Make It Stop

I honestly can't believe it. Months ago, I predicted that the government would soon drop the "NEW" tag, primarily because it was starting to solicite a negative reaction in the press. Guess what, the Conservatives don't seem to care, according to the press releases:

July 9- "Canada's new government launches world's first Air Quality Health Index Program"

July 9- "Canada's New Government Announces Development of Memorandum of Understanding with Province of Alberta on Temporary Foreign Workers"

July 9- "Canada's New Government Announces Funding for the Memramcook Veterans Park"

July 9- "Canada's New Government and Provincial Governments Partner to Improve Nursing Care"

July 7- "Government of Canada: Canada's New Government Invests Over $2.8 Million in the Fight Against the Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle"

July 5- "Canada's New Government Announces $3M for New Pilot Program to Support Communities Targeted by Hate-Motivated Crime"

and on, and on, and on......

The term has become a joke, Jeffery Simpson with the typical reaction to the illogical ridiculousness:

Eighteen months after the election, the Harper communications machine keeps calling the team, "Canada's New Government."

It's so silly, this title, as to be almost a parody.

Why would you continue to use a term that is now openly mocked with ease? I know the psychological motivations, the attempt to appear fresh and different, but anyway I slice it, it seems that the term is now a net negative. Aren't the Conservatives listening, or are they demonstrating their political tin ear? I don't get it, but really I just want it to stop. It literally grates me.

New:

- not of long duration; having just (or relatively recently) come into being or been made or acquired or discovered

-recently: very recently

-having but lately come to a place, position, status

-having been in a relationship or condition but a short time

-having recently come into existence

The only one I can find that comes close:

-unfamiliar or strange

We're Number One!

Canada maybe lagging of late, when it comes to productivity and certain quality of life indicators, but when it comes to the reefer, Canada is the dude:

Canadians use marijuana at four times the world average, making Canada the leader of the industrialized world in cannabis consumption, a recent United Nations report found.

The 2007 World Drug Report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime says that 16.8 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 64 smoked marijuana or used another cannabis product in 2006. The world average is 3.8 per cent.

In light of this information, the failure to decriminalize marijuana looks all the more ridiculous. Canadian arrests for possession are skyrocketing:

The number of people arrested for smoking pot rose dramatically in several Canadian cities last year after the Conservatives took office and killed a bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

The spike in arrests for simple possession of cannabis appears in data compiled by The Canadian Press from municipal police forces through interviews and Access to Information Act requests.

National statistics will be released next week, but preliminary figures suggest the number of arrests jumped by more than one-third in several Canadian cities.

Clearly, the war on marijuana has been a rousing success.

Dion Calls Out Harper

Dion released a letter, urging the government to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Of the 47 member nations on the UN's human rights council, Canada and Russia are the only countries to oppose the declaration.

Dion said Canada has never attacked an international document on the protection of human rights. Canadians want their country to be perceived globally as a defender of human rights, he added.

Canada's position marks a significant shift from the country's traditional stance on the issue. It has helped promote and elaborate on the declaration for 20 years.

The Conservative response, blame the Liberals:

Prentice's spokeswoman said Sunday the Liberals are the only party changing their position on the declaration.

"No previous Canadian government has ever supported the document in its current form, and if the Liberals felt so strongly about it, they had 13 years to sign it," Deirdra McCracken wrote in an e-mail.

Nevermind, by all accounts, the fact the previous Liberal governments were "instrumental" in bringing together a consensus, that ultimately lead to the final draft the Tories rejected.

What non-partisans are saying:

Amnesty International Canada

"Canada had played a key role in the successful conclusion of the negotiation process, helping find common ground between Indigenous peoples and the vast majority of participating states. But Canada reversed its position after the election of the minority Conservative government.

Not only did Canada oppose the Declaration at the Human Rights Council, Canada has also called for the rewriting of at least a dozen articles, including articles Canadian officials helped draft. More recently, Canada has endorsed a proposal by a group of African states calling for the rewriting of 36 out of 47 articles of the Declaration"

Grand Council Of The Crees

"Canada has played a key role in developing and building state support for the proposed text that will come before the Human Rights Council, but the current Harper government has not publicly stated that Canada's support for the Declaration will continue."


The Métis National Council

"Under the Liberal government, Canada had been a champion of theDeclaration until the last June, when the minority government in a stunning reversal of international human rights policy and diplomacy voted with Russia against the Declaration in the Human Rights Council."

I would appear, those in the know, namely indigenious peoples, don't see it the same way as the Conservative government. Another dodge and weave, with no factual foundation. Quite the trend developing, none of it flattering and/or "accountable". Canada is back alright, backwards.

Partisan Environmentalists?

Jennifer Ditchburn's has written an article, which attempts to give credence to the Conservative Party criticisms that supposed neutral environmentalists are partisans, who favor the Liberal Party. Allow me to poke holes in the flimsy evidence presented, because it bothers me that the Conservatives feeble attempt to distract from their own failings gets a measure of credibility in this article.

Which political party made a concerted effort, since day one, to shut environmental groups out of the government thought process? A careful reading of the history to this point shows a consistent pattern of snubs, a lack of consultation, attempts to eliminate environmentalists from international delegations, pretty much complete disdain and acrimony. The reason, the last thing in the world the environmentally bereft Conservative Party needed was a bunch of expert opinion shaping their bandaid policies. Any political party that would release the original Clean Air Act as credible and substantive, clearly couldn't engage people in the know, for fear of laughter. The Conservatives failed to engage the environmental groups because they didn't take the problem seriously, up until opinion polls and bad coverage demanded a partial revision. If there was an initial disconnect between the federal Conservatives and the environmental groups, the fault clearly lies with the hostile attitude of the government.

The Conservative complaint, the Liberals had the audacity to consult with experts in crafting their plan. Pardon me, but I expect my government to seek the advice of those in the know:

The grievances between the Conservatives in particular and some in the environmental movement broke out into the open a month ago during an appearance Environment Minister John Baird made at a Commons committee. He suggested Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, had helped write the Liberal environmental plan called the Carbon Budget.

"I do know the Pembina Institute is a very well-respected group with a lot of very smart people," he said as he defended the government's plan for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

"I also know that they helped write the Liberal plan. They're naturally going to defer to the plan they helped author."

Bramley with the obvious response, simple dodge and weave:

"We released an in-depth careful analysis of the government's most recent proposals on greenhouse gases at the end of May, and the only response we've had from Minister Baird is an apparent attempt to attack our reputation instead of dealing with the substantive issues we raised," Bramley said.

Funny, I don't see Baird making the same accusations, as it related to the devastating conclusions of the supposedly friendly CD Howe Institute.

The article reveals this tidbit, as supposed proof of bias:

But a Liberal insider who spoke on condition of anonymity said Bramley was intimately involved the Carbon Budget, and even helped draft questions for Liberal MPs to ask of various witnesses during committee hearings.

"Nothing went into the plan without Matthew Bramley's prior approval," said the Liberal.

You have a plan that environmentalists unanimously agree is flawed, and then the fact that the opposition solicits advice somehow translates into partisanship? I would like to ask NDP MP Nathan Cullen if he had any consultations with environmentalists about potential flaws in Baird's plan. I guarantee the answer is yes, unless of course Cullen is incompetent and doesn't do his homework. Political parties constantly seek the advice of expert opinion, on a hole host of matters, particular ones that are as complex as GHG's. The Tories completely shun Bramley, then are surprised when he seeks influence elsewhere. NOTHING to see here.

The article also takes a shot at Louise Comeau of the Sage Centre and Climate for Change. The hilarious part, the criticism of partisanship begins with:

She also provided advice, while at a previous job at the Sierra Club of Canada, to the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.

The article criticizes Comeau for helping craft the Liberal's 2005 plan:

Comeau acknowledges she was consulted on the Liberal Kyoto plan called Project Green in 2005, but insists she was not involved in the actual writing of the document. One former government official saw it differently, saying Comeau was deeply involved in the formulation of the Liberal plan. Comeau also commented on the plan in the media as an environmentalist.

Again, what a travesty, using one of the most seasoned people to formulate policy. I am mortified!

And:

But author Jamie Heath, a former chief of staff to Layton and formerly with Greenpeace, says Comeau and others are far more critical of the Conservatives than they were of the Liberals - even though the Liberals were unable to meet the commitments of the Kyoto Protocol themselves.

"People like ... Louise Comeau need to be intellectually honest in that you can't validate extraordinarily backwards policy from the Liberals, and then the moment a Conservative party comes into office demand that Kyoto targets be met come hell or high water," said Heath.

You have two approaches. One engages the expert opinion, which makes them feel like they have a voice in the process. The other alienates the experts, essentially stifles opinion and treats them as outsiders. Partisanship aside, which of the two would lead experts to be more or less sympathetic? If you feel you can influence, you are probably less apt to be critical, whereas hostility is met with hostility. Human nature doesn't translate to conspiracy.

The article, thankfully, ends with this from Steven Guilbeault

"This is an attempt by the Conservative government to shut down criticism of their policies by trying to intimidate and discredit people who voice their disapproval of their policies," said Guilbeault.

"They are trying to send a chill through the environmental community. The fact of the matter is their climate change policies deserve to be roundly criticized and that is why the Canadian environmental community has been unified in their condemnation."

I don't worry about "cozy" relationships with politicians, especially given the current climate of us vs them. I want environmentalists engaged in the process, and I see any appearance of partisan preference as a testament to Conservative hostility. Can we not ask the same questions of industry, which by all accounts clearly have the government's ear? What I find really troubling, the Conservatives puke out this nonsense, and reporters find it necessary to cobble together mostly nothingness to lend credibility.

UPDATE

Not surprising, the Conservative apologists find misguided vindication.

What Happened To "We Will Do So Alone"?

Stephen Harper consistently tells Canadians that his government policies are based on conviction, with little interest or influence through polling. I remember one interview, wherein Harper was asked about polls that showed the government sagging and Harper said he didn't pay attention to polls. Harper then added, that not all the polls showed the Tories fading, there was one that still showed a wide gap. The fact that Harper was able to rifle off a sympathetic polling result, within the confines of arguing polls don't matter, was quite telling. In other words, Stephen Harper does pay close attention to polls, in fact policy is often times shaped by public sentiment.

Remember this quote, when a slight majority still supported the Afghanistan mission:

"If we need further efforts or a further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will do so alone and we will go to the Canadian people to get that mandate," Harper said in May 2006, following the vote.

Harper posited the Afghanistan mission as a moral necessity, that he was willing to stake his political fortunes on. This type of strong rhetoric remained into 2007, there was never a hint of "consensus", in fact others were chastized and Harper seemed to be positioning himself as the only Afghanistan defender. The pro-war vote was more than enough to justify a hardline position, in fact isolating the rest as doves, left a considerable base of support for the loner Conservative view.

Fast forward to today, and we see the same pattern with Harper that we saw with Iraq. A review of the various Harper quotes, over the years, as it related to the Iraq war, show a distinct co-relation between public opinion and position. A moral war-hawk, to hesitation, to distancing, to outright rejection, all follow the downward curve in support in a way that is striking. I'm not suggesting Harper will ultimately abandon the mission, but his recent "softening" is clearly politically motivated.

The directive from the PMO is circulating, with all the surrogates now singing from the same playbook:

Calgary Southeast MP Jason Kenney said Saturday the Conservative government has not made a decision on whether it wants to extend the mission.

"We need the support of Parliament if we were to seek to extend the mission and the government hasn't decided whether or not it wants to do that yet," Kenney said Saturday.

"This current mission will terminate in February 2009, and whether there's an extension depends on whether there's parliamentary consensus."

But Indian Affairs Minister and Calgary MP Jim Prentice, who hosted his own breakfast, echoed Kenney's comments that opposition parties deserve a say in whether to extend the increasingly deadly mission.

"We respect the House of Commons and the other parties will have a point of view on this," Prentice said.

We respect the House of Commons, okay sure. I guess we can expect the Conservatives to re-introduce the revised Clean Air Act then? Wonderful.

Last year we "go it alone", now we need to join hands with others to justify. It's normal to see some pragmatism within a fluid situation like Afghanistan, and one could praise the lack of rigidity. However, given all the pius, morally superior rhetoric, this new position is decidedly unattractive. In trying to deflect responsibility, Harper has shown all his previous pontifications to be empty words, with a finger in the political wind. If Stephen Harper truly believes in the mission, fundamentally and absolutely, as his past speeches imply, then there is no reason to soften. Take it to the people, like you bragged when the Conservatives were high in the polls and support for the mission was relatively firm. Aren't the Conservatives now undercutting the mission by creating this future uncertainty, emboldening the Taliban? Such is life when opinion trumps supposed principle.

Ouch

Jeffery Simpson's latest column offers a scathing critique of Harper and his governing style:

Mr. Harper has a style, and he's sticking to it - the most controlling, stifling, rigid style of any prime minister in memory. He's got a formula, and he's also sticking to it - short speeches, no spontaneity, tight scripts, rehearsed political choreography, utter discipline within the ranks, media kept at a distance. It's all about Him.

But at least by degree, and arguably by much more than by degree, this is the most centralized, controlling, scripted government Canadians have seen in their lifetimes.

Torture in the Harper government must be the life of a backbencher. Remember when the Conservatives, and Reformers and Canadian Alliance before them, used to taunt Liberal backbenchers for being "yes men" and "trained seals"? Today, the Conservative backbenchers have been rendered utterly mute, except as political chorus boys and girls.

Only slightly less frustrating must be the life of ministers, except they get cars and higher salaries. Absolutely nothing goes on of importance in this government without the Prime Minister authorizing it. Ministers have absolutely zero leeway. Their staffs live in dread of the Prime Minister's Office, lest some little slip divert attention from The Message.

Months ago, I quoted a Conservative source, who said that Stephen Harper's political mentor was Joseph Stalin. Harper was fascinated with the Russian dictator, had read all the historical literature. Quite a unique circumstance to have the leader of a democratic nation, who rose to power through a supposed egalitarian movement, seemingly curious about a ruthless dictator.

In absolute terms, the comparison is pure folly, for obvious reasons. However, when you read pieces like Simpson's, as well as your own observations on style, you see a picture that does lend itself to the notion of a authoritarion, egocentric, decidedly paranoid rule. Surrogates are off balance, fearful of the hierarchy, told what to say, verbatum. Ministers are mere puppets, getting clear directives from a central source. Harper's shadow dominates every announcement, policy and directive. No sense of free exchange with the media, carefully crafted propaganda. Prime Minister or Only Minister?

Damage Control Federalism

It is almost comical, watching the federal government throwing money at disgruntled provinces. Conservative MP Loyala Hearn of Newfoundland, aka Santa Claus:

Newfoundland and Labrador's federal cabinet minister denies rock-bottom polling results are related to a blitz of spending announcements he has made across the province this week.

Loyola Hearn made announcements on 44 separate projects over the last three days, in a marathon of proclamations and news releases that involved everything from waterworks to heritage festivals to tourism chalets.

At almost $32 million in federal funding over three days, Hearn's work breaks down to about $44,000 per hour. His office issued three dozen media advisories as he toured through Stephenville, Corner Brook, Harbour Breton, Conne River, St. Alban's, Gander and Glovertown.

To be fair, many of the announcements aren't new expenditures, but it is equally true to say the spending blitz is pure damage control. Methinks Mr. Hearn will still receive a lump of coal from voters next election :)

Meaningless?

There is great deal of cynicism surrounding the Live Earth event, slated to begin tonight on CTV. Bob Geldof for perspective:

Live Aid and Live 8 founder Bob Geldof has denounced Live Earth as simply "an enormous pop concert" without concrete pledges from politicians to take action on environmental issues.

Bob Geldof, the man behind Live Aid and Live 8, joined the Live Earth detractors, saying the world was already aware of the dangers of global warming and the event lacked a "final goal."

With all due respect to the detractors, I'm not sure anyone has claimed a "pop concert" will magically solve the problem. In my mind, you can never have enough exposure. The 7000 planned events worldwide, not to mention a potential 2 billion person audience, are significant numbers.

I love how "plugged in" intellectuals and the punditry assume that the average person around the world is already engaged on the issue. In a primary way, probably yes, but I don't think we are at the point of saturation where there is no educational component and/or motivational element to influence. One example comes to mind that I saw recently, a series of "man on the street" interviews with Beijing residents, where the term "global warming" was generally alien. How can exposure hurt?

If we don't attach all these grand goals to a simple concert series, then the true benefits are easier to see. The controversy falls into the "any publicity is good publicity" category, because it stirs debate, keeping the issue on the frontpage. It also provides a sense of hope, an opportunity to change a mind or two, learn a tidbit here and there. See it for what it is, it all looks good from here.

Already Lost

You often hear references to the "lessons of Vietnam", chief among them the idea that military objectives can't be successful if infested by political consideration. Commanders must be able to make decisions from a purely tactical perspective, without interference from the civilian authority. Reading this Reuter's article on NATO's over-reliance on air strikes, I was struck by this consideration:

An aversion in NATO capitals to allied casualties, plus all-too-frequent shortages of ground troops, have forced commanders to turn to the sky in efforts to beat insurgents still going strong six years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Even if further troops were available -- and there are no signs that any of NATO's 26 members or partner nations are in the mood to stump up more -- some analysts sense a preference for air power over riskier deployments of ground troops.

"Countries such as Canada are already under pressure to reduce troops," said Matthew Clements, Eurasia editor at Jane's Country Risk report. "They don't want more casualties."

I remember a couple years ago, when an American reporter visited Iraq for the first time. The reporter drove from Basra to Baghdad and his main observation was the lack of visible American presence. This visit coincided with the period, wherein American public opinion was decidedly turning against the war. There was the sense that the troops were largely confined to their bases, because public opinion would no longer tolerate high casualties. In retrospect, this hesitation might well be remembered as the time when the war was ultimately lost.

Last fall, there was a particularly deadly incident, where Canadian troops were ambushed during an offensive. The fighting was fierce, close and "primitive". I remember during the next offensive, one of the Canadian commanders commented on having learned a lesson, and there would be a greater emphasis on clearing and securing an area before troops were sent in, on masse. It was also at this time that the military brought over the tanks and other heavy artillery. I took that change in philosophy to be as much a political consideration as it was a military one.

Coalition countries will not except heavy casualties, and as a result air strikes, long range artillery, are the preferred tactic in an effort to avoid direct combat wherever possible. You could make the argument that an overall lack of troops makes the reliance on air power a certainty, but you could equally counter that the lack of troops is a result of political failure- not enough governments willing to put their political careers on the line over defeating the Taliban.

When you see what is happening in Afghanistan, I wonder if the "lessons of Vietnam" aren't repeating themselves, as the military moves in concert with what is considered acceptable back home. I don't see how that reality can translate to a "winning strategy".

He Said/She Said

There goes one more commonly held myth:

The gift of gab is spread equally among both sexes, according to a new study that rebutts the long-held belief that women talk significantly more than men.

Strapping small digital recorders to some 396 university students - split about equally by gender - U.S. researchers found that their subject women spoke an average16,215 words a day, compared to 15,699 for the men.

The difference between those two numbers, reported today in the journal Science, is considered statistically insignificant.

I'll have much, much more to say about this later.

I've Shot Myself In The Foot, Again

Put this development in the DUH column:

Canada's 12 Halifax-class frigates will undergo a $3.1 billion, mid-life refit starting in 2010, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Thursday.
Flanked by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Harper said the announcement was part of his government's commitment to strengthen the Canadian Forces.

Premier Rodney MacDonald wasn't invited to the event. The two leaders are still feuding over changes to the federal equalization program.

Harper said premiers are always informed when he heads to their provinces but in this case he was in Nova Scotia to make a "federal announcement." "We don't typically have other levels of government at a federal-only announcement," he said.

"At the same time, I think it's important that federal and provincial governments get along. Federal and provincial governments will disagree, but I do think the public expects that at some point, whether you disagree or not, you get on with business of the people and that's what we're doing."

Reading the article, the announcement itself is an afterthought, with full focus on the snub. You know you’re good, when you throw money around at a feel good event and still come off smelling like a skunk. Maybe the Prime Minister should direct Minister Flaherty to pen a letter for clarification ;) Off to Saskatchewan, for more favorable coverage.

What Is Wrong With These People? Part II

Well, at least Harper is consistent, in demonstrating his utter lack of political skill. He snubbed MacDonald of Nova Scotia, and the pattern continues with Calvert of Saskatchewan:

"I am surprised to learn of his visit via The Globe and Mail," the Premier said of the Prime Minister in a telephone interview Wednesday. "I am not even sure what the announcement is - if it is something new or a reannouncement of monies in the federal budget. All I can gather is that it has some relationship to biofuels."
Industry sources said Mr. Harper's Saskatchewan stop will highlight his government's budget commitment to provide $1.5-billion over seven years in incentives to producers of renewable alternatives to gasoline such as ethanol, and renewable alternatives to diesel such as biodiesel.
But Mr. Calvert accused the federal Conservatives of using this type of funding as a dodge on the equalization issue. And "one would have liked a certain sense of prior knowledge of the Prime Minister's visit," he said. "It doesn't help relationships when we're surprised."

“It doesn’t help relationships” and it also completely distracts from the intention. Harper’s visits are public relations exercises, meant to curry favor, but it looks like the political tin ear will result in further acrimony. Amazing to see the failure to recognize simple optics. The political "mastermind" could use a refresher.

Operation Raw Deal

The latest Canadian deaths in Afghanistan bring our fatality total to 66, second only to the Americans:

Military Fatalities By Country:

Australia 1
Canada 66
Czech 1
Denmark 4
Estonia 2
Finland 1
France 9
Germany 21
Italy 9
Netherlands 8
Norway 1
Portugal 1
Romania 4
South Korea 1
Spain 21
Sweden 2
UK 63
US 408
Total 623

The British currently have around 5800 combat troops, the Americans 20000, Canada 2300. No matter how you do the math, even amongst the heavily engaged nations, Canadian soldiers are clearly suffering disporportionate casualties. This year alone, Canada has absorbed half the death total of the Americans, despite 1/10 of the deployment.

Even the hawks, like MacKenzie acknowledge a problem:

Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie said that casualties must be accepted if Canada believes in the importance of the Afghanistan mission.


But he added that unless NATO offers Canada more support in southern Afghanistan, the chaotic region where Canadian troops have endured much of the fighting, then the mission should not be extended.


"If NATO doesn't get off its butt and countries that aren't participating don't start showing up in numbers, and start increasing the number of troops in the south ... then I won't be at the head of the line in 2009 saying we should stay"

If Afghanistan has a ground zero, Canadian troops reside there, moreso than any other nation, including the "willing". What appears strange, despite some pointed rhetoric, Canadian officials seem to accept our fate with some resignation. NATO is a complete joke, with no sense of proportional accountability. Is it not time for Canada to raise the temperature, quit acting like the good citizen and demand more, or threaten to change our role unilaterally? We demand fairness, equality at home, why do we accept less away?

What Is Wrong With These People?

Amateur hour, within the PMO, is on full display again, as the feds fail on the most basic of common courtesies. Why agitate further, alienate with unilateral decisions and act like a sulky, vindictive adolescent:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has scheduled a good news trip to Halifax -- likely to re-announce funding for the military .

Harper was off to a rough start even before arriving in the port city after he apparently snubbed Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald, who said he knew nothing about the visit less than 24 hours before it was due to occur.

"If it's good news for my province, I'd be very disappointed not to know what that news is,'' a bewildered MacDonald told reporters in Bridgewater, N.S., during a spending announcement at the local Michelin tire plant.

"If it's good news for Nova Scotia, I'm quite surprised that I would not be aware.''

Federal/Provincial relations are complex, demanding co-ordination on a wide range of issues. The fact that we have a major dispute over equalization shouldn't spill over to other areas, wherein Harper and company simply ignore the provincial government and effectively snub. You inform MacDonald of the looming announcement, you just do, period. As a matter of fact, if you are at all shrewd, you engage the Premier on this announcement, to demonstrate that there is still a relationship, despite the problems. If I were in charge, I would go so far as to extend an invitation to MacDonald to attend, if for nothing more than appearances.

Harper undercuts the whole purpose of the military announcement by the distraction of a Premier in total darkness. Are the strategists in the PMO so dense that they can't see the potential disaster in ignoring the province? The failure to notify, at the very least, just re-affirms the impression that the province is at war with the federal government. How is any of this positive to easing tensions and cooling the rhetoric?

In my mind, the issue of equalization is secondary to the insights revealed in how this government reacts to tensions. In snubbing MacDonald, the Conservatives demonstrate their complete lack of diplomatic instinct, political nuance and a dangerous flare for needless escalation and exasperation. What is wrong with these people?

NBC: Leftist Gore Lovers?

It is amazing to read some of the American reaction to NBC's decision to air 75 hours of the Live Earth concerts. It is particularly amusing to listen to a FOX News commentator rail against a media outlet with an agenda:

What is NBC doing airing dozens of hours of Al Gore's Live Earth concerts this coming weekend? And why are the Fairness Doctrine proponents of the Democrat Party not objecting to this outright gift of unequal time to just one side of a controversial issue?

Plus this whole deal about the planet melting. Gore is the left's guy, and he plays to his base.

So what's NBC doing giving Gore so many hours of airtime on NBC owned and operated television operations? Does this constitute a political contribution of free airtime? Do the people who want the return of the Fairness Doctrine think NBC should be forced to give equal time to me and let me argue against Al Gore?

If there is one thing the people at FOX News understand it's political propaganda and unbalanced, free coverage. Pleeeze.

More strange reaction:

“This isn’t just a big wet kiss to Al Gore and his left-wing agenda, it’s a shameless acknowledgement of NBC’s bias," Media Research Center President Brent Bozell said in a statement. " 'Live Earth' is nothing more than a photo opportunity, but this concert’s ‘historic’ status is wholly exaggerated by all the hours and hours of free publicity.

“They might as well re-name it 'Gorestock 2007.' It’s tough to deny what comes from the horse’s mouth. NBC is a self-proclaimed liberal cheerleader.”

Concerts are scheduled for East Rutherford, N.J.; London; Johannesburg, South Africa; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Shanghai, China; Tokyo; Sydney, Australia; and Hamburg, Germany. A band of scientists will perform in Antarctica.

When CTV bombarded us with the Diana anniversary concert, did that equate to monarchist apologists? The sad reality, NBC is clearly devoting so much free time because of the all-star lineup, more than the actual cause itself- and really wasn't this Gore's strategy all along? The problem, the wingers are attempting to derail the focus from the issue to a referendum on Gore himself. However, in the end, it can't be a bad thing that this concert will get maximum exposure in a country that is clearly saddled by dangerous ignorance. If it makes the right-wing go batshit, all the better :)

Enough Already

Just stop it. BOO!.

Identity Crisis?

The fundraising figures, detailed in today’s Globe and Mail, paint a “frightening” picture according to Martha Hall Findlay. What the numbers tell me- the Liberal Party of Canada is not a grassroots organization. Donor fatigue, paying off candidate debt, blah, blah, blah- those excuses only mask the real problem.

Party apologists point to the 19 000 donors in the last quarter of 2006, as though that puts this quarter’s embarrassing 4300 donors into perspective. I wouldn’t be bragging about NDP-like donor numbers, barely 40% of Conservative donors, in a quarter where you had a high-profile leadership race, that full engaged Liberals across the country. If anything, the 19 000 donors was a temporary, still relatively unimpressive, blip, borne out of circumstance, instead of the more accurate reading the defenders suggest. I’m also not buying the “we need time to adapt” to the new rules, particularly when many of them were brought in by a Liberal government, years ago.

The real story, the only story, in these numbers to my mind, the Liberal Party has failed to generate any enthusiasm with ordinary Canadians. What the Liberal Party really needs, apart from the obvious tactics employed by the Conservatives, is some policy that stirs people to engage. I’m not blaming Dion, because I think the Martin era was were the Liberal Party seemed to lose its identity, through the mish mash of endless pandering and political expediency. What I do mean, what are the singular, slogan-like positions that people “on the street” can identify with? The answers are easy if you think of the NDP and Conservatives, but with the Liberals the answer doesn’t readily come to mind.

What I like about the Liberal Party is the lack of dogmatism, the pragmatic quality that comes to decisions based on evidence presented, rather than pre-described rigidity. Having said that, there is an abstract flare to that posture that doesn’t necessarily lend itself to practical motivations. If the Liberal Party is going to morph into a grassroots movement, the way the new financing rules dictate, then it must articulate some overall vision to draw attention. The poor contribution totals might just be a reflection of lack of identity, rather than the other excuses I’ve heard to date.

Educational.

What I learned today. If I were a would-be jihadist, I would lean towards a dirty bomb attack, although technically a chemical one would inflict more casualties. While the Vancouver Olympics would be a great target, particularly the inside of B.C Place, my maximum destruction could be had if I placed a cesium-137 device at the CN tower. Some amateur meterological knowledge is needed, because a good 4 meter per second west, south-westerly wind would allow me to contaminate a swath right through the eastern 401 corridor. Terrific.

Where can I find some "dirty bomb" material? According to the informative article, it can be found in something as simple as a gauge used to measure oil wells. Good to know. For the conceptually impaired, I suggest a quick viewing of this video which uses Google to help track the devastation.

I'm glad the government released this study, and the media is so willing to spread the word. Think of all the tedious hours a wannabee terrorist would have wasted finding out this valuable information. I look forward to the release of the final report early next year, so I can expand my knowledge further. Feel safer now?

Obama Breaks Fundraising Record

Barack Obama may be lagging in the polls, but he is clearly a hit with grassroot donors, setting a record for quarterly fundraising:

Sen. Barack Obama raised $31 million for his presidential primary campaign over the past three months, surging past Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's fundraising machine by nearly $10 million for the quarter to take the lead in contributions in the crowded Democratic field.

Among other Democrats, former senator John Edwards (N.C.) finished third in the fundraising race this quarter, meeting his $9 million goal after a last-minute appeal from his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, that played off of controversial remarks by conservative television commentator Ann Coulter. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was not far behind, raising $7 million for the quarter.

The impressive point, Obama appears to be receiving massive support from small donors:

Obama's performance was built on the strength of 154,000 new contributors, giving him well over a quarter-million donors since he started the race.

The vast majority of Obama's donors gave in relatively small amounts, the campaign said, meaning they can be tapped several more times. The average donation was $202; individual donors can give up to $2,300 under the law.

Fundraising provides organization, but it is also a powerful way to garner momentum with the media. On the other hand, Edwards relatively poor showing gives the appearance that he is falling behind. Apart from coverage, fundraising totals also tend to feed on themselves, in that potential donors in the future are influenced by current totals. If a campaign looks viable, then you can expect more money to roll in, whereas a longshot bid tends to see money dry up. The challenge for Edwards moving forward, convince people that he can compete. For Obama, this record showing counteracts the emerging opinion that Clinton is pulling away.

Harper: "That's Not Fair"

Apparently, in the mind of Stephen Harper, the opposition's role in our parliamentary system is to merely support all government actions, with any dissent tantamount to treason. If, you question policy, point to problems or mismanagement, ask for clarification, express concern, offer an alternative, then "that's not fair":

So, you still support the mission?

"I've made no secret of it, I strongly support the mission and I strongly support the troops. I don't like the fact that he opposition continues to attack the mission while the troops are in the field. That's not fair. But, when we will get to 2009 we have to present to Parliament some options and we are going to need, obviously, some support from the opposition parties if we want to start a new mission after 2009. We need that support, we need the public, and the Parliament behind men and women when we send them into dangerous missions. No, I don't believe it is a change, I think it's only dawning on everyone."

There are serious problems with this mission, and it is the duty of the opposition to highlight them and press the government. Speaking of fairness, it is fair for the government to always paint the most rosy of pictures? If you limit yourself to government commentary, you would be under the impression that Afghanistan is a complete success story. Is that a "fair" representation to sell to the Canadian people?

What is particularly offensive, Harper equates criticism with undermining the troops. If that is true, then Canadians don't support the troops, because a majority don't believe the mission will achieve the objectives. Harper offers a copout defense, which masks his own inability to "sell" the mission to Canadians. Criticism is a given in our system, success or failure depends on the response. Is it the opposition's fault that a one day story on torture turned into a maelstorm because of the Conservative government baffling incompetence and conflicting signals?

Harper's whining about "fairness" is a sorry attempt to shift responsibility and play wedge politics. Should we expect anything less?