You can't take the sky from me

My workplace is attempting to arrange for a special free screening of "Star Wars III/VI: Attack of the Yes We Know the Last Two Were Absolute Crap But He's Going to Become Vader and It's Going to be Dark and Scary and Every Bit as Good as Empire so Please Please Please Come See It." Damn - free was pretty much what I was prepared to pay. In fact, I still have a decision to make, because if it's anything like the last two, it's two hours of my life I'll never ever get back, and that's too high a price to pay.

Let's have a free screening of this, instead - it's a movie I'm actually excited about.. The first trailer should be posted today, if Ghost of a Flea can be believed.

Lucas bad. Whedon good! Is there a flag I can post on my blog about that?

Hey, there is!

Canadian Alliance(s)

Tommy Johnson: I had to be up at that there crossroads last midnight, to sell my soul to the devil.
Ulysses Everett McGill: Well, ain't it a small world, spiritually speaking. Pete and Delmar just been baptized and saved. I guess I'm the only one that remains unaffiliated.

Via James Bow, I've been introduced to a new blog alliance, the Blogging New Democrats. You might think I would be a natural to join. After all, I've spoken many times about my NDP membership, my involvement, even my candidacy (twice!) for the Alberta New Democrats. How could I not be a Blogging Dipper?

Well, first of all, I never started blogging to be on a team. I'm not here to do advocacy on behalf of something other than my own opinions.

Further, I don't think the Canadian blogosphere dividing itself into teams is a positive change. There are Tories, Liberals, and New Democrats among my links, as well as several people who proclaim a lack of affiliation. They all have interesting things to say - sometimes, they have convincing things to say. I don't want a tag at the top of every page acting like gang colours. I don't need the shorthand to tell me if I'm going to agree with the writer (and yes, I am that lazy). When the Red Ensign was making its rounds, I only had to see it on the page to decide to move on. I don't want to alienate people who wander by, who see I'm flying the orange flag, and leave, because I would never have anything on the page that differs from NDP orthodoxy.

I'm somewhat attracted to signing up with James Bow's "non-partisan" Canadians, but that would be a bare-faced lie. Because, you know.... NDP candidate, and all. I give them money. I volunteer. So that's not an option for me. And as much as it would be nice to have the links and the extra attention by joining the Dippers, this blog has been too critical on too many occasions of Jack and the federal party as it exists to make my potential NDP "teammates" very happy.

I've got no choice. "I guess I'm the only one that remains unaffiliated."

Maintenance

Until today, when you hovered on one of my links, the font expanded to 13pt. I thought it was a neat feature, but it caused all sorts of problems to my left column of reciprocal links. I've finally given up tinkering, so with regret, I say goodbye to that until I can figure out how to make it specific to some links and not others.

I've also cleaned up my links somewhat, but the job is really only half-done. I regret saying goodbye to some of my earliest linkers, who brought me my first audience and encouraged me to work harder on this page. I hope they'll let me know when they begin publishing again, so I can return the favour.

In the meantime, I've been a little bit generous about my one-month rule (see the end of those links), having inched toward absences that long myself. But I'm resolving to be more persistant about dropping stale links, so keep those blogs active. Otherwise, what's the point? Plus, I have responsibilities, being the 7th most --- well, most something --- political blog in Canada. (Thanks to Socialist Swine for contributing to my vanity.)

Crisertunity

If Jack Layton plays his cards right, the New Democrats could be in great position not just to hold the balance of power, but to get their hands on the reins. It all depends on if we can get this message across: "We're like the Liberals, but less criminally inept!" Tell me that's not exactly what Canadians want in their next government.

Layton's reaction to Martin's address last night takes the NDP on a dangerous path. The trick is to convince Canadians that the party is very much like the Liberals, but without the clinging stench of corruption. If instead the NDP is seen as interfering with the legitimate desire of voters to rid themselves of the current government, the party won't be congratulated for getting changes made to the current budget, they're going to be villified as Liberal lapdogs, and we'll join the Liberals in their fate.

And of course, none of this discounts the disadvantages for the NDP of going to the polls, as I outlined in an earlier post. If voters can be made scared enough of the Tories again, or worse, scared for the future of Canada, they might run back into the arms of the Liberals. The NDP needs to be realistic about strategic voting - don't discourage it, just remind voters that in many places in Canada, a vote for the NDP is the strategic vote, particularly if the Liberals implode. Step up and let the public know where a vote for the NDP is legitimately a vote against the Tories, or where it's the best chance of defeating a Liberal - voters will be voting against rather than voting for in record numbers this election. If we're dogmatic, and lie to voters ("Strategic voting never works"), we'll deserve what we get. And, I'll recommend again and again, Layton needs to back off his anti-Clarity position, because there's no way Canadians will accept pandering to the seperatists while the Bloc appears to be on the cusp of filling 65 seats or more in the House.

Layton could gain seats in the coming election, and it would still be a missed opportunity. Political alignment is wildly in flux. If the party misses this chance, it will only have itself to blame.

And somehow, I can't get paid to write

An interesting editorial in the Bismarck Tribune advocates a boycott of travel to Canada. Hey, it's their money, and therefore their business. The specific point of conflict is the drainage of a North Dakota lake, which the Manitoba and Canadian governments are concerned will damage waterways that travel into Canada. On that issue, I have no opinion - I'm pretty conservative when it comes to protecting freshwater, but I'm sympathetic to North Dakota's claim that the time to dispute the plan was about twenty million dollars ago. There are, I'm sure, other writers who are more knowledgable and well-suited to make an argument on the topic (including Americans).

One writer who is not on that list is Frederic Smith, editorialist for the Bismarck Tribune. For the record, allow me to clarify a few things from his editorial.

The editorial accuses "the province of Winnipeg" of obstructionism. Heh.

The local lakes flood, the editorial explains, "forcing ... miles of indirection on school buses, mail carriers and emergency responders." I'm not sure "indirection" is actually wrong, here, but it sure is weird usage.

Adding insult to injury, a flunky with the Canadian treasury board abused U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad to the media recently when the senator declined to drop urgent business in North Dakota -- on the future of the air bases -- to meet with him in Washington about the outlet.

For the record, the "flunky" was Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board. Perhaps "President" equals "flunky" in the eyes of this writer - must be a Dick Cheney fan. Also, Alcock's comments weren't because the Senator "declined to drop urgent business", but because Alcock thought he had been stood up. It was inpolitic, and as it turns out, the missed meeting was chalked up to a scheduling error (perhaps just diplomatic cover, but whatever). Alcock apologised, Conrad accepted and looked forward to the rescheduled meeting. I found all of that out in about four minutes of google-searching, but that seems to be more research than could be expected from Frederic Smith, having already built up a good mouthful of froth at this point.

Perhaps a Winnipeg letter writer (Tribune, April 12) is correct in blaming it all on the silly socialist governments up that way -- the Liberal Party national government in Ottawa and the even more extreme New Democratic Party provincial government in Winnipeg.

But people elected those governments, and the writer finds Winnipeg Premier Gary Doer playing to an appreciative crowd of "the large number of ideological anti-Americans in Manitoba."

Ah, those silly socialists, like the Prime Minister. Remember when he nationalized Canada Steamship Lines? Crazy commies. As for the "ideological anti-Americanism", I haven't seen a lot of it, but I've seen plenty of people reacting to anti-Canadian rants such as this one, or anti-Canadian policies such as trade restrictions on Canadian beef and lumber, with a pretty strong "screw you, too." Sometimes, the brush we use with that phrase is too wide, and our anger at one level of American government or another ends up indirectly insulting the American people. (Our insults, you might say, suffer from "indirection".) So, in that light, let me say to most of the citizens of North Datoka: I enjoyed the time I spent travelling there. You have a very nice state, and I look forward to returning some time. To Frederic Smith: screw you, too.

(An aside - he's quoting a letter-writer who identifies Manitoba. Do you suppose Smith thinks Manitoba is somewhere near the province of Winnipeg?)

Finally, after entertaining the idea of boycotting Canadian tourism, he ends:

Keeping it south of the border this year would be an excellent way of showing that we are paying attention and keeping score.

Keeping score? My own sense of diplomacy and desire to see cross-border relations improve prevents me from running a tally sheet at this point, but Mr. Smith, if you're serious about keeping score, you let me know and I'll dust off Excel and see what we come up with.

Meantime, enjoy your one-man boycott.

Another day I wish I was Jewish

I don't even know what this is, but boyoboy does it look cool.

Tell your Chavrusa!

What to do?

It's a beautiful spring morning in Edmonton, another in what's becoming a decent string of them. It's tough for me to get worried about the revelations made to a Commons committee by one-time government insider and high-profile Canadian blogger Warren Kinsella. I'm having a hard time getting excited about the Martin government, all of a sudden, announcing a bunch of policy. (Gee, I wonder if the Liberals are already fighting the next election?) I can't even get myself worked up about the installation of Benedict XVI.

But I'm a leading Canadian blogger. I have responsibilities.

Aw, screw it. There are plenty of opinions out there, most of them interesting. Let me tell you about what I've been watching and reading, instead.

First of all, the second season of Arrested Development has come to a close. It's been a long time since I've enjoyed a sitcom, and part of the secret of the success is that the humour here is in the "sit(uation)" part. Standard sitcom formula has several people gathered together (in a home, a workplace, a coffee shoppe) and they say witty things to one another. Plots aren't the source of the humour, they're the launching point of the witticisms. In AD, the situations and plots are funny, but the moment the characters make any effort to be witty, that character invaribly is greeted by embarrassed silence and discomfort. The show is clever, in the way Faulty Towers was clever, with twisting plots that often manage to dovetail, sometimes only in future episodes (or even just the fake "next episode" clips at the end). The show is genre-referential, perhaps too much so, but it adds to the rewatchibility of each episode (as do the details, every bit as richly laid in as any episode of The Simpsons). Without going to far into detail, here, an example: Ron Howard is the narrative voice on the show. Henry Winkler plays a sleazy lawyer. You can't possibly hear those two voices together without noticing the man behind the curtain. Another example: Jason Bateman plays the uber-responsible anchor to his disfunctional family. The ultimate straight man, for the first while it's impossible to see him without recalling his lengthy bad sitcom history.

Long story short (too late for that, I suspect), the show is sharp, and makes me believe in the potential of sitcoms again. And yet it's in a fight to be renewed, since Fox has it up against Desperate Housewives. Note to Fox: stick with Arrested Development. DH has the future of Ally McBeal - It starts out sharp and clever, feeling fresh and funny. In two seasons it'll deteriorate into unbearable melodrama. And if I'm wrong, hey, there's just some shows that can't be beat. You have to schedule something against them - why not a show where you can recoup your losses in DVD sales?

As for my reading selections lately, there are advantages to moving to Edmonton. I'm excited to have my first library card in years. (Note to residents of the County of Wheatland - next municipal election, put your representitives' feet to the fire. When will they begin subscribing to library services again, or produce their own as they claimed they would do when they withdrew from the Marigold Library system? I'm sure there are other municipalities in Canada that offer no library services to its residents, but I don't know where. It's shameful.) So the first thing I searched for in the card catalouge (okay, it was a computer catalouge. It's been a long time since I've had a library membership) was Michael Chabon, author of one of my favourite recent reads, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. That book was a fictional account about the co-creators of doubly-fictional Golden Age superhero The Escapist. Others agreed with me - this was a fine book.

Imagine my surprise to discover that Dark Horse Comics has begun publishing The Amazing Adventures of The Escapist, allowing artists and writers to create stories fitting into the false history Chabon crerated for this character. Imagine my further surprise that the Edmonton Public Library offers graphic novels.

Anyone who has enjoyed comics with any seriousness (I'm talking to you, Mr. and Ms Bear, and you, Mr. NZ teacher, and --- well, actually, much of my readership. If you read The Dark Knight, or better yet, The Watchmen, consider yourself included.) should start with Kavalier and Clay, and then discover the most interesting thing happening in comics today thinks it happened years ago.

I'm not worried. I'm a penguin.

The CBC reports that the United States has been actively avoiding lax about discovering BSE cases.

Tip of the hat to Greg at Sinister Thoughts for pointing this out. I need to read his blog more often.

Timing

I feel like I've over-waited to post on the revelations at Gomery, as they increasingly seem poised to bring the government down. I'm not sure that's a good idea right now. And I also can't see how it can happen, if the opposition parties are at all savvy.

Let's start with my own party. Does the NDP really believe it can improve its seat-count in the House of Commons? When minority governments fall, Canadians have a long-standing habit of abandoning third parties, and organizing their vote around one or the other of the possible governing parties. It gets worse - Layton's public opposition to the Clarity Act was damaging enough last election. If this election turns out to have a strong sovergnist edge within Quebec, the divisions in the NDP over Clarity will be front and centre. It'll be a disaster.

The Bloc seems to be riding a wave of Liberal unpopularity in Quebec, so they'd want to go to election. (I don't entirely understand this wave, beyond what the rest of the country is experiencing. There's no good reason for Quebecers to be angrier about the scandal than anyone else. I think part of the complaint from Quebec is that there was a sponsorship program in the first place - naturally the sovergnists wouldn't like that. They were angry that busloads of Canadians arrived for a rally during the 1995 referendum as well. Tough shit, sovergnists.) But really, where does the Bloc hope to grow? They have almost every seat they have any chance of winning already - most of the seats they don't have are so strongly federalist, they'd vote for any yellow dog that wasn't the BQ. Maybe even the Tory. Letting the Tories get their feet in the door in Quebec is probably not good for the long-term life of the BQ, notwithstanding a successful referendum.

Now, I can understand the Tories wanting to go. In several ridings, the last election became a referendum on Stephen Harper - will he protect my individual rights? Does he respect the Charter? That referendum didn't go well for Harper. The revelations at Gomery shift that focus to the government. At the same time, I think he still risks those questions re-emerging over the course of the election. He needs to find opportunities before he goes to the polls to prove his dedication to the Charter. Tonight's vote on same-sex marriage is not likely to help - it may shift the focus right back off of the Liberals, in fact, in favour of displaying the cracks in the Reform/Tory plaster job.

Don't mistake me. The numbers are small (by government spending standards, anyway) but the accusations are extremely serious. Canadians deserve an accounting. But an election right now might only serve to put the Gomery inquiry on hold. Paul Martin wants the election to be delayed until the inquiry has a chance to report. The opposition parties are probably not in the best position to punish the Liberals for Adscam. Just like my argument around the publication ban, my desire to punish the Liberals is not as pressing as making sure it's done right. We'll get our chance, and soon, but now would be a mistake - a tactical mistake for the opposition parties, but far more importantly, a mistake for our ability as Canadians to mete our justice upon the Liberals and upon the individuals responsible. Patience will only help us on both counts.

Big ol' spike

Yesterday, RevMod saw traffic that was reminicient of the old Gaffe-o-Meter days. Some people, I know, were searching for information on testimony in front of the Gomery commission that can't be found in the daily paper. You won't be finding it here, and I'm not going to go out of my way to link to where it can be found. If you're determined enough and curious enough, I'm sure you can find it.

I do want to link one e-mail conversation that was brought to my attention. It was between the American blog that first published the testimony and a Canadian blogger respecting the publication ban. From the American blogger:

"...in a fashion that resembles Castro's Cuba or the current Chinese regime, your press is restricted in order to protect criminals." (Do I even need to mention that this is a blog of the conservative ilk? I'm glad the Canadian blogging community seems to be much less divided and more respectful than this)

Let me address this idea directly. I tried to answer it a little more subtly yesterday, but I don't think I was clear enough.

The publication ban is not intended to "protect criminals", you thick-headed moron. It's intended to protect the justice system, so that we can eventually have fair trials and potentially punish criminals. If the publication ban is broken widely and flagrantly enough, a fair trial may become impossible and an unspecified number of criminals may continue to walk free.

The only logical conclusion is that the prosecutions of long-time Bush supporters like Kenny Lay have made this unnamed right-wing American blogger sympathetic to the hard road of the white-collar criminal, and wants to protect those involved in Adscam from the same unfortunate fate.

Now, for myself, those are my taxes that were spent, very possibly misspent, quite possibly stolen in the course of the events now being investigated by Gomery. I'm looking forward to seeing someone frog-marched in front of the cameras to give Canadians a sense that someone is answering for that alleged theivery. And if prosecution becomes impossible because some fuck-witted American jack-off wanted a few more hits on his website, perhaps another nickel or two for click-throughs on his page's ads, Canadians deserve to be pissed.

Why does the American right hate justice?

Confidential to "Blogger in Canada":

If you would like criminals to go to jail, you have to start by respecting the rules laid down by the court.

Ya think?

"Report says U.S. spy agencies were 'dead wrong' about Iraq"

I wonder if the Bush administration realizes they could have received the same report from a Quebec ad agency for half the price?

Reader mail

I'm relocating to Edmonton for a new job, and that's cut into my posting time, so there's been some lag time on these e-mails I've received. Sorry about that.

First up, alert CBC radio listener Deb W. has noticed the removal of host Don Hill from from Alberta's 1pm phone-in show, Wild Rose Forum. She doesn't explicitly suggest political influence, but points out a couple of curious points:

Don had recently been bringing up some pretty damaging and worrisome information related to Alberta's electrical energy deregulation, and, on his "final" program on Monday, he referenced a Toronto Star article from the fall of 2004 where integration of Canada-U.S. electrical energy was apparently discussed by such "luminaries" [no pun intended] as John Manley, Thomas d'Aquino and...........Jim Dinning.

And as she notes in an e-mail a few days later, the Friday Alberta noon show, "Friday Scrum", began a series of "interviews with influential Albertans". The first guest? Jim Dinning.

Dinning basically outlined his plans for Alberta in the 21st century as a hopeful for the Premier's role. [Friday Scrum host Donna] McElligott mentioned only briefly at the beginning, that Ted Morton was also planning to vie for PC leadership.

This was a blatant, free, political "ad", mostly. Listen to it. You can hear McElligott asking questions as if she were being forced to read from a script. You can also hear the discomfort in her voice.

Readers should draw their own conclusions.

Jonathan Ross was the first to let me know about Medicine Hat MP Monte Solberg's blog, which included this disturbing rant:

Cattle producers should have sent Paul a letter telling him that they just discovered that an open border is a "fundamental human right" that is protected by the Charter. Then Paul Martin Luther King would have had no choice but to at least mention it in his speech and maybe even confront those American cattle segregationists who won't let Canadian cattle drink from the same watering hole as American cattle.

Aiyaa! New-to-me blogger Bruce at Canuck Attitude has been all over this as well.

Keep the cards and letters coming. Well, the e-mails, at any rate - don't be dropping my address in any webforms, SVP.

Disgusting

The polemics came even quicker than I thought, from both the left and right, which saddened me a bit. Only my own desire not to descend into politics in the immediate wake of the killings of the four R.C.M.P. constables has kept me from posting this earlier.

From the Western Standard, this post by Kate McMillian:

And our marijuana decriminalizing legislators would have us believe that the safety of the public depends on arresting hotel owners for smoking violations, getting unhelmeted bicycle riders off our dirt trails and warrentless entry into the homes of dog owners.

Notwithstanding the erroniousness of associating the killings to marijuana cultivation, which, you know, whatever --- to take this tragedy and twist it into a grindstone for some sort of axe about statism was perhaps the most disappointing display of hard-hearted, calculating, manipulative, and cold exploitation I've seen on a Canadian blog. Perhaps I wouldn't be so harsh about it, had she waited to post this until, I don't know - there was some sort of official announcement? Because instead, she elected to post her judgement of this event even as details were emerging in the media.

But lest you think I'm picking on the right as a whole by choosing this example, I'd like to also point out that commentators on the page, so likely right-leaners themselves, shared my disgust:

Your gauche attempt to score political points from this tragic event is disgusting. Shame on you.
...
This pretty much does it for me. Four police officers are killed in the line of duty and we turn it into a political debate. This is exactly what the left does in the U.S. when it comes to U.S. combat deaths.
I think that we are showing a lack of class here, to put it mildly. Sadly, I think that is all too common on the internet... For my part, I'm going to... avoid this website in the future.
...
I have a suggetion.

Why not postpone the political debate until after you've called the local RCMP detachment, offered your condolences, and found out how to contact the detachment of the officers who died today.

I called my local detachment and they said not to contact the local detachment -- it's too early and they're busy with the investigation.

Why not take a little time out of respect for the families nd friends.

Thank you to those Western Standard [former?] readers for reaffirming my faith that most people are basically good and decent, regardless of politics.

Shock and sadness

What can possibly be said about something like this

Four RCMP officers murdered on Alberta farm

We fool ourselves, sometimes, that our communities, especially our smaller communities, are safe places, that we're insulated from the sort of violence that we imagine happens in big American cities. We're not.

I expect in the next days and weeks the more polemical of us, very possibly including me, will argue for procedural or social or legal changes that could have helped avoid this morning's tragedy. I hope we can defer that.

I offer my deepest condolences to the friends and families of those who lost their lives this morning. There are no words.

John Paul II: 1920 - ... what? Still?

I'm certain producers at various major broadcasters and 24-hour news networks wish nothing but good health and long life to the Pontiff. And yet, his tenacious grip on life is beginning to get expensive:

"It was 1996 that I went to Rome myself to negotiate roof rights," said Marcy McGinnis, senior vice president for news coverage at CBS News. "Every broadcaster in the world has a rooftop or balcony lined up."

Indeed, a case of what broadcasters dubbed "rooftop envy" swept through the Vatican in 1996 when the Pope underwent surgery to have his appendix removed and TV networks swarmed the area, striking exclusive deals with the hotels and private homeowners whose buildings and balconies overlook St. Peters Square, to lock in their live shots.

And it's not just the cost of renting rooftops. Equipment sits ready to go, hotel rooms are rented out of fear that the day the "Big Story" happens, there will be no room at the inn. A decade of people waiting for him to die - that must be very comforting to His Holiness.

All of the major networks have long had their shots lined up and their rooftops secured, but the longevity and surprising vigor of the Pope throughout years of ill health ... have put some of those arrangements in jeopardy.

When CBS News arranged for its rooftop, for instance, it struck a 10-year deal, figuring that would be more than enough time to ensure a spot for the Pope's death and funeral. But that deal is set to expire next year, meaning that if the Pope pulls through his current bout with illness, CBS may be forced to renegotiate the rights at somewhat of a disadvantage, considering that it has already fully prepared the rooftop for broadcasting on the fly.

I'm sure, despite all the money invested, that the networks will show appropriate restraint when the Big Story arrives, and won't intersperse the sombre reflection with attempts to sell me frozen pizza and drugs that allow me to sustain an erection.

Perhaps I've just tapped into the reason that God keeps His Holiness alive - She entertains herself by screwing with broadcasters. Or just likes the building owners in the area:

"Some [broadcasters] have been investing for almost up to 10 years, and have spent hundreds of thousands of euros. One block of flats has earned so much that the owners have been able to restore the building thanks to the proceeds."

Hurry! Harrrrrrd!

For two months every year, the CBC puts aside its regular prime-time programming and offers the NHL playoffs. That won't be happening this year. How fortunate, then, that this marks the first year the CBC has purchased the broadcast rights for the big three curling tournaments - the Scott, the Brier, and the Worlds.

But here they go screwing it up. They're only offering one draw a day live, and a second late at night on tape delay, farming out the morning and evening draw live coverage to The Score (mostly a sports-headline service) and Country Canada (a secondary CBC service with half a million subscribers nationwide - as opposed to the eight million households with access to TSN).

People are pissed. I heard someone from CBC's communications department say they've recieved more calls on the Scott (lack of) coverage than they did on Don Cherry's most recent major gaffe, and as many as they get when they screw with the schedule for Coronation Street. (That is actually not a joke. Apparently, the Corrie fans are hard-freaking-core.)

Honestly, that episode of Marketplace couldn't have waited a week? You couldn't have shuffled each show's schedule forward three weeks over the three tournaments, and allow the new episodes to leak into April? Even Mansbridge normally has to wait for the hockey to finish each night in April and May - are you telling me Rick Mercer can't move his holidays around a little?

Why is the CBC so bad at making lemonade?

I'm not signing anything until I read it or until somebody gives me the gist of it.

Frank McKenna says we've already signed up for US missile defense. Whoops!

The Greatest Canadian. Er, song.

As part of the CBC's current effort to keep us from noticing there are no hockey broadcasts this winter, they've reprised and extended their summer radio success 50 Tracks, this time sticking to exclusively Canadian songs.

If you're not a big CBC radio service listener, allow me to summarize - over the summer, former Moxy Fruvous dude Jian Ghomeshi gathered together panels of musical experts to nominate, by decade, songs that were "essential" in some way. It was a neat little show, at least in part because it was freed of genre restrictions, which comparable lists prepared by commercial radio stations are not. The final list itself was interesting enough in the end, if not exactly the one I would have produced.

So, the show was successful enough to have earned another go (and a television audience as well), but since you can't keep arguing about the same songs, the rules had to change - now, Jian and panellists are trying to isolate the fifty essential Canadian tracks. Not entirely surprisingly, more of the list is being back ended to the 70s and forward, because Canadian content regulations have been so successful in promoting Canadian music since then.

Enough background. This week, the first of two for the 1980s, has selected the top, most essential, greatest Canadian song of that decade. F'n North-West Passage, by Stan Rogers.

How appropriate - when I hear the song, it's inexorably linked via the soundtrack of my life. I can remember high school dances, the sting of rejection, the nearly equal sting of my first tastes of rye whiskey... it wouldn't be the same without the deejay spinning Stan's memorable dirge. And influential? I can rememeber just as I was graduating high school, when the early-'80s wave of Canadian hair bands gave way to old men singing sea shanties in four-part harmony. In fact, our grad theme song was Barrett's Privateers.

Look, I'm not saying the song is bad. It just feels like one of those artifical efforts to create a national identity, when in fact our identity is probably more accurately wrapped up in (and I say this with no pride) Loverboy and April Wine.

It doesn't fit. If Anne Murray's Snowbird doesn't qualify as an essential Canadian track (and it did not), there's no way Stan Rogers should be there, leaving "I'm an Adult Now" out in the cold along with "Rockin' in the Free World".

Daily Show shout-outs

Last night, Jon Stewart was good enough to spend the first several minutes speaking directly to me. It included a long and clever story about blogging, which you can find discussed a few different places, including sites specifically mentioned.

More importantly, it began with words of condolence to Canadians who would be missing hockey. Not that Jon cares, he declares - he watches more curling. "Do NOT cancel curling."

Here-effin'-here!

Update, Friday morning: Another shout-out, this one not so friendly. Presented with the knowledge that there's three trillion barrels of oil in Athabasca, Jon wondered why they didn't invade here. "Wassup, Calgary? You want a piece?"

Jon's right, the invasion would be even easier than Iraq - after all, the roads are better. But I don't think the US would care for the insurrection. We've got no hockey on television, so finding people with nothing to live for won't be as hard as Jon might think.

Dammit - I was going to quit fireworks for Lent



Today marks Ash Wednesday and Chinese New Year. I'd like to remind readers of Bear's holiday proposal last year.



Gung Hei Fat Choi, everyone!



Update, shortly thereafter: I see he hasn't forgotten it, either.

Some fun for Friday



Wild Rose Forum at 1pm on CBC radio will be asking, again, if the problem in the gay marriage debate is really just one of language.



Guess what, Don. It's not. Pretending it is allows people motivated by bigotry and fear to have a socially acceptable out.



If you happen to have some time between one and two this afternoon, feel encouraged to call or email the show and share your views. The number is 1-866-468-4422. E-mailing is best done threough the webform on the show's main page.

The island of Progressive Conservatism



Sometimes, I really miss living near downtown Calgary, quite aside from missing a walkabout by Kevin Smith a block from my old apartment. There's something about the place that seperates it from most of Calgary, with its car-addicted suburbanites living in oversized houses on undersized lots. It's not so seperate that it votes other than Tory, in various forms, but they still get something different from their MPs.



When I lived there, back in 1993, there was an important gay rights vote before the House. My Reform Party MP, Jim Silye, was the only Reformer to vote in favour of the bill. Years later, the Tory MP, Joe Clark, rode as the Grand Marshall of Calgary's Pride parade. And now, the MP for the slightly realligned riding of Calgary Centre-North, Jim Prentice, stands to be one of only two Alberta MPs to vote in favour of the Civil Marriage Act, and the other, Anne McLellan, is compelled to vote in favour by being in cabinet.



Good for you, Jim Prentice. It takes a certain amount of bravery to stand against your leader, even in a free vote.

More heat than light



It was and is easy for me to pick sides in the gay marriage debate, given what a vehicle for homophobia the debate has become. And, no, I'm not claiming that all opponents of gay marriage are homophobic, just that the homophobes seem to be the loudest voices among the "no" side.



Don't believe me?



Just before Christmas, Wild Rose Forum hosted a discussion on the place of religious language in public discourse. At least, that's what they claimed the discussion was about - what it was really about was that the guests that day didn't care for gay people.



This jewel of a sentence has colonized my brain: "The gay lifestyle is one I don't agree with." Huh. Well, first of all, since being gay isn't a declarative statement initiating a debate, I'm going to assume that "agree with" means "approve of." I'm more concerned with the subordinate clause - "the gay lifestyle." What exactly is that? What does "the gay lifestyle" involve? Does the preacher who said it object to the frequency and quality of touring former Broadway musicals? He probably objects to the sodomy, but I don't think it's the form of the sexual activity per se that he's talking about when he's "disagreeing" with the "gay lifestyle". (If it is, tough luck, buddy. It's been forty years since then Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau decriminalized sexual activities between or among consenting adults, and we're not going back.)



This preacher was objecting to something else. There is a word being studiously avoided by both sides of the gay marriage debate. It's a word that man probably finds interchangable with "the gay lifestyle". I hadn't given much thought to it myself, but researching this post has led me directly to it. The subtext rapidly became text.



The word is "promiscuity."



Why does Stephen Harper risk making the new Conservative Party look like the old Reform Party, with weird declarations about polygamy? It makes perfect sense if you follow the unnamed logic - since gay men are by their very nature promiscuous, doesn't it follow that if you approve of gay marriage, you approve of non-monogamy? Won't we eventually have to acknowledge that choice in law by recognizing relationships that are polyamorous?



Solid logic built on a foundation of a crazy-sounding assumption. So why doesn't the gay community bring this assumption to the surface, so they can dispute it head-on? Well, because the assumption has a kernel of truth, and gay-marriage advocates don't particularly want to talk about it.



I knew about the assumption, but I always thought it was nonsense - like making assumptions about how two billion Asians drive because of the one who cut you off on Deerfoot Trail. Among my friends, gay couples seem as long-term (or not) as the straights among us, and if their relationships are sexually open, they aren't talking about that part to me.



Then I started reading for the post that stood in this place earlier today. I wasn't reading anti-gay tracts, and I wasn't reading clucking disapproval. Here's an excellent example:

Why then do present-day gay men believe that promiscuity is so central to who they are? - the answer is historical and ideological.



...



...Gay Lib and the gay rights movement which emerged in the 1970s were deeply distrustful of authority. In particular, gay men and lesbians had come to hate, with good reason, those who argued for any restrictions on sexual freedom.



...



...instead of following the traditional, hetero, monogamous model, gay men invented a new one, it which it was both our right and our duty to have sex with as many of our fellows as possible.

No wonder some people feel that gay marriage is an attack on old-timey marriage, which relies on sexual and emotional fidelity as a cornerstone of stability. Those are the relationships we prefer to see children raised within... that's the institution people want protected and encouraged as a building-block of our social arrangements.



Marriage or not, civil union or not, no one is asking for my approval of their sexual relationships, either in style or number. However, the more accepted and absorbed a subculture is by the larger culture, the less differentiated the subculture becomes. The Civil Marriage Act marks the beginning of the end of the closeted exclusion which feeds that subculture. True supporters of traditional relationships should become advocates for gay marriage, because there may be no faster way to encourage the alignment of the subcultural mores to those traditional values. At the same time, the radical gay and lesbian movement, the people who want to tear down the rotted institutions and rebuild everything from the ground up, should probably be loudly opposing the Civil Marriage Act.



Funny enough, if this became the actual split point in the debate, I'd still find myself on the side of gay marriage.

And we took "under God" out of the company anthem.



Wal-Mart has decided to recognize same-sex partners as immediate family. That would be great news for the partners of Wal-Mart employees, if Wal-Mart actually offered any benefits. As it is, it just means those partners are described within the Wal-Mart ethics code, which:

bar[s] employees from ... approaching Wal-Mart's suppliers about jobs for immediate family members, the company said.

So, as an employee of Wal-Mart, I can't arrange for a job for my partner, same- or opposite-sex, to manufacture shoes in China for twelve cents an hour? Bastards!



Since there's now volumes of case law in Canada recognizing the equality of common-law relationships gay and straight (gay marriage or not), and since even the hard right position in this country now seems to be some sort of domestic partnership recognition for same-sex couples, Wal-Mart's decision is no big deal here. It speaks to the American gay and lesbian experience that this is considered a great victory.



(An aside - I'm reminded of a Frank Magazine three-frame "Foto Funny": Preston Manning in a Parliament Hill scrum: "Of course I'm in favour of same-sex equality. After all, Sandra and I have been having the same sex for years." I miss Frank Magazine.)

And now, in sports...

Curler Mitchell Marks was suspended for two years for refusing to submit to a drug test, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said Thursday.

For those of you who don't follow the sport, the technical term for a drug test in curling is "breathalyser". Of course, how large quantities of rye whiskey can be in any way described as "performance-enhancing" is beyond my comprehension.



Honestly, are drug tests in cases like these actually meant to identify cheaters? What constitutes "performance-enhancing" in a sport that requires almost no strength or physical endurance, that's about strategy and precision?



I did a little poking around on the USADA website, and discovered that testosterone, at least, is a prohibited substance for curlers. I guess I can understand that - it'd be a real shame if the Olympic curling teams looked like, you know, athletes.

Metablogging



Yesterday, Blogger was broken. Today, my comments tool is broken. Plus, no props from the Canadian blogging awards for this very attractive loud but thematic design. Is it time to rebuild this page?

Diplomacy



People are expressing concern about Frank McKenna's appointment as ambassador to the United States. According to the radio, some believe he's too much of a "blue Liberal", too conservative.



Wait a minute. That's exactly the sort of person I want telling the Bush administration things they don't want to hear. The ambassador doesn't set policy, he communicates it. Think about it... why did we hate Paul Cellucci so much? I think it was because he kept telling Canadians our business, without having any sign that he understood anything about us.



If McKenna's appointment is a sign that Martin wants to fold up on every issue where we disagree with the USA, we have trouble. I'm willing to give the Prime Minister a little more credit than that. I think this might be part of a strategy to give Canada the flexibility to tell the American administration to get bent when we feel like it.



The old joke says diplomacy is the ability to tell a person to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. I think the tide has turned sufficiently on missile defense that Martin is in a corner - he's going to have to say "go to hell" to Dubya. I don't resent him every chance to convince the Americans not to take it out on us via softwood lumber and cattle imports.

We now return to your regularly-scheduled blogging. At least, that's the plan.



If you haven't figured out how to help the people of south-east Asia recover from the devastation to homes, communities, and livelihoods in the wake of the tsunami, you just aren't trying. Nonetheless, here's a list of the charities approved for Canadian government matching funds.

Happy holidays, everyone!



I'm clearly already on mine. Sorry. Regular blogging will resume soon. Captain Flynn at Against All Flags has posted some holiday music links for... well, pleasure isn't entirely the right word.



In the meantime, don't forget to nominate --- well, not so much me, for my rather unassuming 2004 performance --- don't forget to nominate some of Canada's best blogs, several of whom I've listed to the immediate right, for Canada's blog awards.

It's What's For Dinner



White House press briefing, Monday, November 29, 2004:

Q The beef dispute, do you see it getting resolved tomorrow?



MR. McCLELLAN: Right, and I expect that's something that they will talk about. There's a rule-making process that we have in place. They touched on it in their most recent meeting. I expect they'll talk about it a little more in Canada. But we have a rule-making process that we're following. Obviously, our first and most important priority is to make sure that our food supply is safe for the American people.



Q The Canadians are going to serve the President Canadian beef for dinner. Is he eating it? (Laughter.)



MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen -- no, I understand. I have not seen the menu for the social dinner. But the President looks forward to going there and looks forward to participating in the dinner with Prime Minister Martin. Again, I haven't seen the menu, so I couldn't confirm that that's accurate or not.

Scott, the question wasn't "Will he be served Canadian beef?" It was "will he be eating it?" Let me spell it out for you, Scott: tonight, we're going to discover that Canadian beef is good enough for the President. Why isn't it good enough for other Americans?



I'll keep you posted on any follow-up in the briefing today.

It's Buy Nothing Day!



Let me pre-empt last year's question - "What's the point?" If you find it difficult to get through a day without spending any money, take a few minutes today to think about that, to think about what it means to the world that there's a lot of us in the developed world that share that difficulty.



And then, if you still want to deal with the Black Friday crowds at the local Target, hey, have at'er.

Post Mortem



Let's start with my personal results, and get them out of the way. I came fifth, as I predicted. I beat the Socred, but lost to the incumbent, the Liberal parachute, the Alliance no-show/no-sign, and the Parti Albertois. On the other hand, I doubled my vote and was in striking distance of all but Oberg, so there's something to be celebrated even in this.



To the rest of the election. The Klein who spoke last night was not the exuberant Premier of 2001 declaring Alberta "Ralph's World". He won three-quarters of the seats in the legislature, and he looked humbled. And rightfully so - he understands what he heard over the writ period. He understands what it means that the Alberta Alliance snagged over 9% of the vote, mostly out of a rural base the Tories have taken for granted. In Alberta, a grumbly electorate doesn't immediately throw the bums out. But Albertans clearly told the Premier that we expect some change, some new direction. If we don't see it from the Tories, we'll find it elsewhere.



This is going to have a huge impact on the upcoming leadership. The candidates who might pull the Tories out of trouble are the ones who articulate something new - who are as much of a change within the PC party as Klein was a break from the Lougheed era. A smart guy like Jim Dinning might figure that out and reinvent himself. My suggestion, and prediction, is that he'll invoke the PC party of 1971, of the Lougheed era. That PC party was a shift left from the Socreds who came before, running against the most excessive and offensive ideas left over from the thirties. Lougheed's first act in office was to repeal the eugenics legislation that permitted forced sterilizations. I'm not sure there's anything as huge or symbolic as that, but the contest will be the same. If the next PC leader lines up the party behind the modern, urban, fiscally conservative-to-moderate but socially moderate-to-progressive Alberta of today, the Tories can pull their vote once more, steal back from the Liberals, and dominate the centre once again. Like the Lougheed era, there will be a few opposition memmbers on the right ("Hey, what happened to our eugenics legislation?") and a few on the left.



Or, the Tories can move themselves to the right, try to get back the votes and seat they've lost to the Alberta Alliance... and Kevin Taft will be extremely well-situated to take most of Calgary, some of the medium-sized city seats, and a few in the bedroom community rurals. It's enough to turn the Liberals into the government - an awfully similar government to the Tory one I described above. No wonder Taft was happy last night.



We NDP last night were happier than we should be. Before Klein, the NDP were in the position that the Liberals are now - a decent-sized caucus sitting across from a government that needed to reinvent or fall. I'm not sure when exactly we let the Liberals steal that opportunity away. But Albertans of all political stripes who appreciate responsible government should be happy about the four ND members, because we've proven over the last session our effectiveness at holding the government to account with even a tiny caucus.



I think the rest of the country would be surprised to hear that an election that brought the Tories their tenth majority in a row was about change. But that was the message last night - the Tories can change, or Albertans will change them. Klein's political instincts are as good as ever - he heard it. Did the rest of the party?

Election Day



I had volunteered to help out at the NDP office today, mostly taking calls that begin with "Where do I vote?" But it seems the staff there are taking quicker-than-usual calls, because the website to find the answer is slow-to-crashy due to volume.



I didn't get a voter information card in the mail. My folks didn't get one. No one in my sister's household got one. I have the sneaking suspicion that the process changed, and no one at all got one. I also get the feeling that hundreds of thousands of Albertans are only realizing this today.



If you're in this boat, let me make a few suggestions:



First, call elections Alberta at 1-877-422-8683. They'll be able to answer the question - they likely have localized versions of the webpage database at each desktop. I sure hope they do, anyway.



If you're getting nothing but a busy signal, try calling your local frontrunner's office... I bet you still haven't thrown out his or her propaganda, so there might be a phone number there. It doesn't matter what party you're intending to support - they don't have the time or inclination to confirm if you're someone they want to help. They are also very likely the only candidate with enough staff (unless you're lucky enough to be in one of the hotly-contested Edmonton races) to answer the question. Maybe they'll even offer you a ride.



Finally, if you haven't changed residences since last time, take a stab in the dark and try the place you voted last time. Or (if you live in an urban area) walk to the nearest school or community hall and try your luck. If there's a poll, but it's not yours, they'll likely have a pretty good idea where you need to go.



I won't campaign for myself today (because (a) I don't think I have any Strathmore-Brooks readers I'm not related to and (b) elections officers frown upon it), other than to say that coming higher than fifth would be very nice. Coming high enough to have my count listed on the television would be a thrill, and would help me win some rural issue fights at the next NDP convention.



The Speaker sent me a very nice letter, telling me where and when I need to be for my new MLA orientation. I've left my schedule clear for that day, on the off-chance that the perfect storm of dissatisfaction, malaise, and slippery roads makes me the winner tonight. See you there, Ken!

Alberta's Senate Election - Bringing People Together!



This New Democrat thinks the Senator-in-limbo election, being held on Monday as part of the provincial election, is a stupid idea. I share this belief with most of my party.



The Calgary Grit, a Liberal, thinks the senate election is stupid, and so far as I know, his party's fielded no candidates either.



Now, a former Tory Senator, Ron Ghitter, has joined our ranks.



How do you tell the government you didn't want this vote, and you don't want to waste more of your money on this process in the future? Spoiling your ballot will get you tallied in a column along with people who are defeated by the complex technological challenges presented by a pencil.



Instead, refuse your ballot. Your poll clerk may be a little dumbfounded by the process, but the DRO ought to know, so insist. They cross you off the list, they hand you a ballot, and you return it to them, indicating you'd like to refuse it. Your refusal is tallied, and communicates your choice as loudly as the process allows.



To learn more about the process, call Elections Alberta directly at 1-877-422-8683. I don't actually think there is any more, but they can certainly confirm for you that this option exists, helping you to avoid the discomforts associated with eating your ballot.

Comedy at Club Democracy



I attended an all-candidates forum yesterday. It didn't actually attract all the candidates - that may be because it was scheduled for the middle of the day, in the middle of the week. Nonetheless, I was there, Tory candidate and Minister of Education Lyle Oberg was there, the Liberal, Carrol Jaques was there, and Seperation candidate Jay Kolody was there.



I'd like to point out that from my perspective, at least, I won. I was relaxed and confident, I got the laughs, I had two dozen or more "UFCW Local 401" hats in the room acting supportive and grilling Oberg.



Oberg was fine... didn't really mix it up, said the right things, said things I found myself nodding at. I don't think he's a bad guy, I don't think he's a bad MLA, I just think he sees a lot of issues through ideological-coloured glasses. I think he's had a harder time representing the riding since his primary residence shifted north (Sherwood Park, so I hear), but he's clearly still making the effort. There are Tories who are a lot more passive about holding their seats.



Jaques is a parachute candidate, so I might actually have an outside shot at beating her. But again, full credit - she showed up, she flew the flag, and you could tell she thought this was going to be much more hostile territory than it was. I'm thinking city dweller, but I didn't ask.



This event game me the most up-close-and-personal experience I've had with the Seperatist policy. Did you know that since Alberta joined Confederation (I leaned over to Jaques at this point and made a snarky comment, so I might not have my facts correct from here on... but then again, I might) we've sent 230 Billion dollars to Ottawa? If we kept that money in Alberta, we could fund education and health care no problem!



(Please tell me if I have to explain the various logical fallicies in this particular claim. I'm generally trusting my readers, but I'd hate to think I've just convinced another voter to consider seperation.)



Huh. You know, at the start of this campaign, I predicted I'd run fifth. Now, I'm thinking second might not be out of reach.

It could have been more timely, but...



Inspired by President-elect Howard Dean's success, the NDP has....



Wha? Really? Bush again?



Inspired by the success of Democratic nominee Howard Dean, the NDP.....



John Kerry? Who dat?



With electoral failure Howard Dean as their inspiration, the NDP has launched their own eCampaign. Join here, and help the Premier to the retirement he's earned.

Finally, the debate



I've been pretty busy given that I'm running a campaign that may come fifth of the rumoured six candidates. (I may, I suppose, come first or sixth, as well. The world's a funny place.) Yesterday, I travelled to Brooks to do some media, so I felt like I should take a little time to watch the debate (which I had missed in broadcast but recorded) in advance.



Okay, first of all, commercials? WTF? I wish I had the time to figure out the politics behind the debate being hosted by Global, instead of a commercial-free CBC debate, but that will have to wait.



Second, the format. Do people really find these free-for-all periods helpful? It seems to me that it only serves to expose who is the fastest and loudest talker among the leaders, though I appreciated the occasional forceful moderation being provided. I'm not sure the CBC could have done that, actually, but since Global was dedicated to providing me with entertainment as opposed to fairness, so I'd stick around and intermittantly consider purchasing some products, they had incenticve to build a narrative.



And that brings me to the final point - the narrative. The story that emerged wasn't really about policy difference, it was about Ralph Klein losing touch. I've always given the Premier huge credit for his political savvy, but it seems to be failing him now, as the debate demonstrated. Mason, who stylistically hasn't yet grown into the sort of debate-comfortable leader he will be, managed the barbs he did because the Premier has become so very barbworthy.



Calgary Grit (who has an excellent review of the debate through Liberal eyes here) is right... Taft and Mason weren't spending a lot of time clashing with each other. I don't think that's a sign the parties should merge, as Bart suggests. Rather, I think that's a sign of how much the scent of blood in the water is coming off of Klein.



Klein would have to continue to screw up for the next two weeks, at an accelerated rate, to lose this election, but there are seats to be had, in parts of the province that haven't voted anything but Tory since 1975, and before that, Socred since the 30's. Klein is looking like Don Getty c. 1986 right now, and come election night, the Liberals and NDP are both going to have something to celebrate.

Housekeeping



A couple of months ago, I sent out a few feelers in an attempt to put together a group provincial election blog. Unfortunately, a combination of technical trouble and disinterest scuttled the project. Instead, I've added a bunch of new links on the right, displacing my must-read blogs list downward. Is it a little weird that an NDP candidate is linking the Alberta Alliance? Not as weird as not including them in the "crazies", I figure.



I've also added Bear to the must-read list. I offered him webspace here at revmod.ca, but again with the technical trouble. Did I mention that I'm available for employment in technical support?



There's a few new reciprocals. Tell 'em Don sent you.

Election Day 2004 (US edition)



In the past several months, I've recieved e-mails from readers and spammers alike, asking me to use this space to promote this or that anti-Bush website. I was always sympathetic, but figured I've already made my feelings toward the current administration abundantly clear. Plus, I couldn't imagine the swing state undecided voter who wasn't already being heavily lobbied by his or her own countrymen. The last thing they would want is some Canadian telling them how to run their business.



I'll offer one piece of advice, though - a piece that long-time readers will recognize. Make your ballots out of paper. Mark them with a pencil. I'm sure your engineers can convert some standardized test grading technology to find the winner quickly, but producing an actual artifact clearly denoting a voter's intention seems intuitively to be a good thing.



Oh, well. In a few hours, it'll all be in the hands of the courts.

Bad timing



I've been out of town for several days, which doesn't seem like the smartest way for me to have launched my campaign. Today I'll be gathering signatures for my nomination. During the last election, I had to assure my nominators: "you don't have to vote for me, you just have to want to see me have a chance to express an alternate vision in the riding." It's not the most encouraging thing to have to say to my own sister.



I'll be writing something about AISH and the Premier's attitude toward the program, but not today. Instead, let me add my condolences to the Premier for the loss of his mother to those from my party and leader.



Despite the AISH comments, which have created a little media interest in the campaign, things are still pretty quiet. That should change after Tuesday, once the voting for the US Presidential election is over and it's all in the hands of the courts.

Bear gets a place of his own...



RevMod opens a branch plant with a distinctly west coast flavour



west coast flavour - B.C. bud odours mixed with mold and three day old sushi...

On your mark



The provincial election will be called today, and it looks like the Tories are running against Ottawa, as I predicted they would.

The [pre-election billboards] - one each in Edmonton and Calgary - show a smiling Klein next to the words: "Proud to be Albertan." [link here]

Klein's Tories have had a lot of electoral success running on the idea of debt elimination. That issue is no longer on the table. Is this what we have left? This isn't going to be the Premier's best showing - good thing for him it's his last.

Survey says....



Health, education, infrastructure. That's how Albertans want their money spent, now that the debt is paid. The province spent half a million dollars generating the answers almost anyone could have predicted months ago. It's a good PR scam - ask people what they want, knowing full well the answers you're going to get are the ones you were prepared to act on anyway. Then call an election, running on doing only what you were told to do. It makes the Tories relatively bulletproof from the emerging Alberta Alliance, who are talking tax cuts and more democracy. Sorry, but more democracy says more social spending. Nice try.



This isn't what I would call "leadership". Let me make a little proposal of my own, instead, for at least a few of these dollars. It's not an idea that would ever emerge from a survey, but it would serve the government well in a few different ways.



According to Ron Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty, Paul O'Neil, Dubya's first Secretary of the Treasury, lobbied toward the end of his tenure for a clean water project in Africa. He waanted to start with a single test country, Uganda, where the entire population could be provided with wells for US$25M. Long story short, the Bushites were too busy planning for their Iraqi adventure to mess around with a project like this, and it never got done.



Alberta could get a lot out of making this investment.



First and foremost, we could be doing something for Africa, something the developed world should be doing anyway, without any further incentive.



When the Premier heads to the United States to complain, again, about the border closed to Alberta beef, he gets to speak with a tone of moral superiority that he was probably going to use anyway, but this way, it's justified. "We're picking up your responsibilities, making the world a better place, and you still won't buy a roast?"



If the federal government starts thinking that Alberta has more money than it has really "earned", well, we're acknowledging that. But instead of contributing beyond our responsibilities to transfers, we're giving back to people who wouldn't see any assistance at all without Alberta's help. Is the federal government willing to plunder from Africa to pay Manitoba?



Finally, it gives Klein a stick against the feds, and you know how he likes those. Forget firewall-based ideas, which stink of greed and selfishness. And forget about the standard provincial-federal (and increasingly, municipal) power struggles, which tend to have each level of government fight for more power and less financial responsibility. Let's intrude on a federal responsibility, and have them just try to say no to such an egalitarian effort.



No survey is going to produce this idea. My party certainly isn't going to run on a policy like this, so I'm not going to be advocating for it at forums. But I might just whisper it in the ear of the Tory candidate at those forums. I hope that some leadership, and some sense of responsibility to people who have not had the advantages Alberta has had, will exist in the new government caucus.

RevMod backdoor-drafted reservist/guest host BEAR says:



Vancouver Wards Off Progress



Congratulations to the "Non-Partisan" Association, their Real Estate Developer sugar daddies, the West Side old money reactionaries, the perpetually opportunistic posturing Greens and anyone else who refers to the raw sewage leaking from the Vancouver Sun's editorial pages as ice cream, for your stunning victory in Saturday's referrendum on a Ward System for the City of Vancouver.



This result pretty much confirms for the rest of the country our city's reputation as Canada's undisputed leader in f**ked up local politics. Here's a sampler of the arguments that the 52% of voters bought from the "No" side, including translations for non-Vancouverites.



1. A ward system will result in NIMBYism.

translation: If we drop the at-large system, we can't shove every homeless shelter and rehab centre into the Downtown Eastside anymore.



2. The proposed ward system does not include proportional representation.

translation: Let's string the Greens along to reject wards, as if there's any way we're screwing with a system that's kept Kitsilano and Point Grey in the driver's seat for 70 years.



3. Equity seeking groups like people with disabilities won't be able to run for City Council under the ward system.

translation: People the NPA can't filter out through corporate vetting of candidates, stacked nomination meetings, and skyrocketing campaign costs would be able to run for City Council under the ward system.



4. A ward system is the first step towards a Vancouver mega-city

translation: until Vancouver's Coaltion Of Progressive Electors and the Burnaby Citizen's Association are crushed under our bootheels, and those of our right-thinking bretheren in Surrey and Richmond, we simply just can't have that.



It's not like the 'Yes' side did themselves any favours either. Every other previous vote on wards passed, largely because of COPE's aggressive campaigning against the NPA's long standing hegemony on council. Funny thing was, COPE swept municipal elections in 2002, and it's hard to stick it to the man when you're the man.

RevMod guest host/indentured servant BEAR takes care of...



The Obligatory Post about The Presidential Debates



George W. Bush must be proud of the fact he's the first from his family to be President, and given his opponent's momentum, should enjoy it while it lasts. No, Mr. President, I'm not missing anything or hallucinating, it's just that the past two weeks clearly illustrated that John Kerry is your Daddy!



When historians look back at the 2004 election, the pivotal moment that will generate most of the discussion will be that night in St. Louis when the President swaggered out of his chair toward the camera, thrust out his pelvis a little and exhorted "Need some wood"?

Fun session of Parliament



Alberta is in the midst of municipal elections. It includes another nonsensical "senate election". No one with an ounce of savvy seriously thinks Link Byfield will be getting appointed to the Senate. The election is a stick the Premier will be using to smack the feds around with, because going into a provincial election, no one is more popular in Alberta than a Premier with a Fed-beating stick. I digress.



By the end of October, we'll be well into a provincial election campaign. It will feature the NDP and Liberals running mostly against each other, the new "Alberta Alliance Party" running against the the Tories for being too moderate and concilliatory, and the Tories running against the federal government (see above).



Know what we need? A federal election. That'd be fun.

Prime Minister Paul Martin says he'll go to the polls if his government loses tonight's vote on a Bloc Quebecois sub-amendment to this week's throne speech motion.

(Full props to Martin for maintaining that the throne speech is a confidence motion.)



It might not be Martin's decision to go to the polls or not. The Governor General wotuld be entirely within her rights to give the Conservative Party a shot at governing first. However, I wouldn't expect that to last long either way. If the Conservatives are serious about not wanting an election soon, they're going to have to swallow it and vote with the Liberals, or be absent in precise numbers.

We just don't learn



A CBC investigative report (RealAudio version here, starts at about the 2 minute mark) heard over the weekend on The House found that spinal cord material --- including material from Canada's BSE "Patient Zero" --- made it into chicken feed as protien additive. When feed on a farm is mixed, when cattle are exposed to chicken waste, or when common equipment is used to deliver or store feed without cleaning (and who disinfects an auger?), we're risking feeding BSE-positive material to cattle.



Good Lord! Can't we throw away eighty-five cents worth of each animal to avoid risking another multi-billion dollar disaster to the industry? Are the margins in the packing industry really so thin that every cent needs to be squeezed? Really? Even with the BSE bailout that seems to have primarily benefited packers? Maybe the packers are hoping to extend the crisis, because it's been so lucrative for them so far.



Time for the government to step in.

(Rev/Mod guest host BEAR, for lack of a pithy quip, simply posts...)



No more extra innings



The Montreal Expos play their final home game of the season tonight vs. the Florida Marlins, and probably, the final home game in the franchise's 35 year history, as MLB is poised to announce their imminent relocation to Washington, DC. I find the Canadian sports medias hand-wringing and mock sentiment for the days of Rusty Staub, Tim Raines, Gary Carter, et al somewhat bemusing, given that their games have been relegated to the back pages of the sports section and upper register of the cable TV dial for quite a few seasons now.



I'm somewhat sad to see the Expos go - my father, who played briefly in the New York Giants organization, was a big Expos fan, despite his incessant francophobia and my Mom's allegiance to the Toronto Blue Jays. He taught me a lot about the game, and that's one of the few things about him that's stuck with me since he died 14 years ago. The Expos began their slow descent to oblivion shortly after that, when the Bronfmans sold the team a year later.



That's pretty much where any of my sentiment about the Expos ends - MLB has made the right choice in choosing Washington. The handful of remaining diehard Expos fans may disagree, and as a fan of a team that faced relocation (the Seattle Mariners) on a number of occasions I can sympathize. However, what kept baseball in Seattle was a perfect storm of a winning team, a new ballpark, and a superheated local economy in between.



As for the other contenders for the Expos, I had my doubts about all of them. America's suburbs belong to people who renounce the sense of community a baseball team can bring, which is why I'm happy Northern Viriginia is on the outside looking in. San Juan was a logistical nightmare for the 'home' games the Expos played there, making little sense to make the rest of baseball travel there repeatedly: there's a reason why the Pacific Coast League isn't in Edmonton and Honalulu anymore. If baseball still can't agree about what to do about Pete Rose, how could they consider putting the Expos in Las Vegas? As for Portland, who's bright idea was it to collectively hold their breaths 'til they turn blue, shun the AAA Beavers and expect the Expos to drop into their laps?



Meanwhile, back in Montreal, Olympic Stadium is left with a few trade shows and the occasional Alouettes playoff game. I sense an implosion...

Humanity manages to disappoint me. Again. Seriously, Humanity, what the hell is wrong with you?



There is much gnashing of teeth going on right now in St. Catherine's, Ontario, over a t-shirt. The design features a bloodied hammer, and the caption "She was asking for it."



Personally, I'm glad the shirt is available. Think of all the time people will save - if you see a guy wearing the shirt, you won't have to spend a second in conversation with him. It'll be as good as a red neon sign that reads "I'm an asshole".



The only thing that would make these shirts better is if the restraining order came free with purchase.

Good news, bad news



I've already reported the bad: the government would like to keep the Alberta election remarkably free of policy discussion.



But the good news? At least we don't have to anticipate an October Surprise.

Good catch



Thank the Middleman for this election factoid, to be used by me at a future election forum:

A $41.2-billion health accord between Ottawa and the provinces will not blunt the Alberta government's plans to inject more privatization into its health-care system, Premier Ralph Klein said Friday.



.................



However, he said any reform proposals will occur after the provincial election, expected in late November.

It seems Ralph Klein comes from the Kim Campbell school of democracy: an election is no time to discuss public policy.



I can't blame the guy for not wanting to hang around the First Ministers' health care meeting. "Hey, I'm just going to wreck it anyhow... you guys have fun. I'm headed to a trade show!"

(Rev/Mod guest host BEAR lets it fly...)



THE BITCH AIN'T BACK



Woke up yesterday to see the headline that the Liberals lead the NDP 43-37 in the September Mustel Poll. The celebration for Gordon Campbell was short-lived as a few hours later, Christy Clark (Deputy Premier/Children & Families Minister) announced her resignation from cabinet plus her intention not to run on May 17, 2005. Clark claims she's quitting to look after her "thriving" son - the same infant who received a nanny and customized nursery at the legislature at taxpayers expense, at the same time the Liberals shut down Child Care BC. For the record, my MLA (Jenny Kwan, Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, NDP) looks after her year-old daughter in her office in the leg annex, which has no running water, and relies on grandma to babysit.



Earlier this year, Clark was demoted from the Education portfolio, largely due to her malicious antagonizing of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. Clark insisted on revoking teachers' legal right to strike, and thumbed her nose at them (and the BC Supreme Court) by ripping out class size provisions in their collective agreement under Bill 19. Once relatively apolitical (as apolitical as public sector unions get in BC...), the BCTF responded by joining the BC Federation of Labour and are building a war chest to support New Democrats in 2005.



As we all know, resigning to spend time with the family is code for "I'm in serious trouble" given that David Basi (one of her former aides) was booked on drug dealing charges two days ago, and her husband Bruce has been repeatedly implicated in the December 28 Legislature Raids. Rather than stay on as the bitchy little mascot for Gordon Campbell and his happy little band of white collar criminals, Christy decided to bail before something really embarassing happens.



I wonder if Cambpell gave Christy the same send off he gave other female MLAs who bolt from the Liberal caucus. The guy just has an incredible way with women.

Rev/Mod guest host BEAR, still lurking about, says...



The Puck Stops Here



As a result of the owners locking out the players, there will more than likely be no NHL hockey this year. I know this is upsetting for a lot of people, but like our regular host here at Rev/Mod, I really can't be bothered with the NHL. There are occasions, usually to try and fit in, I have let myself get caught up in the Vancouver Canucks frustratingly abrupt playoff runs. However, the game's voodoo economics, schizophrenic officiating, and players' prison mentiality have left me scrathing my head one more than one occasion. The NHL product, at least on the west coast, is long on hype and short on substance.



That's right, voodoo economics - NHL owners want a salary cap like the NFL or the NBA, but football and basketball can get away with a cap because there's a lot TV revenue to go around. I can't believe that the psychological and cultural well-being of a nation is caught up with an enterprise so myopic, manipulative, and mismanged.



Oh wait, that's the Liberal Party of Canada....

(RevMod guest host/second stringer BEAR pops by with...)



Is this Da Kine of thing we want?



Having lived in Vancouver for almost four years now, I've started to get a little tired of Marijuana. Not the actual weed, but ongoing police/media obession with it while more damaging drugs find their way into the most helpless in the Downtown Eastside, just over the railroad tracks from where I live.



I'm also tired of the Marijuana advocacy "industry", which is best illustrated by the grandstanding opportunist antics of Marc Emery and the Marijuana Party of Brtitish Columbia. Their "4:20" demonstrations at the Art Gallery are more like stoner trade shows than political rallies, and if Emery was serious about his political aspirations, why did his party endorse the NDP in the recent federal election?



There hasn't been as visible an example of pot opportunism as the recent goings-on at Da Kine Cafe, which may end up in the long run costing sick people who might benefit from herb's medicinal properties. Da Kine is also a few blocks from my place, but I haven't been bothered to go see what all the fuss is. Unfortunately, 4:20 conflicts with Happy Hour in my calendar.

Good news



Just heard, second-hand, from my Cayman people. They are alive and safe, though hot, and it sounds like at least one house among them withstood the storm well enough that they don't have to worry about where to stay.



I'm not much for praying for help. But I'm more than happy to pray thanks. How Canadian of me.

Klein misses out



While the other Premiers hash out details of a new health care deal with the Prime Minister, Ralph Klein spent the day at a trade show. That would be enough to be concerned about the Premier's priorities, but Klein's error was compounded when Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert spent a few moments of his mic time today pimping one of his constituents, Theresa Sokyrka, for Canadian Idol.



There are some Albertans who believe that Klein is responsible for helping Stephen Harper lose the federal election. Will our Premier have to accept responsibility for another Albertan's loss on the federal stage?



That works for me on a couple of different levels, actually.

More on Ivan and Grand Cayman



I have no words for these images, but fortunately, Microsoft Word comes with a thesaurus:



Brutal



Cruel



Fierce



The international media has been remarkably quiet about the damage done to Cayman as opposed to some of Hurricane Ivan's other targets, but I suspect that's a result of a lack of moving images. (Another contributing factor may be no reported deaths, for which I'm grateful - I haven't yet heard from the people who matter to me.) Once some television cameras can get to the island, or the local news production gets electricity, and back on their feet, I suspect we'll start to hear a lot more on our televisions.

Cayman Ivan news



The international media hasn't had much news about the devastation on Grand Cayman yesterday. Regular readers know that there are people who live on that island who are important to me.



So, long story short, this story scares the shit out of me.



I haven't been able to reach the people I know since yesterday morning. Once I do, once I hear more, I'll let you know.



Update, 0935: Here's another report, more detailed and scarier.



Update, 1140: This site is taking and posting sporadic reports. Apparently, a few cel phone calls and text messages have gotten to loved ones off-island, and some of that information is being shared there.

The Viet Nam war record



John Kerry attended it, but opposed it politically once he came home.



George W. Bush avoided it, but never politically opposed it.



Bush is letting his party try to undermine Kerry's record by minimizing his actions and his injuries. Some "unaffiliated" right-leaning organizations are attempting to discredit Kerry's war record altogether, or even crazier, blame Kerry for the discrediting of the Viet Nam war. It's a little desperate.



But in the end, the American left needs to understand that the comparitive war records aren't a real issue - it's a distraction. It's a little "Starship Troopers" to think that serving your country in wartime makes you the more appropriate candidate to lead. When it was Clinton vs. Dole in '96, it was pretty clear who the war hero of the two was, and I don't recall any attempt among Democrats to show Bob Dole anything but respect and appreciation for his military service. But come election day, voters made their choice based on more pressing concerns.



This time around, the left has the war veteran candidate, so they're bulletproof against "left=coward" accusations. Leave it at that and move on to the issues, because the election is two months away. This sideshow of discussing what your candidate did thirty years ago (or, for that matter, what their candidate snorted did thirty years ago) will not help the voters punish the current Administration for Iraq, the stalled economy, and the horrible fiscal management of the last four years.



Update, Thursday morning: I have to read my own links once in a while. Get Your War On beat me to this point, more effectively, about two weeks earlier. The link is here, and I'm certain you don't need to be told that GYWO is known for some strong language.