By that logic
According to Vic Toews, because privacy advocates are concerned about the significant overreach found in the government's new internet surveillance legislation, we are "stand[ing] with the child pornographers".
I suppose it's objectively true that the makers or distributors of child pornography may share my distaste for this legislation. It is likewise true that this sort of legislation would appeal to totalitarian regimes.
So, I'll tell you what, Vic. We can both accept that reasonable people can honestly disagree about how to strike an appropriate balance between public safety and the personal right to privacy. Or your critics can start calling you a Nazi with impunity. You pick.
Monday, December 12, 2011
The CWB and the Rule of Law
Kady O'Malley laughs off the notion that the Governor-General will have any reason to consider Bob Rae's request that Bill C-18 should be put in a drawer until such time as a court rules the bill consistent with the rule of law.
O'Malley suggests there's no precedent for this, and she may be right. But there are two fair questions that follow:
- Is there any precedent for a government legislating in the face of a court ruling telling the government to stop, pending appeal?
- If Parliament is in violation of the rule of law, who else but the Governor-General or HRH is in a position to defend the rule of law?
Now, the government could have the CWB hold a plebiscite, as the court insists is required to end the monopsony. The government could appeal the ruling, which it is doing. But for the government to ignore a court ruling and legislate anyway is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. This government spent so many years under the restraints of minority rule, it seems that now that they've won a majority they think anything goes. I don't know if anyone in this government understands that there are still limits to Parliament's authority.
I hope the Governor-General, unlike Kady O'Malley, takes Bob Rae's request very seriously.
Kady O'Malley laughs off the notion that the Governor-General will have any reason to consider Bob Rae's request that Bill C-18 should be put in a drawer until such time as a court rules the bill consistent with the rule of law.
O'Malley suggests there's no precedent for this, and she may be right. But there are two fair questions that follow:
- Is there any precedent for a government legislating in the face of a court ruling telling the government to stop, pending appeal?
- If Parliament is in violation of the rule of law, who else but the Governor-General or HRH is in a position to defend the rule of law?
Now, the government could have the CWB hold a plebiscite, as the court insists is required to end the monopsony. The government could appeal the ruling, which it is doing. But for the government to ignore a court ruling and legislate anyway is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. This government spent so many years under the restraints of minority rule, it seems that now that they've won a majority they think anything goes. I don't know if anyone in this government understands that there are still limits to Parliament's authority.
I hope the Governor-General, unlike Kady O'Malley, takes Bob Rae's request very seriously.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Grudging respect
I have, over the past couple of years, found myself increasingly appreciating the writing of Canadian ex-pat and Dubya speechwriter David Frum. Perhaps it's because he comes from a type of conservatism that exists in reality, instead of wherever Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann live.
His article in the current issue of New York magazine is required reading for anyone looking on at US politics this US Thanksgiving and wondering what went wrong.
I have, over the past couple of years, found myself increasingly appreciating the writing of Canadian ex-pat and Dubya speechwriter David Frum. Perhaps it's because he comes from a type of conservatism that exists in reality, instead of wherever Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann live.
His article in the current issue of New York magazine is required reading for anyone looking on at US politics this US Thanksgiving and wondering what went wrong.
Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.I hope he still has enough influence in that party to at least shift the discussion. But for the very reasons he outlines, I doubt it.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
You win
Brothers and sisters of Occupy Wall Street, I was initially saddened to hear of your forced eviction from Zuccotti park overnight. When Mrs. Revmod and I visited you in October, on a day you were scrubbing the park clean to avoid an eviction then, we told a few of you that we thought you had already changed the world. I believe that more even now. Concepts like "the 99 percent" are universally understood. Many now understand that average citizens are paying the price for the greed of investment bankers and the malfeasance of public officials.
You can spend a lot of time and energy fighting your way back to a physical space to occupy. Don't. It's time to step away from physical occupations, and start to flex the political muscle you've been developing. Without the necessity of anonymity, leaders can emerge, so that not every argument looking to return to the gold standard or legalize pot has to be held in the same regard as those who want to see strong financial regulation.
And on that topic, it's important that leaders are allowed to emerge. Leadership is not anti-democratic. If the best and brightest among you (and there are so many of you in that category) don't step up, people who had nothing to do with the movement will get ahead of it, co-opt your principles for their own benefit, and leave you fighting unnecessary battles about what the movement really believes.
The Occupy movement doesn't need physical space to continue, at least for now. It's time to take on the difficult political work to come. It's time to pick some political battles and begin waging them.
Brothers and sisters of Occupy Wall Street, I was initially saddened to hear of your forced eviction from Zuccotti park overnight. When Mrs. Revmod and I visited you in October, on a day you were scrubbing the park clean to avoid an eviction then, we told a few of you that we thought you had already changed the world. I believe that more even now. Concepts like "the 99 percent" are universally understood. Many now understand that average citizens are paying the price for the greed of investment bankers and the malfeasance of public officials.
You can spend a lot of time and energy fighting your way back to a physical space to occupy. Don't. It's time to step away from physical occupations, and start to flex the political muscle you've been developing. Without the necessity of anonymity, leaders can emerge, so that not every argument looking to return to the gold standard or legalize pot has to be held in the same regard as those who want to see strong financial regulation.
And on that topic, it's important that leaders are allowed to emerge. Leadership is not anti-democratic. If the best and brightest among you (and there are so many of you in that category) don't step up, people who had nothing to do with the movement will get ahead of it, co-opt your principles for their own benefit, and leave you fighting unnecessary battles about what the movement really believes.
The Occupy movement doesn't need physical space to continue, at least for now. It's time to take on the difficult political work to come. It's time to pick some political battles and begin waging them.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Arab Spring becomes the American Autumn
Occupy Wall Street is continuing to grow. The American media seems flummoxed by them, I suppose because they aren't dressed like overweight American revolutionaries. Good thing that everyone else seems to get it.
Occupy Wall Street is continuing to grow. The American media seems flummoxed by them, I suppose because they aren't dressed like overweight American revolutionaries. Good thing that everyone else seems to get it.
Monday, September 12, 2011
For the Record
As I predicted, farmers prefer to maintain the monopsony maintained by the Canadian Wheat Board. Coming up: Gerry Ritz doesn't care.
As I predicted, farmers prefer to maintain the monopsony maintained by the Canadian Wheat Board. Coming up: Gerry Ritz doesn't care.
Monday, August 08, 2011
While the markets crash this morning....
I watched a little of the Sunday talkies this weekend, and it seemed like almost no one was willing to talk about what S&P actually said in their report when they downgraded the US debt. I only heard John Kerry describe it as "The Tea Party downgrade", which is rhetorically clever but should have been directly backed up. To most people, it sounded like the downgrade was accompanied with a declaration of "a plague on both your houses."
But here's what it actually said:
The upside? This may have been their moment in the sun. Between primaries which will put Michelle Bachman's simplemindedness on full display, and a wider realization that taxation has to be part of the United States' long term debt solution (as higher-taxed parts of the world flourish comparatively), their fidelity to Grover Norquist's no tax oath, and their general resistance to government as a possible force of good will look much less attractive to voters in 2012.
I watched a little of the Sunday talkies this weekend, and it seemed like almost no one was willing to talk about what S&P actually said in their report when they downgraded the US debt. I only heard John Kerry describe it as "The Tea Party downgrade", which is rhetorically clever but should have been directly backed up. To most people, it sounded like the downgrade was accompanied with a declaration of "a plague on both your houses."
But here's what it actually said:
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario nowI argued on Thursday, and will argue on forums around the net again today, that the biggest risk the markets see in the US right now is the fact that sixty members of its House of Representatives are willing to put a gun to the head of the entire economy for the sake of ideology. Worse, the rest of the government capitulated to their demands. Worst, they rejected the deal anyway.
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. (page 4)
The upside? This may have been their moment in the sun. Between primaries which will put Michelle Bachman's simplemindedness on full display, and a wider realization that taxation has to be part of the United States' long term debt solution (as higher-taxed parts of the world flourish comparatively), their fidelity to Grover Norquist's no tax oath, and their general resistance to government as a possible force of good will look much less attractive to voters in 2012.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Kent Brockman: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work."
The United States is making the best argument ever for Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy:
Decades of gerrymandering have turned most congressional districts into unassailable fortresses for a single party. The real fight for seats in the House of Representatives comes during the primaries, where extremism serves better than moderation.
Constant primaries feeding into fixed elections of some type or another every two years means a constant election cycle, far more so than even Canada's four elections through minority parliaments.
Money is so important to winning that nearly every representative arrives with a full slate of positions bought and paid for, leaving no room to negotiate or think.
We complain about the smaller voting role of individual members in our Parliament due to whipped votes, but when every member needs a little juice for his or her state or district in order to vote for this or that piece of legislation, or refuses to see the bigger picture when defense cuts are going to close a Boeing plant where some of their constituents work, you can see why governing to the advantage of every individual congressional district becomes prohibitively expensive.
And so here we sit, watching an unbelievably dangerous game of brinkmanship played out over a decision by the United States Congress to raise the debt ceiling - essentially to agree to pay for the stuff they already bought. I'm not sure what sort of democratic reform could possibly fix this clearly broken system, but I sure hope something does before they pull us all down with them.
The United States is making the best argument ever for Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy:
Decades of gerrymandering have turned most congressional districts into unassailable fortresses for a single party. The real fight for seats in the House of Representatives comes during the primaries, where extremism serves better than moderation.
Constant primaries feeding into fixed elections of some type or another every two years means a constant election cycle, far more so than even Canada's four elections through minority parliaments.
Money is so important to winning that nearly every representative arrives with a full slate of positions bought and paid for, leaving no room to negotiate or think.
We complain about the smaller voting role of individual members in our Parliament due to whipped votes, but when every member needs a little juice for his or her state or district in order to vote for this or that piece of legislation, or refuses to see the bigger picture when defense cuts are going to close a Boeing plant where some of their constituents work, you can see why governing to the advantage of every individual congressional district becomes prohibitively expensive.
And so here we sit, watching an unbelievably dangerous game of brinkmanship played out over a decision by the United States Congress to raise the debt ceiling - essentially to agree to pay for the stuff they already bought. I'm not sure what sort of democratic reform could possibly fix this clearly broken system, but I sure hope something does before they pull us all down with them.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
More on the CWB
Some farmers are calling on a referendum on the Canadian Wheat Board's monopsony on wheat and barley sales. Responds Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, we already had a vote on the future of the CWB. "It's called a general election," says Ritz.
So, in conclusion, the last chance you had to consult with this Government was May 2. They'll see you again October 2015 for their performance review.
Some farmers are calling on a referendum on the Canadian Wheat Board's monopsony on wheat and barley sales. Responds Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, we already had a vote on the future of the CWB. "It's called a general election," says Ritz.
So, in conclusion, the last chance you had to consult with this Government was May 2. They'll see you again October 2015 for their performance review.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Why does Stephen Harper hate farmers?
It's been clear for a long time that Conservatives hate the Canada Wheat Board. They've been trying to break the single-desk marketing board since they first formed government, but up until now, they've only really tried through the board itself, to convince the farmer-members to eliminate the Board, or the board's monopsony. Farmers have consistently elected pro-monopsony members to the board, frustrating the CPC. Of course, they argue that "real" farmers want open marketing options, just as they're sure that all workers feel enslaved by their unions.
If you want to see how the Conservative Party ignores democracy when the people don't produce the results the CPC wants, their behavior toward the Canada Wheat Board is an excellent example. Sure enough, they'll break the single desk from above, if the farmers won't do it themselves. The only question is if Harper will try to wait until the SCC is also leaning in his favour, because that's where this fight will end.
It's been clear for a long time that Conservatives hate the Canada Wheat Board. They've been trying to break the single-desk marketing board since they first formed government, but up until now, they've only really tried through the board itself, to convince the farmer-members to eliminate the Board, or the board's monopsony. Farmers have consistently elected pro-monopsony members to the board, frustrating the CPC. Of course, they argue that "real" farmers want open marketing options, just as they're sure that all workers feel enslaved by their unions.
If you want to see how the Conservative Party ignores democracy when the people don't produce the results the CPC wants, their behavior toward the Canada Wheat Board is an excellent example. Sure enough, they'll break the single desk from above, if the farmers won't do it themselves. The only question is if Harper will try to wait until the SCC is also leaning in his favour, because that's where this fight will end.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
I don't remember that promise from the campaign
A CPC member backpedals comments about an eventually completely voluntary census. Now that I mention it, I don't remember the destruction of the long-form census being discussed before it happened, either. Does the Secret Agenda begin to rear its head?
A CPC member backpedals comments about an eventually completely voluntary census. Now that I mention it, I don't remember the destruction of the long-form census being discussed before it happened, either. Does the Secret Agenda begin to rear its head?
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Goody
Thomas Mulcair shows up to Ottawa smelling of truther.
Ruth Brosseau (NDP - Las Vegas) may have sketchy nomination papers.
Can we get all this shit out of the way now? A year of this, and we can invite the Liberals back to Stornaway.
Thomas Mulcair shows up to Ottawa smelling of truther.
Ruth Brosseau (NDP - Las Vegas) may have sketchy nomination papers.
Can we get all this shit out of the way now? A year of this, and we can invite the Liberals back to Stornaway.
And the winner is...
Dan Arnold, the Calgary Grit himself, has won the 2011 gaffe pool, with an entry of CPC 16 / LPC 8 / NDP 8 / BQ 2. Two remarkable things about this guess - hitting a record high score for the Conservatives on the nose, and forecasting a reasonably low-gaffe election generally. At just eleven points from correct, it appears I'll be making another donation to a Liberal candidate come 2015.
Edited to add the final scores of the parties, because it's time to take the picture from the top of the page.
Dan Arnold, the Calgary Grit himself, has won the 2011 gaffe pool, with an entry of CPC 16 / LPC 8 / NDP 8 / BQ 2. Two remarkable things about this guess - hitting a record high score for the Conservatives on the nose, and forecasting a reasonably low-gaffe election generally. At just eleven points from correct, it appears I'll be making another donation to a Liberal candidate come 2015.
Edited to add the final scores of the parties, because it's time to take the picture from the top of the page.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Dear economists:
If Harper's so fking good for the market, why is the TSX down 180 points in 90 minutes?
Edited to add: 242.14 at close. I'm not saying this is all, or even partly, caused by Conservative majority government. But I guarantee that had there been any other election result, the business media would be talking about the effect of uncertainty (or of socialism) on the market.
If Harper's so fking good for the market, why is the TSX down 180 points in 90 minutes?
Edited to add: 242.14 at close. I'm not saying this is all, or even partly, caused by Conservative majority government. But I guarantee that had there been any other election result, the business media would be talking about the effect of uncertainty (or of socialism) on the market.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Moods
I guess I should be relieved that the Prime Minister no longer needs to tear up the constitution to rule like a dictator.
I suppose I should be thrilled about the historic NDP breakthrough.
I know I'm supposed to be happy that the BQ has essentially disappeared from the political map.
I feel I should be happy that Stephen Harper is going to be holding the bag when Vancouver's housing market takes much of Canada's housing market, and eventually consumer spending, down with it. When interest rates expose the problem of unsustainable consumer debt, no one will be able to blame socialism for the problem, and that can't be bad, right?
But I'm not happy, for a single clear reason: Stephen Harper is not going to be less dangerous with more power. The next few years are going to be about watching this man like a hawk.
I suppose I'm supposed to be saying something about "the people have spoken, blahdy-blahdy-blah." But I'm not the leader of a political party, I'm not a representative of a political party, and I'm not a member of the paid media. So I can just say it - what a terrible mistake for Canada.
I guess I should be relieved that the Prime Minister no longer needs to tear up the constitution to rule like a dictator.
I suppose I should be thrilled about the historic NDP breakthrough.
I know I'm supposed to be happy that the BQ has essentially disappeared from the political map.
I feel I should be happy that Stephen Harper is going to be holding the bag when Vancouver's housing market takes much of Canada's housing market, and eventually consumer spending, down with it. When interest rates expose the problem of unsustainable consumer debt, no one will be able to blame socialism for the problem, and that can't be bad, right?
But I'm not happy, for a single clear reason: Stephen Harper is not going to be less dangerous with more power. The next few years are going to be about watching this man like a hawk.
I suppose I'm supposed to be saying something about "the people have spoken, blahdy-blahdy-blah." But I'm not the leader of a political party, I'm not a representative of a political party, and I'm not a member of the paid media. So I can just say it - what a terrible mistake for Canada.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Smear
It looks increasingly like Sun Media's Layton smear (I couldn't be bothered to link it) has backfired, so that makes for one essential ingredient of a gaffe. The other requires a source from a political party, and I think the chance of that is near zero, because I think this was probably Sun Media on their own. So, congratulations, Ezra Levant, on finally collecting some payback from Stephen Harper for his callous treatment of you in Calgary Southwest way back when. I'd like to believe the entire Western Standard / Sun News Network right-wing media nonsense has been part of your plan for this moment, when you could take something from Stephen Harper that he wanted as badly as you wanted that seat. Revenge is a dish best served with a side of Mohammad cartoons, I hear.
It looks increasingly like Sun Media's Layton smear (I couldn't be bothered to link it) has backfired, so that makes for one essential ingredient of a gaffe. The other requires a source from a political party, and I think the chance of that is near zero, because I think this was probably Sun Media on their own. So, congratulations, Ezra Levant, on finally collecting some payback from Stephen Harper for his callous treatment of you in Calgary Southwest way back when. I'd like to believe the entire Western Standard / Sun News Network right-wing media nonsense has been part of your plan for this moment, when you could take something from Stephen Harper that he wanted as badly as you wanted that seat. Revenge is a dish best served with a side of Mohammad cartoons, I hear.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Leader gaffe goes almost unnoticed
I don't know why it's so hard to find Layton's direct quote in his interview with Thomson Rueters, wherein he expressed an opinion about interest rates, leading to criticism from other parties and a mea culpa from Layton on Friday.
It's good that he took the step back. He's right, that interest rates are going to strangle a generation of debt-addicted Canadians, but that's at least partially the fault of the historically-low interest rate we've had in Canada since the recession started. Too many Canadians have purchased houses and increased other personal debt based on the affordability of the carrying cost, without considering what happens when rates reset to normal. But holding the rate low would extend the problem, and start to produce unsustainable inflation. It's the debt itself, not the interest rate, that's the real problem.
On the larger scale, governments can only take hold of so many levers of the economy at one time without breaking the entire machine.
I can be pretty forgiving of Layton for a while yet, because he did back away from involving himself in Bank of Canada decisions so quickly. He's never governed, and no one in the NDP has any institutional memory of governing federally, so there's no one to steer him away from this sort of mistake. If he ends up Prime Minister, he's going to have to put some extra trust in the civil service, particularly in the Department of Finance, until his cabinet gets some experience under their belt. I think he's smart enough to know this.
Nonetheless, it exposes a real weakness about the NDP, and the other parties have used Ralph Goodale and Jim Flaherty to stress the point. It's a gaffe, no matter how ignored the story is. Prom 3, Sig 1 = 3 for the NDP. Sig should be higher, but the media's eyes tend to glaze when there's math. It's kind of pathetic.
I don't know why it's so hard to find Layton's direct quote in his interview with Thomson Rueters, wherein he expressed an opinion about interest rates, leading to criticism from other parties and a mea culpa from Layton on Friday.
It's good that he took the step back. He's right, that interest rates are going to strangle a generation of debt-addicted Canadians, but that's at least partially the fault of the historically-low interest rate we've had in Canada since the recession started. Too many Canadians have purchased houses and increased other personal debt based on the affordability of the carrying cost, without considering what happens when rates reset to normal. But holding the rate low would extend the problem, and start to produce unsustainable inflation. It's the debt itself, not the interest rate, that's the real problem.
On the larger scale, governments can only take hold of so many levers of the economy at one time without breaking the entire machine.
I can be pretty forgiving of Layton for a while yet, because he did back away from involving himself in Bank of Canada decisions so quickly. He's never governed, and no one in the NDP has any institutional memory of governing federally, so there's no one to steer him away from this sort of mistake. If he ends up Prime Minister, he's going to have to put some extra trust in the civil service, particularly in the Department of Finance, until his cabinet gets some experience under their belt. I think he's smart enough to know this.
Nonetheless, it exposes a real weakness about the NDP, and the other parties have used Ralph Goodale and Jim Flaherty to stress the point. It's a gaffe, no matter how ignored the story is. Prom 3, Sig 1 = 3 for the NDP. Sig should be higher, but the media's eyes tend to glaze when there's math. It's kind of pathetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
times since January 6, 2003.
