"Well, we tried democracy..."
"But the west told us we weren't any good at it, and boycotted our duly-elected government. So, maybe we'll have a go at theocratic totalitarianism, and see how that works out."
Seriously, we have no one to blame for this but ourselves.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The byelection to watch
There's a great deal of talk about watching the Calgary Elbow byelection tonight, as a read on the future of both the Premier ("How bad does he suck to lose Elbow?") and the Leader of the Opposition ("How bad does he suck that he can't win in the face of all the disaffection with the Premier?"). I think Drumheller-Stettler may be much more telling.
The Liberals didn't even put up a candidate in D-S in 2004. Shirley McClelland won almost 65% of the vote, with the Alberta Alliance coming second with 14%, the NDP third with 9%, and three fringe parties divvying up the remaining 13%. So, although a Tory win seems inevitable, the results there may be indicators toward a more province-wide problem the Tories are going to face in the next election, and whether the Liberals are the real contenders or not. If the Alberta Alliance makes significant gains, it's a good indication that Stelmach has as much to worry about from the rural base of the party as he does from the cities. At the same time, if the NDP comes out ahead of the Liberals, that tells me that the Liberals will never make a real breakthrough in the rurals, which is probably enough to keep them from winning an election.
Of course, if the Tories can't win in Drumheller-Stettler at all, the serious winds of change are blowing.
There's a great deal of talk about watching the Calgary Elbow byelection tonight, as a read on the future of both the Premier ("How bad does he suck to lose Elbow?") and the Leader of the Opposition ("How bad does he suck that he can't win in the face of all the disaffection with the Premier?"). I think Drumheller-Stettler may be much more telling.
The Liberals didn't even put up a candidate in D-S in 2004. Shirley McClelland won almost 65% of the vote, with the Alberta Alliance coming second with 14%, the NDP third with 9%, and three fringe parties divvying up the remaining 13%. So, although a Tory win seems inevitable, the results there may be indicators toward a more province-wide problem the Tories are going to face in the next election, and whether the Liberals are the real contenders or not. If the Alberta Alliance makes significant gains, it's a good indication that Stelmach has as much to worry about from the rural base of the party as he does from the cities. At the same time, if the NDP comes out ahead of the Liberals, that tells me that the Liberals will never make a real breakthrough in the rurals, which is probably enough to keep them from winning an election.
Of course, if the Tories can't win in Drumheller-Stettler at all, the serious winds of change are blowing.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Right sentence, wrong criminal
Scooter Libby, who until he started woking for Dick Cheney was widely considered to be an upright, reflective, thoughtful, and honest public servant, took it for the team today. So that makes two friends Dick Cheney has shot in the face.
Scooter Libby, who until he started woking for Dick Cheney was widely considered to be an upright, reflective, thoughtful, and honest public servant, took it for the team today. So that makes two friends Dick Cheney has shot in the face.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Failure is an orphan
We aren't going to meet our Kyoto targets. It's disappointing and sad, it undermines our international reputation, and it endangers the quality of life of every Canadian and every citizen of the globe, but it's no less true for all of that. The Liberals would like to tag the current government with the blame for this, of course, but I can't take the party seriously (though I take Mr. Dion as an individual very seriously on the topic) when I recall that of all the years since Canada signed the treaty, the Liberal party has held the reins of power in all but the last.
Then again, the Tories like to remind us of the same fact, forgetting that they were the critics of the science, promising to be obstructionists toward any real steps forward. One wonders if the Tories actually believe the science yet, or if they've simply come to the realization that denying the science would make them look crazy, or at least unelectable in most of this country.
(As for the other sitting parties and the Greens, their unwillingness to acknowledge the huge economic impact that meeting the Kyoto targets would produce only serves to make me dismiss them. I'd have much more respect for a party who would, like a Prime Minister converting to a wartime economy, realistically evaluate the price in jobs and economic activity, and then forcefully argue that the price is worth paying.)
Which brings me to the G8 meeting. Does the Prime Minister really expect anyone to take Canada seriously now? He can tart up his intensity targets as a great idea for developing nations all he wants (and perhaps it is a great idea for developing nations), but what it sounds like to the rest of the world is NIMBYism: we're having phenomenal economic growth in Canada right now, the United States is suckling at the enormous energy-supplying teat of the northern Alberta goop-mining business - we just can't stop!
Here's my point. If Harper wants Canada to be taken seriously on climate change, it's time to stop pretending we've got any cred to be a "world leader". We need to content ourselves with being a follower for now, sign damn near anything put in front of us at this meeting, and get started on the path we should have started on a decade ago. Until we pay the piper, we don't get to call the tune.
We aren't going to meet our Kyoto targets. It's disappointing and sad, it undermines our international reputation, and it endangers the quality of life of every Canadian and every citizen of the globe, but it's no less true for all of that. The Liberals would like to tag the current government with the blame for this, of course, but I can't take the party seriously (though I take Mr. Dion as an individual very seriously on the topic) when I recall that of all the years since Canada signed the treaty, the Liberal party has held the reins of power in all but the last.
Then again, the Tories like to remind us of the same fact, forgetting that they were the critics of the science, promising to be obstructionists toward any real steps forward. One wonders if the Tories actually believe the science yet, or if they've simply come to the realization that denying the science would make them look crazy, or at least unelectable in most of this country.
(As for the other sitting parties and the Greens, their unwillingness to acknowledge the huge economic impact that meeting the Kyoto targets would produce only serves to make me dismiss them. I'd have much more respect for a party who would, like a Prime Minister converting to a wartime economy, realistically evaluate the price in jobs and economic activity, and then forcefully argue that the price is worth paying.)
Which brings me to the G8 meeting. Does the Prime Minister really expect anyone to take Canada seriously now? He can tart up his intensity targets as a great idea for developing nations all he wants (and perhaps it is a great idea for developing nations), but what it sounds like to the rest of the world is NIMBYism: we're having phenomenal economic growth in Canada right now, the United States is suckling at the enormous energy-supplying teat of the northern Alberta goop-mining business - we just can't stop!
Here's my point. If Harper wants Canada to be taken seriously on climate change, it's time to stop pretending we've got any cred to be a "world leader". We need to content ourselves with being a follower for now, sign damn near anything put in front of us at this meeting, and get started on the path we should have started on a decade ago. Until we pay the piper, we don't get to call the tune.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)