"Safe Seat"

Quite a lot of buzz surrounding the by-election in Outremont, most of it involving the NDP's chances. Conventional wisdom argues a two-man race, so it is interesting to see how the Liberals and NDP are acting respectively. The clear underdog, the NDP braintrust is pouring energy and money into the riding, which gives the perception of momentum. Layton has visited, Muclair has been in full campaign mode for weeks, a clear message of making a statement, sending a message.

By contrast, you don't get any sense of urgency from the Liberal camp, and that fact is illustrated in a trivial point, but one that may be indicative:

Mulcair's team was already campaigning about a month before the byelection was called and they peppered the riding with signs the night the vote was announced.

Tory and Bloc signs are outnumbered by Mulcair posters on a couple of main thoroughfares and Coulon's are nowhere to be seen in some spots.

Obviously, we will see Liberal signs and presence as the campaign intensifies, but I consider it a serious blunder to be slow out of the gate. Why allow the NDP to capitalize on appearances, which suggests a tight-race and momentum on their side? The people of that riding have surely noticed the "sign" disparity, and it conveys the message that the NDP is in the game, there is a buzz around Muclair. In other words, Liberal lethargy has put wind in the NDP sail, which really is inexcusable from a tactical point of view.

Whenever someone suggest that this riding is winnable for the NDP, it is met with complete scepticism in Liberal circles, the "safe seat" mentality. This attitude is justifable, given the history and common sense, but there is a danger in that apathy hurting the Liberal chances. From the outside, all the energy and passion seems to be with the NDP, which is relevant in a by-election, where making "changes" is more common. This by-election has the potential to be a watershed moment for both the NDP and the Liberals, it would be nice to get the sense that the Liberal braintrust understands the ramifications. Early opinion, advantage NDP.

Harper's Top Minister?

With a cabinet shuffle looming, I thought it might be a good idea to take stock of Ministerial performance to date. Who is the best of the worst, the least incompetent, the fern in the desert? If you HAD to choose, who gets the nod?

On the question of who has performed best in their portfolio, I would have to pick Stockwell Day. I've actually been surprised at Day's ability to convey an air of normalcy, as though a rational human being. Maybe it was the low expectations, but Day has showed some ability to navigate potential landmines, and his cool demeanor has served him well.

Day's performance has apparently garnered him some respect within media circles. Agree or disagree, Day answers questions in a measured way and appears to have a good handle on the issues within his jurisdiction. For the most part, Day appears to be "on top of things"(glaringly obvious example excluded).

I would classify his performance as a marked comeback, because Day was largely written off as a fringe player, well past his best-before date. Day now looks like a intregal part of the governments team, who seems to enjoy a degree of independence we rarely see in Harper's tight, controlling style. You could almost go so far as to say Day has emerged as an attractive asset for this government, a thought once unthinkable, given the past.

Partisanship aside, political stances omitted, in terms of performance, I would pick Stockwell Day, in the spirit of relativity.

UPDATE Mushroom grades the lemon factory.

Up Is Down

It is almost funny when you think about. The federal government arguing for limiting the federal role, the provinces arguing for the federal role. Up is down:

Canadian premiers foreshadowed a coming clash with Prime Minister Stephen Harper Friday over his pledge to diminish Ottawa's role in creating national social programs, warning that poorer Canadians could suffer.

"I'm a bit concerned about it. Are we talking about preventing the federal government from at some point in the future setting up social programs like daycare or pharmacare? Because I don't support that," Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said as the premiers wrapped up their annual meeting.

"I'm a proud Ontarian. Proud to lead this province. But I'm a proud Canadian first."

Manitoba Premier Gary Doer said he doesn't believe in duplication of spending, "but I also believe in the role of the national government to have the ability to redistribute opportunities and equity for regions in Canada that need it."

In the natural order, it is the job of the federal government to act as a check on ever demanding, power hungry provinces. However, when you have a Prime Minister who shows a distaste for the relevance of his own organ, the balance is lost. It is remarkable that it is left to the Premiers, who are generally narrow in their concerns, to argue the case for cohesion and national presence. The fact that the conversation has taken this form, should be considered a disgrace, because it demonstrates the lack of a real Prime Minister of Canada, who can speak above the regional noise.

UPDATE Woman At Mile 0, on the same topic.

NDP Calls On Long To Be Removed

Hopefully, the Liberals will join the NDP, because the last person who should be involved in hiring the new CBC head is a Conservative hack like Tom Long:

NDP Culture and Heritage Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) called on recently appointed CBC Chair Timothy Casgrain to remove Tom Long from any involvement in the search for a new CEO and executive director of news for the public broadcaster.

“Mr. Long is a Conservative insider with ties that go all the way to PMO communications director, Sandra Buckler,” said Angus. “This is just another way for Harper to control media content. We are hoping that Mr. Casgrain will recognize this clear conflict of interest and remove Tom Long from participating in any way in the process.”

Everyone should be worried, that a man who once said Joe Clark wasn't a true conservative, who has a chief architect of the Mike Harris "common sense" revolution, who once received a lucrative contract from the Ontario Conservatives, who ran for the Canadian Alliance, who had Sandra Buckler as a media spokesman, who's old campaign manager is chief of staff for Fortier, is the "lead executive" in finding a new CBC head. Could the Conservatives have picked a more partisan person to chart the course for the CBC?

Conservatives love to point to the CBC as an example of left-wing media bias. I would submit, that the CBC as a public broadcaster merely reflects the general sense in Canada. Like it or not, Canada, as a whole, is a center-left country, why should our broadcaster pander to the margins? This hiring process has no credibililty, and looks like an obvious attempt to move the CBC to more fertile conservative ground. In short, Tom Long is an outrageous choice, which conveys no sense of objectivity or fairness.

Layton: The Canadian Flipper

I know the summer brings a period of slow news coverage, but Maclean's really highlights the trivial, commissioning this poll, that shows Layton as king of the jungle:

When voters were asked to match the leaders, and selected celebrities, to archetypal animals, the initial response for the politicians -- snakes and rats -- was somewhat predictable. But asked to dig deeper, they compared Harper to an industrious ant, busy bee, or proud peacock. The NDP's Jack Layton was a wise owl, friendly dog, or an intelligent dolphin. In contrast, Dion was a timid mouse, scared ostrich, slow cow, or a disposable pet like a fish and hamster.

Only the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe fared worse, evoking voter visions of a stubborn donkey, or pesky black flies and mosquitoes -- largely, perhaps, a reflection of the opinions of English Canadians.

To be fair, there are more substantive questions, but Dion has enough problems with the leadership gap, nevermind introducing the food chain into the equation.

"The Prime Minister was not involved"

Well, of course the Prime Minister was involved, does Sandra Buckler take us all for fools? The same Communications Director Sandra Buckler who was scoulding MP's last week, for speaking with the media and going off message. The same PMO that demands everything pass Harper's desk for approval, prior to any public disclosure. And yet, on a highly sensitive issue, with international ramifications, we are to believe that Stephen Harper was out of the loop. Please:

The Conservative government came under fire yesterday for its decision to censor passages of the Arar commission report that many believe were merely embarrassing to the U.S. and Canadian security officials, and not vital to national security...

ministers" approved the words to be censored.

The government refused to say yesterday which ministers made the decision, although it is likely that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, in charge of CSIS and the RCMP, was one.

Vic Toews, who was justice minister and attorney-general when the commission's report was drafted, was legally responsible for the decision, but it is unclear if his successor, Rob Nicholson, had a role as the case was argued in court after he entered the post in January.

"The Prime Minister was not involved," Sandra Buckler, Mr. Harper's communications director, said in an e-mail.

Mr. Cavalluzzo said that he did not know precisely who in government ordered the passages censored, but he was told it was approved at the highest levels. "I don't know if the cabinet would be, but the Prime Minister and the relevant ministers would be involved.

The fact that Buckler finds it necessary to immediately distance the Prime Minister from the emerging controversy speaks volumes. Me thinks thou dost protest too much Sandra. If Harper didn't know what was happening, on the censorship front, to my mind it will represent the first occasion during his tenure where he was out of the loop on anything. I am willing to take wagers, with generous odds.

Harper Offers The Absurd

I wonder if Harper's head started spinning, when he made the following comment today:

More research is needed to help northern Canada cope with serious challenges caused by global warming, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday.

In the middle of a three-day trip to the North, Harper acknowledged that northern communities are being affected by climate change more than other parts of Canada. He said his government has already set aside funding to help the territories with climate adaptation and intends to look for other solutions in the future.

"We're certainly well aware that climate change creates a range of both challenges and opportunities," Harper told reporters in Yellowknife. "I suspect the International Polar Year [research from international experts] will give us more data on that and over time we'll work with the territorial governments."

More research? You think we need more research to understand the effects of global warming? What an amazing statement, from a man who slashed the climate change research funding by 40% in his first budget, including:

"Included in the cuts is the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CIARN), a national network that provides funding for targeted research and activities that will contribute to a better understanding of Canada’s vulnerabilities to climate change and provide information necessary for the development of adaptation strategies." Apr 2006

Standing right beside Harper, John Baird:

"Canadian scientists would like to increase their understanding of climate change, but the federal government has been scaling back support for climate science and adaptation programs.

Baird suggested last week there's little time left for more reports and studies in the wake of the UN report.

"One of the biggest findings (of the UN report) is that these (impacts) can be mitigated, can be reduced, can be delayed by action to reduce greenhouse gases, and that's got to be the first, the second, and the third priority," Baird said in an interview with CanWest News Service.

"At some point, it's sort of like the planet's on fire, we've got to throw water on it. We don't need to research it, we need to act."

McBean said Monday "that is a sadly misinformed argument and I'd be happy to set him straight."

He adds other senior scientists would also welcome a meeting with Baird, who he says has steered clear of the climate research community since becoming minister in January.

McBean says Baird seems to be taking a short-term view of a long-term problem: "The only question he seems to be asking is: 'Do we have enough science to justify reducing emissions' ...and the science been clear on that for 15 years."

Emissions reductions are needed and long overdue, says McBean.

The key question Baird doesn't seem to be asking, McBean says, is whether there is enough science to address climate change in Canada for the rest of this century in terms of adaptation and emissions reductions. The answer, says McBean, is no.

His non-profit foundation has received $110 million in federal grants in the last seven years - $60 million in 2000 and $50 million in 2003 - to finance peer-reviewed climate studies at Canadian universities.

A request made last year for $250 million over 10 years to expand the foundation's work has been meet with silence from the Conservative government, says McBean.

He says his repeated requests to meet with the minister have been declined. The foundation has committed all its research money and cannot take on any new projects.

Where do Harper and Baird get off, standing on a stage, arguing that we need more research, given the horrible track record? Astounding. Every move this government has made has been objectively anti-research, as evidenced by their own, less than shy commentary. Harper's comments today are both bizarre and insulting.

Dion Plants The Flag

The Conservatives have virtually ignored the erosion of our manufacturing base, particularly in Ontario. Dion is currently on a tour of the automotive industry, putting some flesh on Liberal trade policy, as it relates to manufacturing:

Liberal leader blasts Canada-South Korea free-trade deal

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion wants to see more Canadian-made cars hit the streets of trading partners, such as South Korea.

But that won't happen unless Canada's free-trade agreements give domestic companies the same privileges in foreign markets as foreign companies have in Canada, Dion said at a news conference in Windsor on Thursday.

Flanked by Canadian automotive leaders in the main lobby of Chrysler's Canadian headquarters, Dion announced his party will not back a Canada-South Korea free trade agreement unless it nixes existing trade barriers and boosts the Canadian industry's ability to compete.

Dion also called on the Conservative government to demand the elimination of all South Korean tariffs and non-tariff barriers, such as arbitrary taxes and oft-changing regulations, that prevent Canadian exports from getting into South Korea.

Dion is filling the political vacuum, and he will find a receptive audience in Ontario. Flaherty mentions productivity, says the Canadian economy is strong and offers that Canada is merely part of a trend within the entire industralized world. There is a definite lack of sensibility, and priority, within Conservative ranks when it comes to the problems in Ontario. Dion can capitalize, and his detailed statements today should give him credibility within the auto sector in particular, manufacturing as a whole.

On Tuesday, Dion announced an Economic Conference in Montreal, slated for September 10, which looks intriguing:

“In Montreal, we are bringing together some of Canada’s leading experts and business leaders to discuss and share ideas on how to meet the challenges of building a strong domestic economy and leveraging Canadian advantages in the global economy,” said Mr. Dion.

“What we hear at Montreal Conference will inform the basis of our Party’s next business platform. We need to make Canada’s economy as productive, competitive and sustainable as possible.”

The conference will feature prominent Canadians from the academic and business communities.

A high profile meeting, that will recommend some firm policy. On the economy, Dion suddenly looks engaged and relevant. A good sign indeed.

We Need A Federal Government

Whenever the Premiers meet, I am reminded why we need a federal government. McGuinty argues for cap and trade, Stelmach argues against cap and trade, Williams warns against moving too fast, Doer says we need to move now, advocates cap and trade, Campbell argues cap and trade and California emission standards, McGuinty not prepared to adopt California emissions standards, Calvert wants green highway, Charest argues that no Premier has the right to impose their will on another province...

It is simply counter-intuitive to expect men with such divergent concerns to come to a consensus. As a matter of fact, apart from wanting more money from Ottawa, there is about as much substance agreed as a neutered G8 meeting. Side deals, disjointed, piecemeal solutions, which leaves the landscape cluttered. Premiers have narrow interests, none of them really capable of any sacrifice that speaks to the "greater good", outside of their tribal concerns. That is the inherent nation of regionalism, and for anyone to assume "open" federalism can function with coherence is kidding themselves.

We need the federal government. Demonizing, easy target, scapegoating aside, if there is to be a national consiousness, a common purpose, a rowing together, then the only organ that speaks to those goals is the federal government. I favor continuity, with a respect or sensitivity for unique circumstances. Canada is drifting toward a tribal mentality (I recently learned that I am an "Ontarian", apparently a new human sub-species). These Premier meetings highlight the debating society that goes nowhere, apart from hodge-podge, patchwork resolutions, that have the impact of further regional divisions. The world is getting smaller, apparently, why is it then that Canada seems to be getting bigger and more distant?

Baird Moving To DFO?

I might be reading between the lines here, but:

He was standing with Environment Minister John Baird as he peered out from a cliff onto the spectacular waterfall coursing through the river valley below.

Then he playfully grabbed Baird under the arm and pretended to pull him out toward the breakneck drop over the 90-metre Virginia Falls - which is twice as tall as Niagara Falls.

"That's one way of shuffling a cabinet," Harper said.

Baird smiled.

Not Ready For Prime Time?

Remember Rick Mercer's "interview" with George Bush, in his Talking To Americans series? Mercer made Bush look like an ignorant fool, with his reference to Prime Minister Jean Poutine. In the spirit of non-partisan fairness, Barrack Obama's gaffe is every bit the equal:

U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, already under fire from fellow Democratic candidates for his supposed inexperience and unguarded comments on American foreign policy issues, is raising eyebrows again after vowing to telephone the "president of Canada" if elected to the White House to begin renegotiating terms of the NAFTA trade deal.

The titular miscue came Tuesday night during a discussion of trade and labour issues at a Democratic debate in the Illinois senator's home base of Chicago.

"I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labour agreements in that agreement right now," Mr. Obama said. "And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street."

It is a bit hard to take Obama seriously on free trade, when he doesn't even have a basic understanding of the players. A minor error in the grand scheme, but the miscue clearly plays into the perception that Obama is a lightweight, when it comes to foreign policy experience.

Obama is already under attack from his rivals, who are trying to frame him as too inexperienced to assume the world's most important office. The Canada reference re-inforces that notion, and I confess some disappointment that he lacks the most basic of knowledge of America's biggest trading partner. The "not ready for prime time" moniker just found another point of reference.

Speaking Of "Common Sense" Ed

Shorter Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach- pollute with impunity:

With oilsands developments proceeding at fever pitch, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is making it clear to provincial colleagues this isn't the time to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions.
Stelmach said he would be encouraging a "common sense" approach to climate change issues during the annual Canadian premiers conference, which began Wednesday in Moncton, N.B.

This isn't just Alberta's boom, it's Canada's boom. Of the job growth from the oilsands, more than half is in Ontario. We'll be reminding the premier of that statistic and the issues that may follow if we don't move ahead very pragmatically."

In my view, "common sense" means an acknowledgement that you can't pollute, with no consequence, when you know that you are intentionally harming the planet. "Pragmatism" means balancing economic prosperity with environmental considerations, as opposed to Stelmach's foot on the gas, hell bent for leather, approach to tarsands expansion.

UPDATE
Excellent blog entry that provides a good synopsis of where Stelmach really stands.

Great Idea

I'm not suggesting this one little measure will change the world, but this should be put under the "great idea" category:

Ontario motorists who drive an environmentally friendly, low-emission vehicle will soon get a green-hued licence plate and access to perks like free parking or access to car-pool lanes under a new provincial program unveiled Wednesday.

The so-called "eco-licence" plate is one of three green transportation policies Ontario's Liberal government hopes will encourage commuters and businesses alike to factor the environment into their spending decisions.

A blend of peer pressure and two-tier driving privileges, should make this initiative relatively effective. If you can offer perks (i.e. free parking, or preferred parking), then you create the impression that you are rewarding the consious, the responsible. People will notice the green licence plates, and it could create a bit of fad.

The NDP is unimpressed:

New Democrat critic Peter Tabuns said he was unimpressed by the announcement, which he called "small potatoes given the scope of the problem before us."
"It's a pretty minor item - I don't know if it'd call a press conference over something like this," he said of the new plate.
"My guess is it would be a very minor impact in terms of people's decision-making in these matters."

My un-partisan response- don't be such a bore. Only a fool would conclude this one announcement, in isolation, will win the day on global warming. However, you put out ideas like the above, with many others and you start to make progress. I like it, and I hope to qualify :)

Goodness Me

Delusional Blogging Tory of the day, has to go to this fine fellow:

This is gonna drive the left nuts: Dubya's poll numbers are actually rising:

...29% in early July (based on our USA Today/Gallup poll readings). Now – in the data just about to be released from our weekend poll – Bush's approval rating has recovered slightly to 34%.

However, standing back & watching the left lose their minds over this is reason enuf to enjoy these new numbers.

I'm sure there are riots in "left" circles, now that only a full 2/3 of all Americans can't stand their President. Clearly, minds are being lost as we speak, as Bush barely registers ahead of that all-time favorite Richard Nixon. Obviously, it's a bloodbath on the left, as people search for answers, while Bush surges to the level of objective dismal and embarrassing. The right can sleep tight, while the those on the "left" are under a collective suicide watch. Can they change the law and allow a third-term, cause I smell a LANDSLIDE?

Exclusive

While the mainstream media reports of a pending cabinet shuffle, I have exclusive information on just who will end up where in the new arrangement. I must say, at first blush, I'm quite impressed with the new team:

Minister of Finance- Stephen Harper

Minister of Foreign Affairs- Steven Harper

Minister of the Environment- Steve Harper

Minister of Health- Stephen Joseph Harper

Minister of International Trade- Stephen Joe Harper

Minister of Justice- Steve Joseph Harper

Minister of Labour- Steven J Harper

Minister of National Defence- S.J Harper

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans- Eldest Son of Margaret Johnston and Joseph Harper

...more later, as becomes available.

Ignatieff Lying In The Weeds

Can a mea culpa be just that, and nothing more? Apparently not, if you listen to Don MacPherson, who assumes Ignatieff has ulterior motives:

History teaches us a would-be leader who waits until the post is vacated to begin campaigning for it usually loses. Ignatieff's article doesn't mention that lesson, but its very publication suggests it's one Ignatieff has learned.

It's not surprising that an MP not yet halfway through the normal duration of a first term should already be preparing himself in public to shoulder the burden of leadership.

It would be nice if the article provided some context for the thesis that Ignatieff is merely laying in the weeds, preparing the ground for Dion’s ultimate failure. Not even a quote from a “senior Liberal” to qualify the motivations for the NYT piece, just pure, superficial speculation.

There is no election imminent, and absolutely no chance that Dion won’t carry the Liberal banner when that election ultimately takes place. To infer that an opinion piece, written in this context, somehow translates into active jockeying is more imagination that proof positive. Maybe Ignatieff is plotting, but there is nothing provided in this article to support that notion, apart from created controversy.

Put A Sock In It

Harper is rallying the troops, claiming farmers are "sick and tired", in the aftermath of his Canadian Wheat Board defeat. Interesting, Harper made the comments in Saskatchewan, where a full 45% of the hopping mad farmers voted for the clear single-desk question, despite the objectively misleading plebicite. Harper will not cave:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says farmers are "sick and tired" of efforts to block changes that would end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on barley sales.
Harper told about 300 Conservative supporters in Lloydminster, Sask., that the battle is not over.

Harper says it may have to wait until next season, but the Conservative government will open the market whether the wheat board likes it or not.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a monopoly, but it is also a representative body:

Since 1998, western Canadian farmers have controlled the CWB through the election of 10 representatives to its 15-member governing board, which oversees the organization and sets its policies and direction. Directors are elected for four-year terms, with elections alternating between odd- and even-numbered districts every two years.

Pardon the lack of a link, but I do believe that in the last election, those supporting a single-desk won the day (which explains Strahl's purposely confused vote). Harper is acting like the CWB is some aloof, detached organization, with no relationship to the real farmers in the field. If farmers were as outraged as Harper continually suggests, why then hasn't the "abolish the monopoly" side not gained control of the board, through elections? Sounds pretty fundamental from here, doesn't it? "Whether the Wheat Board likes it or not" is really divisive language, and another glimpse into the Harper "dark side".

There are many issues out there, but if you had to isolate just one to highlight all that is wrong with this government, the attitude, the tactics, the misleading presentations, it all congeals around the CWB. I'm sick of listening to these poor sports, who cry foul when someone points to the rules. In my mind, thank christ that the courts act as a check on this outrageous process.

As an aside, a great piece by Adrian Measner, the man canned by Strahl, who dared to offer resistence in the holy war (seems appropriate, given the zeal).

Temperature Rising

How do you know when a campaign is entering the critical stage? When candidates start attacking their rivals. John Edwards, and to a lesser degree Barack Obama, have Hillary Clinton in the crosshairs. On lobbyists:

Iowa -- Barack Obama and John Edwards separately castigated Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for defending lobbyists and portrayed her as the consummate Washington insider with special interest ties.

"If you don't think lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, then I believe you've probably been in Washington too long," Obama said Monday. Added Edwards in an Associated Press interview: "Democratic candidates, and for that matter all candidates, should just say we're not taking these peoples' money anymore because it's the way to take their power away from them, and it's the way to bring about the change that this country needs."

On Saturday, the New York senator drew boos and hisses from liberal bloggers when, unlike Edwards and Obama, she refused to forsake campaign donations from the special interest industry. Instead, she said: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do."

Neither Edwards nor Obama accept money directly from federal lobbyists but both take contributions from people who work at firms with lobbying operations.

Clinton opened the door with her defence of lobbyists, which presents a grand opportunity for her rivals to paint her as the "inside the beltway" candidate, detached from ordinary America. The other day I commented on Clinton's gaffe free campaign. I would now like to amend that comment, because this is an issue that resonates, could cause lasting damage and provide a coherent theme from which her opponents can attack. Clinton will never win the complicated question of lobbyists, because the kneejerk impression- they compromise the country's greater interests and convey an element of corruption, compromise through influence. This issue has legs.

Edwards wasn't done attacking Clinton, in a indirect attack, he criticizes the former Clinton administration:

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards on Monday criticized former President Clinton, arguing that he allowed corporate insiders to shape the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement that has cost U.S. jobs...

``It's time that the president stood up and fought for American workers,'' Edwards told a crowd of about 300 people at a union hall in Cedar Rapids. ``It's time to have a president that always puts the interests of the American people first.''

While Edwards' speech did not mention the name Clinton, the object of his complaint was obvious. Edwards criticized the presidential leadership during the 1993 passage of NAFTA, which was started by President George H.W. Bush and pushed through by Clinton. He said the trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada was ``written by insiders in all three countries.''

The Clinton campaign released a statement, framing the attacks as a sign of desperation and a reaction to Hillary's national polling surge. Probably true, but Edwards has woven two seperate examples into a unifying theme. We now have a anti-Hillary rallying cry, let the games begin.

Repair Or Bulldoze?

Probably blasphemy to even suggest this, but would Canada be better off with a new national building, as opposed to throwing money at a lemon:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet have approved an extensive new long-term plan for renovation and reconstruction of the aged and decaying buildings on Parliament Hill.

But the Department of Public Works says the plan will remain secret until September, when the government will also reveal a new timetable for vacating MPs and Commons staff from the crumbling and asbestos-ridden West Block.

Meanwhile, as tourists flock to the Hill this summer, even the deteriorated conditions of pedestrian areas have proven dangerous. A section of stone sidewalk directly under the Peace Tower is now blocked off with a steel fence after an elderly woman recently stumbled on a section that had become loose and struck her head.

The government has now budgeted $13.4 million for an "emergency" stabilization and restoration project for the southeast tower of the West Block alone, Ms. Brosseau said in another e-mail.

A further $6.5 million has already been spent simply erecting scaffolding and protective wrapping -- to protect pedestrians and cars from falling rock or mortar -- on three other West Block towers. The reconstruction is yet to begin, and the cost of the scaffolding and wrapping nets alone, along with supportive steel cables around the towers, suggests the eventual cost of reconstruction will be enormous.

Key word "enormous" cost. The last time I was in Ottawa, I remember the Parliament building being shrouded in scaffolding, which apparently lasted for quite some time. As a student of history, I can appreciate the automatic desire to repair, renovate, re-tool, update, re-model, modernize, afterall the building is a key national symbol. However, if you can detach yourself from the romantic for a minute, I think it an open question whether the nation is better served by a new building, that is naturally equipped to deal with the modern circumstance.

Much of the history could be salvaged within a new structure, not to mention the practical, with a government building able to accomodate growth. Is it better to have structures in perpetual repair? I'm just throwing this opinion out there, should we start fresh?

Blame The Media

In a post I did on the global warming denier crowd, knb made this astute comment as it relates to coverage:

It is disturbing to me that the US is showing more and more of these org's. Deniers, coupled with religious fanatics denying fact, are put out there as if they actually have something to contribute. It's rare to see the theories shot down...they are just out there. For the incredibly un-informed, perhaps they are palatable notions.

This is when the counter is important, the factual counter...but they never seem to do that.

The media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, is set to release a report that confirms the American media's failure to convey the true picture in the global warming "debate". Analysis such as this report helps explain why global warming barely registers on Americans radar:

Mainstream U.S. media are to blame for stalled international efforts to reach an agreement to fight climate change...

...there are multiple examples of major American media organizations watering down recent warnings from peer-reviewed scientific literature about the consequences of global warming and the human-produced pollution that is causing it.

deMause in an interview. "That's the problem. It's not particularly what stand the media takes on what should we do about climate change, it's the information is getting out about climate change, and I think that in the U.S., it's a very limited debate."

He added that the lack of information helps ease the pressure on the U.S. government to accept a new international climate change treaty with binding caps on greenhouse gas pollution.

Thankfully, coverage is more extensive in Canada, but the lack of honest discussion in America is a disgrace. I've seen several recent polls, wherein Americans are asked what issues are important to them. Similar polls in Canada put the environment in the top tier, if not number one, however in America, the issue is non-existent. More alarming, even polls of Democrats show little urgency, which might explain why we generally hear nothing more than minor lip service in the Presidential contests.

The role of media is too inform, engage and educate. The above finding is another example of an American media which is pre-occupied with the trivial, at the expense of serious matters. The report also lends credibility to unbalanced coverage, giving the appearance of real debate, on a question that is largely answered, broadly anyways. Shameful.