willingness to call a new election and let the people decide whether or not Canada should legalize gay marriage.

"If you're are asking me am I ready to go into an election to uphold the Charter of Rights against those who would attack it? The answer is certainly yes," Martin said Friday.

In recent weeks, Opposition leader Stephen Harper has been on a religious crusade, airing commercials and speaking out against gay marriage. Harper has purposefully ignored the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Supreme Court rulings and the fact that half the provinces have already legalized gay marriage. Instead, he speaks of family values, tradition and the erosion of decency. Despite this thinly veiled rhetoric, the simple fact of the matter is that all the obfuscation in the world Mr. Harper cannot hide the fact that he is arguing against the enforcement of Canadian law.

This is not Texas, nor is it Kansas, Kentucky or any other bible belt state. Nor are we a fundamentalist nation of zealots. Canada is a socially progressive nation, a fact its citizens are proud of. Mr. Harper is trying to change that, trying to ally our great nation with the American south. Trying to replace the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the Book of Leviticus.

He must be stopped and, for once, Mr. Martin is on the right side of a critical battle.