A Breath Of Fresh Air

A thoughtful perspective, in an Edmonton paper no less, that actually looks at The Green Shift with an open mind:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift plan for the environment has stirred up much controversy in recent months, not the least of which are the West's concerns about the plan's impact on the region's natural resources.

Some fear a repeat of the dark days of the national energy program, and others are raising the spectre of yet another national unity crisis...

Lougheed, the grandfather of Alberta conservatism, the man who brought the Conservatives to power in the first place, has stressed the need for an "olive branch" to the rest of Canada -- if the federal Conservatives aren't going to do anything about pollution, then doesn't it make more sense to try and cooperate with Dion and the Liberals if they actually are trying to find a solution, and make it stronger and better with our own input, rather than simply refusing to speak to him because of his party affiliation?...

Prominent Liberals and Conservatives like Dion and Lougheed are discussing many of the same issues -- if anything, the East and West probably have more common ground than they realize.

From there, a competent federal government can act as mediator between the provinces, developing a pan-Canadian environmental strategy that combines policies that apply to Canada as a whole in with variations that take provincial differences into account.

Whether or not the Green Shift is the solution to Canada's environmental woes, at least it's a start.

What I find refreshing, a Canadian perspective, as opposed to the silly "us vs them" nonsense which tends to derail any rational discussion. Pointing a finger at Ontario, but also recognizing some simple realities, a sense that we are in this together, our common interests. A discussion without bad guys, injecting alterior motives that don't exist, this entire debate is really a struggle between the small and narrow, and those that wish to move forward in good faith. Let's hope viewpoints like the above can be heard above the cynical noise. "At least it's a start".

Blunder

Since we constantly hear chess analogies, in reference to the Conservatives strategic prowess, today's orchestrated attempt to derail the "in and out" hearings could best be characterized as a BLUNDER. In a move that reeks of arrogance, not to mention a political tin ear, it's hard to see the upside in having Doug Finley make a surprise appearance. Are the Conservatives trying to draw more attention to a forum, that for them, is best left to an incestous discussion amongst the political class? What were you thinking?:

Parliamentary hearings into the Conservative in-and-out campaign financing scheme got off to a raucous start Monday, with the Tories' campaign manager being ejected after refusing to leave voluntarily.

Doug Finley was escorted from the Commons ethics committee room by security guards after 20 minutes of wrangling between Tory MPs and Liberal committee chairman Paul Szabo.

Mr. Finley surprised committee members by showing up three days before he was scheduled to appear – in what seemed to be an orchestrated attempt to create a stir.

I fail to see the wisdom in creating a "stir" from the Conservatives perspective. All Findlay achieved was to put more focus on the proceedings, ensure the committee was frontpage news in every publication. Trying to disrupt speaks to a sense of guilt, because if, as the Conservatives argue, "everybody does it", nothing illegal, you aren't reduced to pulling pranks to draw attention from the substance. There's nothing to see, so why create a spectacle?

Speaking of substance:

In a hearing about Conservative election spending, an unsuccessful candidate testified Monday that he agreed in advance not to spend $37,000 the party sent to his campaign in 2006 and quickly took back.

Gary Caldwell, who ran for the Tories in the Quebec riding of Compton-Stanstead, said he later redrafted his election spending report to withdraw a claim for a 60 per cent federal rebate on that amount.

"I realize that the central party, any party, can give money to the local riding association, but when we examined this further I became convinced that it was only a legitimate local expense if we in fact spent it," he told the Commons ethics committee. " In fact, that was not the case."

Caldwell said he left the Tories "after what happened and my concern that the Conservative Party was no longer interested in rehabilitating parliamentary institutions." He plans to run next as a Green Party candidate.

Who Needs Computer Models?

One of the more annoying points deniers try to make, is this idea that most of the science of global warming is based on computer models. It seems a convenient way to sideswipe the evidence, "I'm not putting any stock in some computer program". In an indirect way, the criticism has found some validity, the trouble is most of the "real world" evidence tends to find the computer models understate the rapidity of change, things are WORSE than the models predicted. That aside, this angle is mostly a diversion, because who needs models when you have reality:

Arctic meltdown could set new record

It's now a "neck-and-neck race between 2007 and this year over the issue of ice loss," Mark Serreze, a senior climate researcher at the Colorado-based NSIDC, told the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper on Sunday. "We thought Arctic ice cover might recover after last year's unprecedented melting - and indeed the picture didn't look too bad last month."

But recent storms in the Beaufort region "triggered steep ice losses," he said, "and it now looks as if it will be a very close call indeed whether 2007 or 2008 is the worst year on record for ice cover over the Arctic."

The Canadian government's chief observers of Arctic ice conditions are expressing amazement at the state of the Beaufort Sea.

"We've never seen any kind of opening like this in history," CIS senior ice forecaster Luc Desjardins said of the Beaufort's exceptional loss of ice this summer. "It is not only record-setting, it's unprecedented. It doesn't resemble anything that we've observed before."

The persistent retreat of polar sea ice in recent years has convinced some researchers that the region is fast approaching a "tipping point" that could see nearly the entire Arctic ice-free during the summer months as early as 2013.

Questioning Gutter Politics

Another Conservative blogger is questioning the Conservatives "all negative, all the time" approach, an opinion we've heard before recently. Let's hope the Conservative Party doesn't heed some good advice, because for the all the bluster about "negative ads work", they have accomplished squat, in terms of expanding the Conservatives support:

Which is why we should question the wisdom of making attacks on the Liberals the main focus of Conservative Party advertising and communications, instead of trying to sell our own agenda and our own record as a party and a government. The kinds of images and ads that are getting used right now may actually be part of the reason why the poll numbers aren't getting any better; because they make the government look and sound like an opposition party, and give people plenty of reasons to dislike Dion without giving them in any reasons to like the CPC.

This is not to say that we should completely abandon negative or contrast advertising. Rather, we should realize that with the current crop of attack ads we have reached the point of diminishing returns, and turn instead to a more positive approach. After two years of getting e-mails asking me to contribute to keep one negative ad or another on the air, will no longer do so. I would be happy, however, to chip in $25 or $50 to help air some ads talking about what a great job the P.M. and the government are doing for Canadians.

To be fair, I do believe the "not a leader" attack ads were quite successful, defining Dion before he had an opportunity to define himself. The perceived success of that campaign, may have created a false thesis within the Conservative brain trust, a singular approach which has failed to see that each successive attack has largely failed. Attack ads work, but it is also true that they don't work for eternity, they lose their effectiveness when the attacker looks predictable, when the attacker begins to say more about themselves than the target. In other words, there is a fundamental imbalance in the Conservative approach, it's fine to slam your opponent, but it doesn't resonate forever, when you offer nothing to contrast.

What the Conservative Party hasn't realized, and quick frankly I hope they don't, they have so saturated our discourse with negativity, that it has created a perception of this government as mean-spirited, aggressive, encompassing all the characteristics of a bully. The "still in opposition" mentality of this government is one of the main reasons the Conservatives haven't capitalized in a very favorable political environment. Canadians now expect negativity, any previous effectiveness is at best countered by reaffirming the notion that they prefer the gutter. Maybe Dion takes a hit, but that works in concert with the perception that this gang is nasty to the core, at best a draw, at worst you actually undermine your own brand. Don't believe me, the polls consistently show that the Conservatives are actually turning off key demographics, and one of the core reasons revolves around the "mean" factor. It's entirely self-evident, and yet it continues, which might speak to true nature, rather than tactical preferences.

This government is largely made up of reactionaries. More about what they dislike, tearing down, disassembling, rather than any thoughts of vision or creating. It views our institutions with negativity, it begins with hostility, it starts with "we hate Liberals" and proceeds from this inspiration. With that in mind, the ads make sense, entirely consistent with the core motivations- they just can't help themselves. The new Conservative Party is simply a negative first entity, and the ads, just an extension of an entire philosophy.

I think it speaks volumes, when the devoted grassroots begins to question the approach. If partisans aren't impressed, it seems almost ridiculous to believe that ordinary citizens, with no vested interest, are moved.

Timing

Everyone has noticed, that this government has a habit of releasing unflattering reports, or items they wish to bury, on Fridays. It's pretty simple really, avoid much scrutiny on a slow news day, heading into the distraction of a weekend. Last Friday, three separate releases, the timing obvious, the intent clear. It's a consistent strategy, that even Conservative partisans can't credibly deny.

With that philosophy in mind, what then are we to make of John Baird's department releasing part of their GHG emissions reduction strategy on a Friday? I mean, this is a key component of the Conservatives emissions plan, one Baird has been promising for months, one that apparently leads the world, tougher than nails, proof positive that all the criticism directed at the government is unwarranted. Where's the fanfare, where's the press conference, why release it when nobody will really notice? Seems odd, because really the government should want maximum coverage to demonstrate to Canadians that their approach is the real deal. Instead, quietly released, hardly any press, almost ignored.

Nothing is by accident with this government, so we can take the timing as a clear indicator. If this is a "big step forward" as Baird offered, why the "walking on tippy toes" release? Could it be because the plan is weak? Or, could it also be because the government would have to admit a harsh fact:

Baird conceded Friday that some forms of energy would be more expensive under his government's approach.

The last thing Conservatives want to talk about is a plan that will mean higher energy costs. What about the seniors, the farmers, the truckers, the people who buy groceries, fisherman? Every Conservative in the country is running around saying we don't need any initiative that will add cost to already high prices, how then could they then have to admit their plan does just that? A combination of a weak plan, full of holes, but coupled with the "selling" spectacle of admitting a cost, to show credibility, all congeal to a Friday news dump.

Did NDP Candidate Quit Because He Feared "Green Shift"?

It all seems innocent enough, but then you start connecting the dots, and the real story crystallizes. On June 19th, Stephen Dion introduced the Liberals Green Shift plan. Then a mere FOUR days later, we hear of this story:

The Vancouver Centre NDP riding association is looking for a new candidate after the resignation of Randall Garrison as its candidate this week.

Garrison is citing personal reasons as a factor in his decision not to contest the riding currently held by Liberal MP Hedy Fry. Fry has held the seat for 15 years.

Garrison told Xtra West he was withdrawing for both personal and professional reasons.

Oh, the old "personal and professional" reasons excuse. Where have I had that one before? The timing is just too cute isn't it? Obviously, Mr. Garrison was so intimidated by the newly released Liberal Green Shift that he simply got "cold feet", afraid to campaign against this compelling initiative. I mean, Garrison was nominated months prior, then all of sudden The Green Shift comes out, and poof, I'm out outta here. You do the math.

Looky Here, A Journalist Emerges

As local papers parrot Conservative propaganda, and supposedly reputable journalists like Don Martin run with nothing, it's nice to see someone asking some basic questions, before swallowing unsubstantiated spin:

Seriously, is there a scintilla of actual evidence – circumstantial or otherwise - that now infamously former Liberal candidate Robert Morrissey bolted because of the Green Shift?

I mean, I’m not saying he didn’t – heck, anything is possible. But based on the coverage so far, it seems as though that particular claim originated with Conservative Party spokesbird (and erstwhile part-time House of Commons salary-drawer) Ryan Sparrow, who isn’t exactly what I’d call objective - and, I’m betting, is downright shocked by how easy it has been to push this story to the local PEI press despite a noticeable lack of independent corroboration.

Independent corrobation, what a novel concept. Nevermind, the fact the Liberals won this riding by a staggering 23% in the last election, considered one of the safest in Atlantic Canada, no, we are supposed to believe as Don Martin puts it, this is about "cold feet". Is there an objective observer anywhere that would view this riding as "swing", one that is really in danger of moving to the Conservatives column? Is there one person who actually lives in P.E.I that has offered an opinion? Oh yes, just the sitting MP for the riding, who reacted with anger at the suggestion.

Everyone loves a good, juicy narrative, but it would be nice to interject some non into the rampant fiction that is swirling around. To date, I fail to see why anybody should be in "damage control", unless of course our political discourse takes its cues from a Conservative hack.

Nice Words

Still waiting...

The Passive Media

Let me get this straight, a P.E.I Liberal candidate reconsiders his run in the next election, and the person who knows the inner workings of his decision is a uber partisan Conservative hack in Ottawa. How that translates to a credible news piece escapes me:

Morrissey backed out due to Green Shift, Tories charge

Sparrow said from Ottawa.

“Morrissey is clearly feeling the heat on the carbon tax and doesn’t want to campaign on raising the price of gas, home heating fuel and groceries.’’

But Morrissey said his decision had more to do with the uncertainty over the timing of the next election than Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s green shift plan.

Ryan Sparrow can spin all he wants, that's his job, but I expect more from the media than simply acting as conduit for unsubstantiated propaganda. Was there anything that Morrissey said that would support such a charge? Any Liberal sources close to the campaign that heard of unhappiness over the Green Shift? Anything at all, apart from the nonsense of a man a time zone away? That opinion deserves to be in the title of your piece?

It would appear that complete fabrication is newsworthy, people can just throw out wild theories, and the reporter simply parrotsthe charge, no verification, no journalistic "eye", nope, thanks Ryan Sparrow, we'll be sure to pass this on to our readers.

Tilt

And, the "what could we possibly be thinking" award goes to...PETA.

What Time Is Recess At Conservative.ca?

The latest edition of fearmongering and juvenile reasoning has been posted on that eyesore the Conservatives call a website. Look out Atlantic Canada, it's your turn to be bombarded by the asinine, pummeled by the absurd. I actually laughed:

The list of people who lose under the Dion Carbon Tax continues to grow:

Truckers, farmers, fishermen, seniors on fixed incomes, families who use natural gas, families who use home heating oil, commuters, taxi drivers, people who shop for groceries, electricity users, business travelers, people who fly in airplanes, manufacturing workers, resource workers, people who live in rural Canada, people who live in the suburbs, and families with children could all expect to pay more under the Dion Carbon Tax.

I didn't realize "people who shop for groceries" were a subset of our society? Doesn't this imply some amongst us don't eat? Who writes this crap? The list grows, what next, "people who walk erect", "ethnic groups in the 905", "soft nationalists in Bloc held ridings", "children who take baths".

This is your contribution to the debate Conservatives, this is your braintrust, this is your party. The sense of pride.

While Stragglers Debate...

the evidence mounts:

A new seven-year study of the Arctic's shrinking sea ice - which is headed for another above-average melt this summer - concludes that the polar cap is not only losing vast swathes of surface area but also experiencing a "drastic thinning" likely to reinforce the overall retreat.

The study, headed by University of Alberta ice expert Christian Haas, found reductions of ice thickness in the central Arctic Ocean of up 50 per cent between 2001 and 2007, as well as widespread replacement of heavier, older ice near the North Pole with weaker first-year ice.

"The regime shift to younger and thinner ice could soon result in an ice-free North Pole during summer," says the study, to be published in the fall by the U.S. journal Geophysical Research Letters but obtained this week by Canwest News Service.

"Reduced ice thickness in Arctic Transpolar Drift favours rapid ice retreat" - was co-authored by a six-member team of researchers from Europe and North America and completed while Haas was with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany.

Travelling over several seasons aboard the German icebreaker RV Polarstern, the team's key findings were produced by aerial surveys in which electromagnetic instruments carried by helicopter measured ice thickness at scores of sample sites throughout the central polar region between Canada and Russia.

The Transpolar Drift describes the general flow of Arctic Ocean ice from eastern Siberia past the North Pole toward Greenland, a conveyor belt of ice also fed by the clockwise-flowing Beaufort Gyre north of Alaska and the Yukon.

"Clearly, the thinner ice cover favours a stronger areal retreat of the ice during summer," the researchers conclude, noting that their study "points to the possibility of further rapid reductions once that vast uniform region has thinned further below certain thresholds."

Im sure it's all just due to sun spots, cyclical variation or Al Gore will a big blowtorch. The saddest part, they actually think they're the clever ones.

More About The Messenger

Wow, what a shocker, the Conservatives are running another round of negative attack ads, this time in Atlantic Canada. Nevermind, that Peter MacKay seems to have a problem with the truth, I think the real story here is a cementing theme, which doesn't help the Conservatives in the least.

Liberal MP Robert Thibault made this comment, in reaction to this latest installment of "Liberals bad", which is actually telling:

"You expect that type of thing from them," West Nova MP Robert Thibault, a Liberal, said in a phone interview Monday.

"When you don’t have any ideas yourself, you attack the other people with the ideas."

If memory serves, these attack ads on The Green Shift, which have ran around the country at various times, represents the 5th or 6th seperate occasion, wherein the Conservatives have launched a negative campaign since Dion took the helm. For those keeping score at home, by my calculations the amount of positive ads, speaking to a Conservative vision and/or accomplishments, currently stands at ZERO. That's right, for all of Harper's pontifications about the litany of "results", the unparalled union of our federation, the "leading the world" nonsense, not ONE positive ad, nothing, nada, zilch. Given the Conservatives monetary advantages, the omission is entirely curious, but really a testament to what this government is all about.

Where are the ads, outlining Mr. Baird's "tough" plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The rhetoric says the Conservatives have a better plan, how about a compare and contrast ad, how about something to show Canadians that you are credible? Nope, can't have that, instead we are subjected to simple fear mongering and mean spirited ads. Surely, all those Conservative apologists must wonder why their party braintrust doesn't extoll the virtues of their tremendous contribution to this debate? Crickets.

Here's the good news, and a lesson which the Conservatives can't seem to grasp. The constant negativity, the perpetual attacks, have turned off many voters. The pollsters have consistently shown that the Conservatives are losing key demograpics, people they desperately need, if they are to expand their support. The percentage of women, across all age groups, which view the Conservatives as too partisan, mean and nasty, has gone up over the last year. Thinking strategically, it is almost astounding that the supposed chess masters continue along the same path, in essence reinforcing their own negative perceptions with the public. How this approach translates to expanding support escapes me, if anything the evidence suggest people want something else.

Where are the "vision" ads, where are the "good government" ads, why can't this government seem to offer anything but attacks? Maybe, it's because the reality of this government, they don't really have anything to offer anybody, apart from vote driven policies, the entire new Conservative Party predicated on what they dislike, what they "hate", rather than what they stand for. It is really an indication of a party that really stands for nothing, it's mainly nothing more than a reactionary entity. In the end, negativity is all they have, Harper more suited for leader of the opposition, than leader of men. Run the ads, and reinforce your own shortcomings, it really does says more about the messenger than anything else.

Dion's Numbers Improve

I was given the pdf for the latest Angus Reid online poll. The horserace numbers remain largely the same from the last offering, with the Conservatives at 35%(up 2), Liberals 30%(same), NDP 17%(down 2), Greens 8%(up 1). The regionals show trouble for the NDP in Ontario and the Conservatives down in Quebec. It is the leadership numbers that I find intriguing, and they contain a silver lining for Dion.

First the internals. Ontario:

Liberals 40%(up 5%)
Conservatives 39%(up 6%)
NDP 12%(down 8%)
Greens 8%(down 1%)

That is a disasterous number for the NDP, given the small margin of error, hard to spin that as anything but a significant fall. I wonder if the NDP is getting lost in the Green Shift debate and/or economic uncertainty rising as an issue, never an NDP strong suit. Whatever the reason, that's a huge drop and not easily dismissed. As far as the Liberals and Conservatives, Angus tends to show a closer race than say NANOS, Decima or Strategic Counsel, so I still tend to think the Liberals have a decent lead, outside of MOE.

Quebec:

Bloc 35% (down 2%)
Conservatives 21% (down 4%)
Liberals 20% (down 1%)
NDP 15% (up 1%)
Greens 9% (up 6%)

Conservatives still can't seem to get much traction, every time they rise, they fall back. Interestingly, this poll was taken during the supposed "show of force" Conservative love fest in Quebec.

Now, for what I find to be the most relevant part of this poll, the leadership numbers. I don't want to overstate things, Dion still has a LONG way to go, Harper clearly enjoys the advantage, but the trends are certainly better. Harper's disapproval number has climbed further, to 46% and his "momentum score", which gauges improving and lowering opinions rose to -21(-19 in June). For Dion his approval rating remains unchanged (up 1%), but his momentum score is -19 (-26 in June). Here is where the difference for Dion manifests itself:

Has a vision for Canada

Harper 43% (down 1%)
Dion 36% (up 7%)

Understands complex issues:

Harper 41%(up 1%)
Dion 26% (up 5%)

Is honest and trustworthy:

Harper 32% (unchanged)
Dion 32% (up 7%)

Generally agrees with you on issues you care about:

Harper 27% (down 2%)
Dion 23% (up 6%)

Cares about the environment:

Harper 24% (down 4%)
Dion 49% (up 6%)

Can manage the economy effectively:

Harper 40% (down 4%)
Dion 14% (up 4%)

A couple of other measures, with no real change. Of note, Dion is up 4% on PM preference, "neither" still beating both men. Again, Conservatives will remind us who is ahead overall, in some cases by a good margin, but no one can deny that Dion's numbers have improved, his personal stature on the rise. UP on almost every measure, some by a noticeable margin, it's a good sign.

I've always argued that the Green Shift's greatest achievement politically will be if it gets Dion's popularity off the mat, lowers the gap between he and Harper. While it isn't champagne time by any stretch, I think it safe to say that this poll shows a positive effect for Dion, and in the final analysis may prove key in an election. The incumbent always enjoys the advantage, but Dion clearly has to close the personal gap to have any chance.

The Liberals Will Fish

Will they or won't they? Another column today in The Hill Times, which argues Dion has been to told to "cool it" when it comes to fall election talk. The article then asserts what I think is a ridiculous theory, that the Liberals were spooked by last week's Conservative lovefest in Quebec. Yes, a co-ordinated partisan retreat has led some to get cold feet, as though Liberals will run because Harper dared them, in front of an orchestrated champaign style rally. Please.

IMHO, I take a fall election as a given now. I don't really care what Dion says the rest of the summer, because ultimately I don't see the benefit in telegraphing intentions. What some define as "hedging", I see as shrewd, pulling back creates an air of uncertainty, even if the intent remains the same. Politically, I don't see any reason to continual beat the election drum, some comments were made, now its best just to "sell" and wait until Parliament returns.

If you read between the lines here, it's hard to see how the Liberals avoid a fall election. Any fair observer would have to agree, that whatever their opinion of The Green Shift, Dion has succeeded in reshaping his image somewhat. The spectre of Liberals sitting on their hands throughout the last session of Parliament has faded, the image of Dion as "weak" obviously tempered, replaced by a bold policy that has finally given Dion his voice. Again, you can argue the wisdom in the policy, but you have to acknowledge some positive developments for Dion, in terms of perceptions.

Fast forward to the fall, and Harper introduces confidence motions, daring the Liberals to fight an election. How any strategist could conclude the Liberals can take a pass, again cowering in the face of a challenge, is beyond me. That is a strategy to undo any of the rehabiliation of Dion, in fact this summer would translate into a complete waste of time. I'm of the mind that the Liberals have now passed the point of no return, this is the policy, these are the frames, for better or worse, it's now or never. Backing away now amounts to electoral suicide, Dion will be hammered, more rounds of "discontent" as an idle media reasserts an old theme, hard to find any positives for the Liberals, apart from some faint hope that the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot.

So, as the media debates whether Dion is backing down, will he or won't he, I'm just operating on the assumption that the election is coming this fall. I don't see any other option at this point, the time has come, those arguing further delay seem detached from reality. Dion should "cool it", but in the end, don't read anything in to what amounts to political necessity.

"Change"="Same Old, Same Old"

I like Obama. What I don't care for, is the way his disciples elevate Obama to a pedestal, which frankly doesn't have any merit. It's not cynicism, but realism, and the more we see of Obama, the more it becomes crystal clear that "change" is largely a mirage in any substantive way.

I couldn't help but be amused as some supporters reacted with surprise, when Obama began the traditional move from left to center once the primary season was over. It happens ever time, everyone knows it, and yet, for some reason Obama was supposedly unique. To say Obama is a skilled politican is almost a negative characterization, because it challenges the notion that he operates differently than standard practice. If you listen to the speeches, and take the rhetoric to heart, then you are forced to confront a simple conflict. Obama does put his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows, his principles do waver, and yes, he is really ordinary, in many respects.

Anyways, the point, is illustrated here in spades, political speak of the highest order, oozing of pander and flip flop, pure unadulterated Washington speak:

Barack Obama Friday dropped his opposition to offshore oil drilling, saying he could go along with the idea if it was part of a broader energy package.

Obama made his comments in St. Petersburg during an interview with the Palm Beach Post. "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," he said.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," the paper quoted Obama as saying.

I think it better to look at Obama without the rose colored glasses, it will only make his descent to the realm of mere mortals easier to digest. And, in the end, it's okay, because Obama was never worthy of the lofty adjectives in the first place, misplaced hype and personal aspirations aside.

It's A Simple Question Really

One of the most amazing aspects of this entire climate change policy debate, the fact that the Conservatives can't seem to find ANY independent, unbiased, backing of their plan. The Liberals can cite expert opinion, so too the Greens and NDP. That fact speaks to a certain credibility, it isn't just political nuance, the various initiatives part of a real debate, amongst those who are analyzing honestly.

Today, another opinion weighs in, once again questioning the validity of the Conservatives policy. This time, National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, which basically says the Conservatives numbers just don't add up to much:

The Harper government might be overestimating how much its climate-change plan will lower greenhouse gases, says a federal advisory panel.
Flaws in government calculations could skew projections around the Tories' green policies, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy says in a report to be released Saturday.

"Some problems persist with how individual policy measures are calculated and with their projected emission reductions," the report says.

"Individual policy measures continue to be presented without these sources of overestimation adequately being taken into account."

However, a spokeswoman for Environment Minister John Baird said the government is confident in its estimates.

The last part is the relevant issue here. The Minister is "confident in his estimates". Well, that's nice, but it begs a simple question- Mr. Baird, could you please direct me to one expert in Canada, one group, one international group for that matter, that can confirm you plan will do what you argue? I mean, this is too the point of nonsensical, the Conservatives have nothing apart from their own spin to support their policy, and yet, they are continually allowed to just spew out figures and brag about effectiveness, in a world that doesn't seem to find any connection to reality.

Rather than journalists allowing Baird equal time, as they continually do on the issue, their role should be to challenge the assertions. Our media isn't a passive observer, that just allows everyone a forum in the name of misguided fairness, it is supposed to verify the veracity of the claims. If the Conservative plan is as tough as they argue, then surely its proponents can point to outside support? If not, as the case may be, then it is incumbent on the media to highlight this fact.

In any policy debate, it is generally easy to find some sympathetic voices, the array of opinion from various "expert" corners, some level of support, somewhere, almost a given. The most striking thing about this supposed "debate", that will be brought to the Canadian people, the Conservatives are naked, all they have is their own spin, really nothing but bluster. Moving forward, the media fails by treating this plan with respect and simply quote the various talking points, is so then they are just conduits for propaganda. Next time, when Baird appears to defend his plan, or attack others, ask him the simple question, and when he turns red and side swipes the issue, Canadians will have their answer. The Conservative plan is an objective FRAUD, and should be treated as such. That's not my opinion, that's EVERYONE'S opinion, partisans or stakeholders aside.

Tough Guy Rhetoric Shows No Relationship To Reality

While Harper did his usual tough guy routine, taunting and flexing for the faithful, full of bravado about forcing an election, another finding, from a friendly source, that paints a different picture. These numbers would actually mean a more likely Liberal minority:

A new poll shows the Conservatives just slightly ahead of the Liberals, but behind their Grit rivals in Ontario and Quebec, two provinces where the Conservatives must make gains if they hope to one day form a majority government.

The Ipsos Reid survey finds that 34 per cent of Canadians support Harper's Conservatives, an improvement of one percentage point from the last Ipsos Reid poll six weeks ago, while Dion's Liberals are sitting at 30 per cent, a drop of two percentage points.

In the latest poll, the NDP was the preferred choice of 14 per cent of voters, an improvement of one point since the last poll, while the Green Party has the support of about 11 per cent of Canadians, up two points.

Ontario:

In Ontario, 37 per cent of voters would pick a Liberal candidate while 33 per cent would choose a Conservative.

Quebec:

In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois leads all parties with 37 per cent of support, but the Liberals are in second place with 27 per cent and the Tories are well back of that with just 18 per cent.

The article speaks of a Conservative minority, but then gives reason why that prognostication is dead wrong:

they have a considerable challenge because their national popularity is skewed by overwhelming support in Alberta, where they already hold every seat.

A four point lead nationally is essentially a dead heat, but when you consider that Alberta's over the top Conservative support is included, you could easily make the case, that seat wise, the Liberals may have the slight advantage.

Ipsos tends to find a closer race in Ontario than other pollsters, so people should consider that in the numbers. The Quebec numbers are somewhat surprising, if they were to hold, it represents big problems for the Cons, possible pickups for the Libs.

I put Ipsos at the bottom of the heap for true predictability. When you have reporters from papers that commission the polls saying they "tend to overstate Conservative support", it should demand a grain of salt. That said, if this pollster shows these sort of results, then it is reasonable to think it might actually be worse for the Cons, but even taken at face value, the regionals present a real problem, an election looks a crapshoot. The paper tiger roars.

Bravery Vs Sheer Stupidity (with poll)

I don't really listen to talk radio much, but this morning was an exception. The topic of choice on two separate shows, the unreal tragedy of the Greyhound bus murder. Why I kept listening, the debates largely centered around a discussion of whether or not the other passengers acted appropriately, should they have done more to help the victim?

I listened in amazement, as people called in from their cozy, sober second thought, environments, pontificating on what they would have done, some heaping scorn on the "wimps" for reacting as they had. Apparently, many bloggers and American commentators have picked up on this theme, going so far as to say question Canadian masculinity (whatever that means). The fact the reaction is even "at issue" is what I found most bizarre, because ultimately who in the hell is anybody to pass judgement on what amounts to a real world horror show?

I found it all entirely offensive, because to my way of thinking, the other passengers were victims too. I just can't image witnessing such a macabe spectacle, it will surely imprint their souls, something they will carry with them the rest of their lives. I have nothing buy sympathy, and appreciate the folly in trying look at the reactions rationally.

By all accounts, this wasn't even a typical stabbing, if there is such a thing. This man was butchered before people's eyes, the violence so intense, there was really nothing anyone could do. Getting everyone else off the bus and containing this man, was really the only option. Good on anyone who thinks they would have reacted differently, but it's easy to judge from afar, easier still to try and fathom a situation which is really off the charts insane. I don't think bravery has anything to do with the reactions, in fact I think anything else, given the circumstances, amounts to sheer stupidity.

With that in mind, I thought I would see if others agree:

2nd Quarter Fundraising Figures

The second quarter fundraising totals are out for all the political parties. The Liberal totals are disappointing to say the least, fundraising remains a large problem. For April to June 2008:

$912 378.43 from 9556 contributors

For comparison, the April to June 2007 numbers:

$1 268 043.45 from 9951 contibutors

The fundraising is up slightly from the first quarter ($848 129.37), but the contributors are down from 10 169.

Very bad numbers, if one is being fair, primarily because you get no sense of any momentum, that the Liberals are starting to master the new fundraising techniques. Why? I would argue this is the downside of the abstaining strategy, clearly the grassroots wasn't motivated to give, while their leadership gave up. I'm not arguing the wisdom of the strategy, but if you looking for cause, the posture of the elected party representatives seems the most obvious answer. Of course, other factors at play, but abstaination doesn't bring inspiration.

The Conservatives remain a fundraising juggernaut, although their totals are down year to year. April to June 2008:

$3 525 352.31 from 33833 contributors

Last year, for this period:

$3 768 122.22 from 36794

A slight drop, an even bigger drop from last quarter, wherein the Conservatives brought in $ 4 954 550.22 from 44345 contributors. The trend line for the Conservatives isn't good, but then again the money still flows nicely.

The NDP, less than the Liberals, but more contributors. April to June 2008:

$711 637.28 from 11941 contributors

The same period last year:

$722 760.09 from 11 773 contributors

In the last quarter, the NDP raised 1 119 647.67 from 13329 contributors. Year to year, pretty consistent, down noticeably from the last quarter. Still, very good numbers.

What else can you say?

UPDATE

Graph heaven.