CoteGauche

RIP Jack Layton

2011-08-22T21:33:00.000-07:00

I can't help feeling that a light just went out. One more voice of conscience and integrity went quiet. There is one less person who cares. Collectively, we are also just a bit poorer; impoverished in character, leadership and vision. We have lost a true Canadian. One light has gone out, but we have not slipped closer to darkness or chaos, because (regardless of political stripe) someone will pick up the torch, someone will care and someone will lead.

Will it be you?

Assange: Free speech or anarchy?

2010-12-14T10:36:00.000-08:00

I am undecided on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Clearly, as he posted his bail, Michael Moore is not. I suppose from the perspective of a documentary film maker the jailing of a journalist on what may be trumped up charges, the issue of one of free speech and a free press. I, however, look at the issue through the much broader lens of the public interests. Through this lens, things get a little more cloudy.

At first, I was very supportive of Wikileaks, particularly after the opaque and highly secretive Bush administration routinely massaged and manipulated intelligence and information for partisan purposes with disastrous results. A few timely leaks might have averted war (or landed Assange in Gitmo). But the recent series of leaks has changed my view of Mr. Assange. At this point, he looks less and less like a populous folk hero and more and more like a mud slinger.

In one leaked cable, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioned Embassy staff on the state of mind of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, asking if her state of stress/emotion effected her decision making. But other than embarrassing the US and Ms. Clinton, what public service was rendered in releasing this cable? Likewise, embarrassing assessments of foreign leaders (Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd is a "control freak", German chancellor Angela Merkel is “risk averse and rarely creative”, French president Nicolas Sarkozy is “brilliant, impatient, undiplomatic, hard to predict, charming, innovative, and summit-prone.”). Is it not part of the job of the State Dept. to make assessments of foreign leaders for the President and diplomatic corps? What public service is accomplished in releasing these cables?

Why these releases bother me is that diplomacy is a much preferred approach to international relations than more coercive tools, such as the near omnipotent US military. Diplomacy requires that leaders are able to communicate efficiently and securely with their diplomatic staff without worrying that everything they say or write might end up in the papers. Some secrets support peace and democracy. In my mind, releasing this type of information makes the world a much more dangerous place for democracy. I would much rather have the US Dept. of State getting and giving current, frank and honest intelligence to support diplomacy than having Dick Cheney setting up a war room in the Pentagon to twist and spin stale, inaccurate and misleading "intelligence" from questionable, self serving sources.

Q: What's the difference between a pat down and a feel up?

2010-11-22T21:21:00.000-08:00

A: Latex gloves.

To Ezra Levant

2010-11-22T12:00:00.000-08:00

Bottoms Up! Levant attacks first nations man over water quality as "grievance monger".

Law and Culture

2010-11-22T10:04:00.000-08:00

While federal lawyers appeal the recent Ontario Superior Court ruling that struck down three anti-prostitution laws, the public is pretty much left out of the debate. As crown counsel Michael Morris argues, for a single justice to overturn Parliament's laws without a broader constitutional review, would be a "social experiment unprecedented in this country". Hyperbole aside, courts strike down laws all the time and, as defense counsel pointed out, there are examples of jurisdictions where prostitution and solicitation for prostitution have been legalized without eroding the cultural fabric of society. However the existing laws, which Justice Susan Himel has set aside, have not been created in a vacuum, nor have they lacked public input. They reflect society's reasonable efforts to balance a broad range of interrelated social factors not limited to: public health, exploitation of women, harm reduction, homelessness, child abuse, domestic violence, poverty, property crime, substance abuse, mental illness and public safety.

The broader question is, should courts be at the forefront of social change or should they reflect cultural values? In the last century, so called "activist courts" have stimulated social change (Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade), while at other times, social activism has dragged the law, kicking and screaming in its wake (universal suffrage, pay equity, gay marriage). However all social change is not for the better. Populous initiatives to incarcerate Japanese Americans and Canadians, head taxes on Chinese, witch hunts for communists (and more recently terrorists) are examples where both the law and culture got it wrong. But the law can only lead or restrain social change when society is ready to be led or restrained.

I don't believe in Canada there exists a broad based, grass roots, social agenda to legalize brothels, pimps and johns. Quite the contrary, I think I am with the majority in believing that prostitution is an abusive and violent exploitation of young, poor and vulnerable women (and children) by older, wealthier and more powerful men. The existing laws which make prostitution legal, but prohibit the solicitation and commercialization of prostitution, are the result of decades of legal and social reform to shift the burden of the law from the victims to those who victimize. Justice Himel cites the Charter of Rights and her opinion that these statutes put the safety of sex trade workers at risk in her decision. While I fail to see it, there may be merit to her opinion. However due to the broad ranging implications for public policy, this is an issue that the Supreme Court and Parliament should take up rather than the lower courts of the provinces. Therefore, the Ontario Court of Appeal would be well advised to grant a stay of this decision while it is appealed by the crown and law makers and the public weigh in.

So long Gordo - we hardly knew ye

2010-11-03T12:04:00.000-07:00

I'll give him credit for having the self awareness and integrity to recognize when his own ambition to continue as Premier was at odds with his party's and the province's best interests. Too many leaders hang around too long (Vanderzalm) and wreck their party in the process.

But perhaps a lack of ego (or personal charisma) has been his issue all along? He has never been personally very popular, nor has he been a very good at the whole vision / communication thing. But he is the first BC Premier since Bill Bennett to leave office without being forced out by fraud or scandal (Bennett's involvement in the Doman scandal came to light 2 years after he left office).

Now what we need is a new leader of the BC Liberal Party who is actually, maybe, a little bit ..... liberal?

As promised.

2010-09-23T09:38:00.000-07:00

Jack saves the gun registry by - shootin' down bad legislation.

A Photoshop tribute.

Plato or Plant

2010-09-22T16:48:00.000-07:00

Finance Minister Flaherty (probably unwittingly) referenced Plato's Republic with his "ship of state" rant in Ottawa yesterday in which he likened the Liberals and opposition parties to pirates (arrgh). Liberal finance critic Ralph Goodale was probably too kind in terming Flaht's rant an "unusual performance". It was outright bonkers.

Did Cap'n Jim pull out the wrong metaphor? Did he perhaps mean a different ship?

After all this is the government that doesn't rely on climate science to inform climate impacting public policy. This is the government that doesn't rely on crime statistics to inform public safety policy. This is the government that has a Treasury Board President who believes the world is only 6000 years old. This is the government that tried to scare rural Canadians into believing that they (the government) would take their (rural Canadians) guns away if they were registered. This is the same group that wanted to follow George W. Bush into Iraq (or Iran - sometimes they get confused).

Plato or Plant? You tell me.

Brothers in Arms

2010-09-19T10:17:00.000-07:00

Conservatives at war are kind of like conservatives at sex, go in hard, shoot early and pull out soft and wet.

For the record, I support our mission in Afghanistan. We went in for the right reasons, carried more of the load than most of our NATO allies and are only pulling out now that it is clear that many of our larger, and more militarily capable allies have no intention of honouring their obligations to the alliance. Additionally, I will give the Conservatives some credit for trying, on the fly, to give our troops the right tools to do the job. Few peacetime forces are really well equipped, structured or prepared for the "next" conflict. The emergency procurement of mine resistant vehicles and Leopard 2 tanks saved lives. While it could be argued that CH-47 heavy lift helicopters should have been a priority over C-17 strategic airlifters, these decisions were dictated by a broken DND procurement process that no government has been able to reform.

No, my issue today is over the way our Afghan veterans are being treated. For a party that has invested so heavily in the military and has advocated a more forceful, American foreign policy (remember, Harper and McKay desperately wanted us to go into Iraq), the cheap and frugal approach to veterans benefits is disgraceful. The fact that our Afghan war veteran are having to petition this government to renew Col. Stogran's appointment and listen to his recommendations is beyond shameful.

Under a banner of transparency, they appoint a veterans ombudsman, and then like so many supposed independent ombudsmen, regulators, auditors and overseers, they push Col. Pat Stogran out when he does the job he was appointed to do. After the Second World War, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) under Dr.'s Dunlop and Warner, and with the support of MacKenzie King established the Veterans Charter and one of the most progressive and comprehensive veterans benefits programs in the world. Do our Afghan veterans deserve less? The lump sum payment being offered by the government is an actuary's wet dream. Our veterans deserve better.

Alain Vigneault speaks out on Quebec City hockey rink

2010-09-17T09:35:00.000-07:00

From the Vancouver Sun.

Another son of Quebec says if the federal government is going to fund hockey rinks in Quebec, they should instead look at the sorry condition of the community rinks around the province.

Personally, I have no problems with the Feds investing in public infrastructure anywhere in the country. As a taxpayer however, I agree with Alain Vigneault; if we are going to invest in sports facilities, we get a far better return on this investment in building facilities for youth and amateur sports. Let profitable professional teams fund their own facilities. If we can get our sedentary children away from the gameboys and Xboxes and out playing hockey or soccer or swimming, the future payoffs in reduced obesity and related chronic illnesses will be well worth a few hundred million in today's money.

Vigneault says that Quebec community rinks are "desuet" - which is translated as "antiquated", "quaint" or even "worm eaten" compared to facilities in BC communities where the Canucks have had training camps (Penticton and Vernon). Smaller communities in BC and most of the suburbs have wonderful public recreation facilities (and I don't begrudge them these) that are the envy of many of us here in Vancouver. While the ice rink situation (with the new Trout Lake and Hillcrest rinks) in Vancouver is improving (at least in quality if not in quantity), the soccer fields and swimming pools are, well ... desuet.

My kids are competitive swimmers, so I am most ware of the pool situation. Even with the addition of the new swimming pools at Hillcrest park and Killarny, the city is woefully short of pools and many of the pools do not support lanes. With the opening of Hillcrest Park, the Parks Board also chose to close Percy Norman and Mt. Pleasant pools. Sunset was closed 2 years ago when they built the new community centre (but neither Sunset or Mt. Pleasant supported 25m or 50m lanes). Hillcrest is a beautiful new $40M facility, and it is fine for training purposes, but it was intentionally handicapped so that it can't really host a swim meet. It has an adjustable depth shallow end that goes from 0 to 5 foot depth. The FINA minimum depth standard for sanctioned events is 2 meters. There is no space for any spectator seating, no starting blocks, no score boards or wiring for them, no anchors to install backstroke flags, and the pool can't be configured for 2x 25m short course pools. The 40 year old Vancouver Aquatic Centre is the only facility that can host a swim meet (it gets by the FINA 2m depth rule because of its age) and it is on borrowed time with a leaky pool tank.

The City's soccer fields are likewise - desuet. We have lots of the poorly maintained and improperly drained/graded gravel lots that are euphemistically called "all weather fields" but very few facilities that anyone would recognize as a soccer field. And baseball/softball parks - don't even go there. The City/Park's Board's official policy with respect to competitive athletics is that Vancouverites should "utilize existing facilities within the region" or more bluntly, leach off of the suburbs. Youth athletics teams and groups are not considered a part of the community rather are "elite user groups" who should look to the suburbs for facilities. A picnic in the park, feeding the geese and skunks or splashing around in whirlpools and water slides does not encourage a life long active lifestyle. Amateur youth athletics does.

While Federal funding for community recreation facilities across the country is worthy of consideration, I am not expecting the Feds to pony up to fund new pools, soccer fields or community centres in Vancouver. Vancouver just got a whack of Federal money for Olympic venues - we have got our fair share. It was the City that chose to build a community pool (and Olympic Curling rink) that doesn't support life long athletic activity. But if the Federal government is determined to build arenas in Quebec, they should focus on providing recreation facilities in smaller communities and let Quebec City use its own money to attract an NHL team.

Gun Registry - Libs in the cross hairs now.

2010-09-15T16:16:00.000-07:00

I've been fairly outspoken in saying (and photoshoping - yes, that's now a verb) that Jack Layton needs to lead the NDP on defending the gun registry. If reports are to be believed, Jack has the votes to defeat Bill C-391 in the House. Apparently there is more than one way to whip a vote. If Jack delivers the NDP vote, I might just have to honour him with a somewhat more flattering photoshop job.

Now it's Michael Ignatieff's turn. If Bill C-391 passes because a handful of Liberal MPs are mysteriously absent or break with caucus and vote for it, Iggy's going to have some 'splainin to do. This is now an acid test of a united Liberal party. Rural Liberal MPs take note, if you don't support your leader on this, as the saying goes, it's time to kick ass and take names.

ToewsDeMort

2010-09-14T06:48:00.001-07:00

What ever the leader says, I stand behind the leader.

(AKA - more fun with Photoshop)

More scientists muzzled by Tories.

2010-09-13T14:35:00.000-07:00

The Vancouver Sun is reporting that once again, the Conservative Government is trying to muzzle scientists.

Apparently, NRC scientist Scott Dallimore needed ministerial clearance to answer a reporter's questions on a study he co-authored about a flood that reportedly occurred near the end of the last ice age (about 13,000 years ago). We can only imagine the political ramifications if Dallimore had been allowed to answer the reporters questions without pre-approved and vetted responses on this highly sensitive and timely issue.

I would be inclined to attribute this to the Tories having cabinet ministers who believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and who think the Flintstones is a documentary. A more likely explanation however, is that this is yet another symptom of the Tories disdain for science and fear of information that they don't spin or control. This government does not want public policy that is informed and guided by scientific evidence or reliable census data. They prefer to look to think tanks like the Fraser Institute to cherry pick research questions and manipulate or spin the findings. And why not, most people don't know the difference between academic research and cruft that these think tanks churn out.

Water anyone?

2010-09-07T08:10:00.001-07:00

Shotgun!

2010-09-07T07:37:00.001-07:00

The problem with Faux News

2010-09-04T09:09:00.000-07:00

What should progressives think about Faux News North?

Why are progressives so alarmed about SunTV? Liberals and progressives support free speech and a broad diversity or views. So why so much angst over SunTV - which if they really do follow the Faux News model, much of their vitriol is little more than fodder for humourists and their supposed logic is readily debunked?

The problem with Faux News is not with the message it's about the volume and persistence of the message. It's like that whack-a-mole game, you can't squash all of the lies. It's not just SunTV. It's the National Post, the Fraser Institute, the Manning Centre, the Sun newspapers, etc. The one thing they are good at is staying on message. By pushing the same lies out through multiple channels with dogged persistence, the right ends up controlling the language, and when that happens the battle is won. Look at the 2004 Presidential campaign in the US as an example. How did John Kerry's heroic military service end up being a liability against an opponent whose daddy pulled strings to get him out of active service? Kerry couldn't talk about Bush's cowardly wartime conduct without being constantly hectored by swiftboat lies. So in the end, he just said "we both served honorably".

Is it much ado about nothing? I mean Brian Lilley, Margarette Wente, Ezra Levant, Krista Erickson, David Aikin and Co. pale in comparison to the pundits the US has to offer. And no one really gives much credence to what the likes of Rush, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reily, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter have to say. These extreme views however end up framing the issue. By staking out ground on the far right, it makes it more difficult, from that perspective, to distinguish the centre (or center) from the left. It's also not what they say - it's how often and persistent it is said. The average consumer of news and analysis is bombarded by the extreme right. If you repeat a lie often enough, regardless of how completely it has been discredited, it gets embedded in the popular consciousness.

If you mention global warming, someone will without fail bring up the "hockey stick" as if the Mann/Bradley/Hughes study was actually ever discredited and as if it were the only study to ever show the dramatic rise in global temperatures in the last century. We have our own example in Canada - a boatload of Tamil refugees shows up off the BC coast and most Canadian now believe that this represent a dangerous and massive influx of refugees (who must be terrorists). On average, over 100 refugees PER DAY arrive at airports across Canada. And refugees are not "jumping" the immigration queue. There are no queues or quotas for refugees. According to international conventions and treaties, each case is dealt with on its own merits with due process.

Unfortunately, it is not in the nature or character progressives to stay on message the way the right can and does. We embrace diversity, and with that comes a diversity of issues, concerns, priorities, and messages.

Long Guns and Deregulation

2010-09-02T15:46:00.000-07:00

If the LGR falls, it will be yet another sector where the public interest has been sacrificed over fear of "big government". Fear of "big government" has caused more harm than any "big government", at least a democratic one, has ever done. Deregulation was so in vogue in the 1990's that even democrats, 3rd way socialists and liberals were rushing to deregulate everything.

Not that I'm a fan of large bureaucracies, wasteful programs or over-regulation, but where there is a vital public interest and where market forces or self regulation are insufficient to achieve the public good, regulation is required.

We saw this happen with the US financial markets. Actually, this last financial crisis is the 3rd one in 20 years resulting from ill-advised deregulation. But many are too young to remember the S&L crisis of the late 1980's and the dot-com/Enron debacles of 2000. How long will we have to wait until the conservatives start pushing to deregulate the Canadian banking and financial sectors again?

IF you are a little fuzzy the S&L crisis, or the Junk Bonds debacle you have probably never even heard the short term fall out from airline deregulation in the late 1970's. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 - while probably a good idea, led to the air traffic control strike of 1981 as an explosion of new airlines and cheaper air travel took its toll on the inadequate and antiquated ATC infrastructure and over-worked controllers.

Deregulation is partially responsible for the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and was contributory to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Meanwhile, some of the deepest offshore wells ever conceived are being planned off the Canadian Atlantic and Arctic coasts. Of course the oil companies are saying that a Deepwater Horizon type of catastrophe couldn't possible happen here, so there is no need to pre-drill relief wells or require better blow out protectors.

Deregulation of energy markets (under democrat Governor Pete Wilson) drove the richest and most populous state in the US to the brink of insolvency. I lived in California while utility rates shot up 1000% for some users and the State practically bankrupt itself trying to buy over-priced gas and electricity futures.

Energy, transportation, education, healthcare and public safety (gun registry) are areas of vital public interest. The government has an obligation to be involved. Those pushing the anti-big-government agenda need to stop with the fear mongering.

The 80% of Canadians who live in urban areas are well served by a long gun registry. The burden of a fairly lightweight (operationally) and unobtrusive service on the 20% of rural Canadians who bear this burden is not so high that we should allow the LGR to be dismantled.

Jack Layton should act in the public interest and whip the NDP caucus on this crucial up coming vote. This is not a hill he should sacrifice his principles on.

OMG

2010-08-05T20:33:00.001-07:00

I used to be this smart.

More Caption this.

2010-08-05T19:48:00.000-07:00

What ever the problem is, apparently it's growing.

Missed it by that much.

Stockwell Day - Un-reported Mime.

Caption This.

2010-08-05T11:36:00.001-07:00

Make up a caption in a comment - best one sticks.

I'll start.

One of these days I'd like to leave a press conference with this much credibility intact.

Unreported Crime to Plummet!

2010-08-04T14:28:00.000-07:00

Once "Failure to complete the StatsCan Long Form" is removed from the criminal code.

Truth, Lies and Un-Statistics

2010-08-04T12:13:00.000-07:00

According to Stockwell Day, SOME statistics are useful and reliable for informing public policy; those would be the unreported ones. When asked why his government is planning on investing billions of dollars in new prisons during a recession when crime rates have been dropping for decades, Day responded that he is concerned about unreported crimes. Now to be fair, Statistics Canada does collect self reported data on crime victimization - on the soon to be voluntary Stats Can Long Form Survey. It is also true that some 34% of crimes are unreported - a number that has also been pretty consistent for decades. BTW - I wonder if they asked anyone if they were victims of homicide?

While the reporters present had some probing questions on what statistics the Treasury Board President was relying on, my question is a little more basic. Let's assume that unreported crimes (the majority of which the reason given for not reporting was that it was not important enough) are a cause for alarm. Why are we building prisons?

Generally unreported crimes are also un-investigated, un-prosecuted, un-tried, un-convicted and un-sentenced. So maybe we should spend un-billions to build un-prisons for these un-convicts instead.

In Bed with the Seperatists

2008-12-02T11:44:00.000-08:00

Another point of paranoia on the right.

For those worried that the Bloc Quebecois' support of the opposition coalition will lead to the break up of the nation or another referendum on Quebec sovereignty; exhale, there is no need to stockpile water, ammunition and canned goods.

There is nothing that the Bloc, or any other federal party can do to bring about separation of Quebec from Canada. The Government of Canada is not going to call for a referendum - that would be for the Quebec National Assembly and is unlikely with a Liberal minority government in Quebec. In fact, with their support for the coalition government, it would be very hard for the Bloc to make the case that the federal government is not listening or is insensitive to Quebec. What are they going to do? Intentionally introduce measures to alienate Quebec? All that would prove is that the Bloc is insensitive to Quebec and would lose them the support that they now enjoy from federalists in Quebec who vote for the Bloc simply to maximize their Quebec's voice in the House of Commons.

Rather than seeing this coalition as a threat to national unity, I prefer to see this as evidence that the needs and concerns of Quebec are not that different than those of of the rest of the nation.

Constitutional or Political Crisis?

2008-12-02T09:42:00.000-08:00

I guess it takes extraordinary events to bring me out of retirement.

Listening to talk radio, reading blue blogs, one would think Canada is facing an unprecedented crisis that threatens to bring down the nation. As overblown hyperbole and rhetoric are the stock in trade of these media, it is not surprising to hear terms like treason and coup d’etat, hijacking the government, etc. thrown around. But let’s be reasonable. There is no constitutional crisis. There may be a political crisis, particularly for Conservatives, but the constitution anticipates these situations and in other parliamentary systems and commonwealth nations around the world, these situations are commonplace and in some cases, even the norm.

Many are saying that Canadians elected a Conservative government and that the proposed actions of Stephan Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe would somehow usurp the will of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canadians did not elect a Conservative government, or any government. They elected (413 - oops 308) individual Members of Parliament, 143 of whom were members of the Conservative Party of Canada. As a result of the CPC numbers in Parliament, the Governor General, in keeping with the Constitution and traditions of Parliament, asked Mr. Harper to form a government; which he did. As it now seems that Prime Minister Harper's government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons, it falls to the Governor General, with the advice of the Prime Minister, her own conscience, and the any constitutional law experts she may seek out, to either dissolve Parliament or ask the opposition parties to form a government that may be better able to hold the confidence of the House of Commons.

What shouldn’t be lost in the rhetoric are the points that brought us to this extraordinary (for Canada) situation.

Federal budgets provide the primary planning framework for the government of Canada and to a great extent set the parliamentary agenda. The last federal budget was brought down (I believe) in late February. Since then we have experienced a slow grinding recession which accelerated in the summer and fall into a full blown global financial crisis. There was a banking sector bail package passed back in October – but even this was not planned response to the financial crisis by the Government of Canada, but was a global G-20 initiative. Also since the last federal budget we have had a federal election, a throne speech, a new cabinet, new Parliament and a US federal election. In other words, the environment in which the last major planning framework for the Government of Canada was crafted has changed dramatically. The assumptions, projections and data are no longer valid. If Prime Minister Harper thinks that Canada can run without a new financial plan for another 2 or 3 or more months, he is so out of touch that he doesn’t deserve to be PM. Prior to the last election, PM Harper said that Parliament was dysfunctional. The petty, vindictive and self serving attempts to financially ruin the opposition parties and remove collective bargaining leverage from public sector works is simply an exclamation point to this statement. Clearly the dysfunction has not been remedied by an election and is unlikely to be remedied by another election. Maybe it’s time for the opposition parties to see if they can make Parliament work again.

Finally, these types of situations - minority governments and coalitions going forward very well may be the norm, rather than exceptional circumstances. Both the Conservatives and Liberals enjoy the support of about 25% of the voting public from their core or base constituents. The NDP and Bloc enjoy the "core" support of somewhere around 10% each with about 30% of voters being either "soft" supporters of the CPC, Liberals, NDP or Bloc or swing voters. As it takes close to 40% of the popular vote to form a majority government, a majority government is not impossible, with these numbers, unless the NDP and Liberals merge, one is unlikely.

The events of this last week have shown that the political parties have not fully appreciated this new reality nor adjusted their tactics and strategies in response. It is also going to take the public some time to come to terms with this reality. An election is not going to solve this. As the parties adjust we may see consolidation on the left OR more formal coalition agreements. As the voters adjust, we may see more strategic voting.

Harper's Folly

2006-12-08T16:36:00.000-08:00

Some of Stephen Harper's recent initiative are starting to resemble high risk political gamesmanship with little regard for the unity of the nation.

I'll give him political points for picking up the Quebecois Nation issue from the Liberals and turning it (possibly) to his political advantage - at least in Quebec. I'm still angry at Michael Inatieff for thrusting this whole issue on to the national stage, but just as pissed at Harper for picking it up and taking political advantage of it (if there really was any political advantage). I am not against the concept of a Quebecois nation within Canada, but using such a divisive issue as a political chip is cheap, crass and takes an enormous risks of backlash from Quebec. The Quebecois people have an identity, they don't really need a meaningless gesture from Parliament to bestow a national identiy upon them. But it did manage pit anglo and francophone Quebecers and Canadians against each other.

The same can be said for Bill S-4, Harpers constitutional amendment to limit the term of new Senators to 8 years. It is really a gesture towards western aspirations for equal representation and a triple-E Senate. Again, Senate reform is a sensitive and potentially divisive issue. With a minority government and the Senate controlled by the Liberals, the Bloc and NDP on record as opposing any Senate reform short of abolishment, there is little hope of the bill passing the Senate, or the House of Commons let alone passage in 7 of 10 provincial legislatures. This is nothing more than a bone thrown to the western wing of the Conservative Party and cheap politicing to get the Liberals and NDP to vote against Senate reform. Perhaps it will make up for the anger from western conservatives over the Quebec Nation thing. Does national reconciliation and unity mean so little to Harper that he is willing to gamble and play one regions aspirations for constitutional reform off against another region?

I wonder what hopeless constitutional bone he will throw to First Nations to make up for reneging on the Kelowna Accord? Probably none - first nations have never really ranked very high on the Conservative agenda.

In their own words

2006-12-07T14:44:00.000-08:00

November 18, 2002
Stockwell Day

When [Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham] thought everything was lovely about this gentlemen, he was talking about him all over the place. But when he gets information he's dangerous, all of a sudden it's 'Oops maybe I shouldn't have said anything.'

Diane Ablonczy:

Mr. Speaker, it is time the Liberals told the truth: that their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in.

Stephen Harper:

While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.

September 28, 2006
Giuliano Zaccardelli:

[In 2002] I personally became directly involved in the file after Mr. Arar was detained and sent to Syria. I asked for the file and I asked for specific documents relating to what happened. That was the first time it came to my attention that there was a possibility, or that we had mislabelled or mischaracterized Mr. Arar in our dealings with him in the investigation.

September 29, 2006

Maher Arar:

We are still anxiously awaiting an apology from the prime minister on behalf of the entire Canadian government, It is extremely disappointing" that apology has not been forthcoming.

October 30, 2006 Peter McKay:

I don't want to jeopardize or compromise the legal standing of Mr. Arar or any other government, To that extent the issues of apology will be dealt with in the future.

December 4, 2006
Giuliano Zaccardelli:

When ministers were briefed about the circumstances of the Arar case, their briefings did not include the fact that some inaccurate information had been provided to the Americans by the RCMP. This was not recognized by the RCMP at the time and senior officials, including myself, were not informed until the commission of inquiry had completed its work.

December 5, 2006
Giuliano Zaccardelli:

I realized after my testimony (in September) that my testimony was not as precise and as accurate as it could have been and I had made a mistake. I recognized that I made a mistake in inferring or leaving an impression that I knew information . . . in 2002 when, in fact, I couldn't have known. I knew it in 2006.

Correspondence

2006-12-04T09:46:00.000-08:00

On November 21, I wrote the following letter to Premier Gordon Campbell. It concerns two proposed coal fired electrical generation plant proposals under review for the Princeton area and in tumbler ridge. While there are several websites sponsoring mail-bot form letter protests, I would urge those who oppose these projects to personally write to the Premier and Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Richard Neufeld to voice your well reasoned opposition to these projects. Personally writted letters carry far more weight than form letter protests.

Dear Mr. Campbell:
Cc: David Chudnovsky, MLA

I understand that as a part of the BC Hydro 2006 Open Call for Power, Compliance Energy Corporation and AES Global Power Corporation have been awarded 30 year Independent Power Producer contracts to build and operate coal fired generation plants in the Similkameen Valley and at Tumbler Ridge. While BC Hydro is to be commended, for the first time, for also awarding IPP contracts to three wind generators in this same call for power, including coal in the power mix for the first time is breaking ground that is best left unbroken. Even though BC has abundant coal reserves, coal has not to this point been a part of the energy generation mix in BC for good reason - of the alternatives available, coal has the most damaging environmental impact. I would urge you to rethink your support for these projects.

While proponents of these projects have described them as "clean coal" projects, in reality they are far from clean. While described as state of the art, in reality they are run of the mill. In fact, the proposed plants would generate 70 times the nitrogen oxide, 260 times the sulphur dioxide and 7 times more particulate matter than the Sumas II power plant in Washington State that your government successfully opposed. In addition to this the plant would emit mercury and over 1.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gasses every year.

I would remind you that two components to your environmental plan for British Columbia were to promote alternative energy sources and to implement a new climate change action plan. While BC needs additional generation capacity, there are far better alternatives available than coal. Additional proposed wind projects on Vancouver Island, the North Coast, Peace River and offshore in Hecate Straight and a variety of small hydro, waste heat and biomass projects stand ready to take up the slack. I can't imagine a climate change plan calling for an increase in greenhouse gasses. The proposed coal projects are completely incompatible with your stated environmental platform.

Climate change is not just some future risk. British Columbia is already starting to face social, economic and environmental shifts as a result of global warming. In the interior, and area of forest the size of New Brunswick has been devastated by the mountain pine beetle - a natural pest that has been traditionally controlled by severe winters. This year, the south coast has been hit by "once in a life time" storms first in February and then again in November. Salmon stocks on the Fraser River system are threatened by lower summer time water levels, rising water temperatures and higher spring and fall surges which scour and destroy spawning habitat. I have children ages 5 and 7. We hiked up to Garabaldi lake this fall and I was shocked to see the extent to which the glacier has retreated since I last was there only 10 years ago. At this rate, the 2010 winter Olympics may just be the last hurrah for Whistler. Let's not leave a wasted environment as a legacy for our children.

I would also call your attention to two recent surveys, one national, and the other in British Columbia both indicating that over 70% of the population is very concerned about global warming. While an election has not yet been fought over climate change policy, public sentiment is clearly trending in this direction. If voter initiative were an option in this province, these projects would be overwhelmingly killed. That should be your moral compass. One only need look south of the border at the US mid-term elections to see what happens when a government loses the support of its citizens. While I have never voted NDP, if you insist on supporting the development of coal generation plants in BC I will hold my nose and do so in the next election. I represent a constituency you can't afford to lose: educated, urban, professional, fiscal conservative, socially liberal, environmentally progressive.

My MLA, NDP David Chudnovsky responded almost immediately saying he appreciated my letter and would forward it to NDP Environmnet Critic, Shane Simpson and NDP Energy Critic John Horgan. Today I got a response from the Premier's Office.

Thank you for your email regarding our energy policy.

I appreciate having the opportunity to review your comments and have forwarded a copy of your email to my colleague, the Honourable Richard Neufeld, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, for his information. I assure you that the Minister will give your input every consideration.

It was good of you to write me on this matter and I wish you all the best over the holiday season.

The response is boilerplate, but I didn't expect a personal visit from the Premier or a "Eureka" moment where the government would reverse its direction based on my letter. But if they consider it representative of a significant constituency, and one that is important to them, it may be acted on.

Barak in Black

2006-12-04T08:29:00.000-08:00

On Saturday, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was in Vancouver as a keynote speaker at the Schara Tzedeck Synagogue. His appearance was vociferously opposed by a crowd of pro-Palestinian protestors gathered across the street. I support Mr. Barak's right to speak and the synagog's right to invite him to do so as protected free speech and religious expression. I also support the Palestinian protesters right to gather across the street and oppose his message. Democratic dialogue is often noisey and unruly. It is not the appearance of Mr. Barak that has me blogging this morning, but his message - at least as it was reported this morning by CKNW radio.

Apparently Mr. Barak sees a crucial role for Canada in the middle east peace process - which he hopes will include a Palestinian state. In his vision of the future however, after hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians cease, Canada would be a perfect new home for all of the displaced Palestinians. I am assuming Mr. Barak is refering to the decendents of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled Israel during the 1948 war and were denied repatriation afterwards. This is a sticky issue for the middle east peace process because the decendents of these refugees now number in the millions and if repatriated enmass would pretty much spell the end of the Jewish state. But the right of return has been a key issue with the Palestinians from the beginning and remains a critical point of contention as there is little room for either side to compromise on this issue. It appears that Mr. Barak's solution is to export the Palestinian refugees to Canada. I suppose this is because Canada has such a spotless history in its handling of displaced indigenous people. Palestinian reservations anyone? Perhaps we can abduct their children and put them in residence schools?

Urgent sCare Centre

2006-12-02T10:49:00.000-08:00

The Vancouver Sun reports this morning that after meeting with Minister of Health George Abbot, the False Creek Surgical Centre's new Urgent Care Centre will not bill patients directly for medically necessary procedures, but will abide by the Canada Health Act and Provincial medical billing regulations. This after Abbot and the BC Medical Services Commission promised to audit the clinic and prosecute any violation s of the Canada Health Act. Bravo, the province did the right thing. But was this whole little even staged?

If you really think about it, this really serves the agenda of a lot of people who would like to see more privatization of health care in Canada. Federal Health Minister Tony Clement got to wring his hands and say the Feds have no authority to shut down the clinic (and no desire either). This of course is true, but they do have the authority to withhold health and social transfers to the province if the the province allows the clinic to operate. The Campbell government got to demonstrate their commitment to the public payer principle of the Canada Health Act by forcing the clinic to comply. But they also got a chance to float a trial balloon to measure the public response to the opening of a private clinic. Apparently, if you glean from the press coverage, three patient showed up and got to pass on the message that they would be willing to pay for prompt medical service. This message was echoed in the Vancouver Sun's letter of the day (sorry only in the paper version) in which a Mr. Jim Gilmore said:

"I am one of thousand of British Columbians languishing on waiting lists, and I think the opening of the clinic is good news. While I might not exercize my choice to use the clinic, many others will, and it does not take a math professor to figure out that this will ease the pressure on the public system."

Did you notice how Mr. Gilmore managed to get all the key talking points in? Consumer choice, waiting lists, relieving pressure on the public system - sounds awefully similar to Mr. Klein's trial balloon exercize and the key messaging around it in Alberta last year.

Let me first get to Mr. Gilmore's argument. It doesn't take an economics professor to figure out that the method in which a provider bills and is remunerated for services in no way impacts the supply/demand for medical services. What makes the business model (as initally advertized) illegal under the Canada Health Act is not private ownership, but direct billing to patients rather than through BC Medical Services Plan. The clinic should be free to operate as long as all medically necessary procedures are billed through MSP.

If a provider is permitted to "double dip" i.e. to provide services for both MSP and private paying patients it creates a perverse incentive for that provider to keep wait lists as long as possible because this enhances the value of the privately billed practive. If provider only provides privately billed services, it will serve only a very small number of people who can afford private medical insurance or fees. Neither approach increases the capacity of the system to handle more patients nor do they allocate services according to urgency of the need. Unless the public becomes better informed on the issues we are going to slowly creep towards a two tier system that does not serve the public interest. It will be justified as a solution to wait lists, but in fact it will make wait lists worse. This little trial balloon is just a step in measuring the public's sentiment towards something that (it appears) few really understand.

EZ

2006-12-01T12:21:00.000-08:00

NDP ethics critic Pat Martin claims that the Liberals new Climate Liberal website, is a "sleazy" end run around campaign finance laws. And that it may be. But perhaps he meant cheasy as in Jack Laytons new green house tour - showing off his home's energy saving and green technology - such has his low flow toilet. Or perhaps breasy as in what was blowing through Layton's ears when he devised his plan to divide the opposition on climate change by sponsoring a competing bill to C288 - an alternative to the Conservative's Clean Air Act that would force action on global warming. Or perhaps he meant easy - as in the effort required for progressive voters to switch from the NDP to the Liberals if they adopt their proposed new green agenda, or Greens if they don't.

Oda Burqa

2006-11-30T10:12:00.000-08:00

Since Minister of Heritage and the Status of Women Beverly Oda seems to be determined to set women's right back to about the 5th century, let's help her dress for success in this endeavor.
Choose Oda's Burqa.
This number is probably only appropriate for those closed door strategy meetings with Real Women of Canada as it reveals far to much of Bev's visage. Certainly far too provocative for mixed company.
This one, in Tory Blue is for the more conservative types. Features the ever popular "seen and not heard" facial screen and head to toe brilliant Tory Blue. You Go Girl. Show your colours - and nothing else.
Or finally, in traditional black with exposed eyes - for the woman of mystery. The Real Woman's version of the little black dress.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

I Can't Hear You .. La La La La

2006-11-29T22:15:00.000-08:00

Heritage Minister Bev Oda closes 75% of Status of Women Regional Offices saying "regional offices do little to serve women directly and money can be better spent by streamlining services."

Convention Wisdom

2006-11-28T20:06:00.000-08:00

Here we are on the eve of the Liberal leadership convention, so since I have pretty much stayed out of the fray on the leadership race, I will add my conventional wisdom (sic) at this point.

I have to say, that I am glad that there actually was a race rather than a coronation. Conventional wisdom holds that when your party is in power, a smooth and uncontentious transition of leaders is the key to staying in power. Unfortunately that didn't happen last time. When you are in opposition, a vigorous contest with spirited debate around vision, values, directions, leadership and policies is called for. Thankfully, that is what we got. I also wanted the Liberal party to be liberal - no more liberal-lite. Imagine that - we got a slate of fairly progressive candidates. I am also very happy that the party has come up with a very agressive green agenda. I truely hope they adopt it. Conventional wisdom says people vote for their paycheques, not for the environment. With global warming, a change is quite literally in the air (and water, and ice).

There are four legitimate contenders with plausable winning scenarios. Regardless of the vitriol of the campaign, all are decent men (unfortunately, no women with a shot at winning), but all are damaged in some way. The front runner, Ignatieff, is renowned scholar, author and thinker. He is also a very inexperienced campaigner who has a habit of saying what he thinks at the moment without weighing the implications. He hasn't learned to be a politician. Politics amplifies the extremes; subtle nuanced arguments and explanations are death. Another problem with a candidate who is so well published is that there is and endless supply of his own material to throw at him. Iggy is probably the least progressive of the contenders. On the upside however, Iggy is still the front runner and has broad support in all regions. Convention wisdom says the front runner needs close to 40% on the first ballot.

Bob Rae is going to have to run away from his record as the NDP Premier of Ontario - a not so illustrious record to say the least. As a leader, this makes him politically vulnerable in Ontario. It also means that he is an experienced politician and governor. Conventional wisdom holds that party switcher must spend some time in the trenches before running for leadership. It is interesting how many of the party movers and shakers seem to have swung behind him. Rae and Ignatieff were friends prior to this campaign. Will they be afterwards? Rae has solid progressive credentials but seems to have positioned himself as a Tony Blair (except for the invading other countries bit), Bill Clinton "third way" social democrat. Convention wisdom is that the 2nd place contender must over take or tie the front runner on the 2nd ballot.

Stephane Dion has the right resume. A former cabinet minister from Quebec, the author of the party's Quebec sovereignty position and is acceptable to both the Martin and Cretien camps within the party. Conventional wisdom says the Liberal party alternates leaders from Quebec and English Canada. He is also an accomplished academic with a Ph.D. in sociology and has taught public administration, organization theory at Université de Montréal. I honestly don't know how progressive Dion is. His campaign literature talks about three pillars of social justice, economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. He probably likes his mom and apple pie as well. Realistically, if the liberals are going to win the next election they need a strong showing in Quebec. Dion is probably the most capable of delivering this. Convention wisdom says that 3rd or 4th is not such a bad place in a four way contest.

Gerard Kennedy a former Minister of Education for Ontario rounds out the top four. Conventional wisdom says the Liberals must carry Quebec to form a majority government and must split with the Bloc to form a minority. Kennedy is the only candidate with roots in the west; he was born in Manitoba and went to University in Edmonton. While in Alberta, Kennedy founded the Edmonton food bank and has been the executive director of a Toronto food bank. Clearly social responsibility is a priority for Kennedy. The biggest knock on Kennedy is that his French is quite poor. However his wife is a fluent francophone, so he should have lots of opportunity to practice at home. Kennedy along with Ken Dryden took principled stands against recognizing the "national" status of Quebec. This along with his poor grasp of French does not bode well for the party's fortunes in Quebec. Convention wisdom says that 3rd or 4th is not such a bad place in a four way contest.

Of the remaining candidates, Ken Dryden has come off looking the most mature. While he certainly has name recognition, this campaign has demonstrated to people outside of Ontario that he is more than a hockey hall of famer. The man has substance, maturity, is well spoken and has a solid understanding of issues. At the very least he is ready for a senior cabinet portfolio (please not sport).

Do you still beat your wife?

2006-11-27T15:17:00.000-08:00

Push polling is a technique used by political hacks to communicate a message (usually a distortion or even out right lie) in the form of a question or poll. The technique was notoriously used by Karl Rove in Bush's campaigns against incumbent governor Anne Richards in Texas and Senator John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination.

Todays poll question in the Globe and Mail is another, perhaps more subtle, example of a push poll. The question is rather simple. Do you agree that private clinics are a useful adjunct to Canada's health-care system? The results show that somewhere around 63% of respondents said yes to private clinics.

The problem is that they don't really set the context for the question. Private labs, private imaging clinics, private clinics offering laser eye surgery and private physician's practices have been a part of the Canadian health care landscape for years, and are broadly accepted by the public as well has public health care proponants. There is nothing controversial or even warranting of a poll question about private clinics of this nature. What is controversial is private surgical facilities and those which bill patients directly or over and above what they are paid by the provincial medical services plans. But the poll question does not make this distinction. From the appearances, 63% of Globe and Mail online readers are in favor or private health care delivery. That is the message they are communicating.

Snow Day!

2006-11-27T10:59:00.000-08:00

Between Saturday evening and Monday morning, Vancouver was blanketed with up to 45cm of snow. Here in the city it looks more like about 20cm. The Vancouver School board has kept the schools open, but most other school districts and both Universities are closed today.

However as pretty as the snow looks from the comfort of our homes, many in the city without homes to go to spent a very miserable night seeking shelter where they could. With temperatures expected to drop to -8C overnight, the city's extreme weather response shelter program, working in cooperation with churches and non-profit agencies has opened approximately 400 additional extreme weather shelter spaces but assistance is still needed - primarily volunteers and blankets. If you have time, spare cloths (gloves, socks, boots etc.) or spare blankets, please contact any of the organizations at the following link and share your surplus with those who have little.

Vancouver Shelters

Wedge Issues for Democrats

2006-11-24T14:54:00.000-08:00

With the resignation of moderate Dr. Joel Hunter as president of the Christian Coalition, the CC has now gone on record and said that they don't really care about poverty, homelessness, AIDS, health care, wealth and income disparities or the environment. Gay marriage and abortion are their core issues. In my opinion, and that of Dr. Hunter, the Christian Coalition has marginalized itself and is now positioned well to the right of mainstream evangelical values, let alone mainstream American values. If this is true, there now exists an opportunity for the Democrats to take these issues that have been wedge issues for the republicans for years and turn the situation around.

For years, the Republicans have tried to portray the Democrats as out of sync with American values, as anti-religion and anti-family. We all know this isn't true, but by using wedge issues such as gay marriage and abortion, they have often successfully made this connection. But does the average American realize how marginalized and out of sync Republican positioning on these so called wedge issues is? It would be an interesting polling experiment to determine if Republican leadership hopefuls for 2008 prioritize social issues in the same way the Christian Coalition does. I would like to ask prominent Republicans the following questions:

Each of the following groupings represents a values choice. Assuming in each case, you only have the influence, opportunity and political capital to implement one of these legislative accomplishments. In each case, which would you rather accomplish:

Bans same sex marriage or ...
Lift 10,000 people from poverty

Ban embryonic stem cell research. or ...
Provide affordible health insurance or health care to all Americans.

Place justices on the Supreme Court who would over turn Roe Versus Wade. or ...
Place justices on the Supreme Court who would restore the universal right of Habeus Corpus.

Issues of social responsibility - care for children, the poor, sick, elderly and disabled, stewardship of the earth and its resources, justice, equality, etc. are issues that Christians should care about, but that the republican party and groups like the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family have abandoned. I think as Americans realize how out of touch with their values the GOP has become they may start to realize which party really stands for ALL families' values.

Right Wing, Wrong Man.

2006-11-23T21:33:00.000-08:00

Via Daily Kos.
On October 20th, Talk to Action, a site that provides critical commentary on the religious right, reported on the selection of Dr. Joel Hunter, author of "Right Wing, Wrong Bird: Why the Tactics of the Religious Right Won't Fly with Most Conservative Christians" and founding member of the Evangelical Climate Initiative - a group that supports action against global warming, as its new president, saying that the CC was trying to

rebuild itself into a more moderate and consensus seeking organization for a wider group of Christians with a broader agenda.

Well, that didn't last long as the Orlando Herald Tribune reports, Dr. Hunter, President Elect of the Christian Coalition resigned today citing "differences in philosophy and vision".

Hunter added "These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about. They pretty much said, 'These issues are fine, but they're not our issues, that's not our base. To tell you the truth, I feel like there are literally millions of evangelical Christians that don't have a home right now."

Thank God there are still a few moderate conservative Christians with some integrity left.

You add the caption

2006-11-22T10:51:00.000-08:00

Truth in Cartoons

2006-11-22T10:00:00.000-08:00

This from Crooks and Liars, apparently right wing nutjob Glenn Beck and Fox News sold out shill for corporate greed Neil Cavuto are offended that the animated film Happy Feet contains insidious left-wing propaganda. What Beck and Cavuto seem to find offensive are themes and messages within the movie that deal with global warming. Imagine that - cartoons that are rooted in reality.

For Beck, Cavuto and those who prefer their animated movies set in the fantasy that 1950's consumerist values can be sustained into the future, might I suggest this classic animated film for your viewing pleasure.

Speaking of fantasy .. apparently Laura Ingraham (Rush Limbaugh's feminine side) thinks the popularity of Fox adventure drama "24" represents a national referendum supporting the torture of prisoners.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...

2006-11-18T08:36:00.000-08:00

While Prime Minister Harper and Environment Minister Ambrose were putting the finishing touches on the Clean Air Act, on September 22, Minister of Natural Resources Garry Lunn's riding association was sponsoring a breakfast meeting at which Dr. Timothy Ball was the keynote speaker. Dr. Timothy Ball bills himself as Canada's first Ph.D in Climatology, one of Canada's foremost climate change deniers, and is infamous for saying that global warming would be good for Canada. When questioned about this meeting, Minister Lunn said he would not be attending, and that at future tr-riding breakfast meetings, other points of view would probably be represented.

First of all, Minister Lunn needs to understand that there are no other points of view on global warming. Global warming is real, human caused and will be catastrophic to the planet.

More importantly, if the Conservatives can not even get their own Cabinet (let alone caucus) on the same page with respect to climate change, how is Canada going to convince the world that we are committed to ANY action plan on green house gas emissions?

Carole Taylor's Laugher

2006-11-16T11:35:00.000-08:00

Driving my kids to swimming lessons yesterday listening to CKNW radio in Vancouver. The host, I think it was Michael Smyth was interviewing Carole Taylor, the BC Minister of Finance. Most of the interview had to do with the efforts of Minister Taylor and the Premier to engage in dialogue with the province around budget priorities, particular in where to reduce spending to make education and healthcare more sustainable.

After brief interview, the host opened the phone lines for questions from listeners. One of the listeners made a statement more than a question for Ms. Taylor which I could expect from a listener, but the response blew me away. The statement went something like this:

We all know that when you cut taxes, that rather than decreasing government revenues, it actually increases revenues. Michael Campbell, the Premier's own brother has said this numerous times on this very station. Do you believe this? And if so, shouldn't BC be lowering taxes further?

As I said, the question was not so surprising, it was the response that blew me away.

Carole Taylor, the BC Minister of Finance responded by saying "Yes, absolutely! And provincial economy has responded robustly to the measures, including tax cuts we have implemented". Or something like that.

This idea that tax cuts increase revenues has become a part of the modern zeitgeist of popular economics ever since the Reagan era. But to anyone who has studied economics it is demonstrably false. The idea stems from the work of economist Arthur Laffer who described the Laffer Curve in a series of papers and books in the early 1980's including his seminal work, Foundations of Supply Side Economics - Theory and Evidence. in 1982. The Laffer Curve represents a theoretical relationship between tax rates and government revenues and is useful to a point. The two end points of the curve are well established. At 0% tax rate, government revenues are obviously 0. Also at 100% (or very high) tax rates, revenues are zero or close to zero as people have no incentive to work and will gravitate to the underground economy, or hide income. The important thing however is that there is little evidence to indicate what the shape of the curve is between these two end points. It is intuitive that at some point, increasing taxes yeilds dimishing returns as it decreases the incentive to work or declare income. But without knowing the shape of this curve or where on the curve the current tax regime lies, you simply can not say that incrasing taxes could yeild greater revenues. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that this disincentive to work only kicks in at very high tax rates.

So this brings us back to Finance Minister Taylor. I can understand members of the general public repeating this little gem of folklore, but for a Provincial Finance Minister to endore this fairytale is scary indeed.

Legislating Under the Influence

2006-11-10T14:01:00.000-08:00

I am a little cautious about PM Harper's latest drive (sic) to allow the police to perform drug tests on individuals at roadside DUI stops. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that drug impaired driving is a good thing. My cautious approach to this is about motivation and incentive.

Motivation.
I have to first of all question what the motivation behind this intiative is. Is drug impaired driving a significant cause of accidents? What do the data say? Well there are not a lot of data on the rates of driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. There are studies from the US and Australia that show illicit drugs, in combination with alcohol are detectable in anywhere from 10% to 20% of people arrested for alcohol related DUIs. The Consultative Document from the Government of Canada states that Section 253(a) of the Criminal Code makes it an offense to operate a motor vehical while while your ability is impaired by the presence of alcohol or other drugs. Section 253(b) however does not establish legal limits for drugs other than alcolol detected in the blood.

But there are problems with this, and some of them are right in the same Consultative Document. First and foremost, there are no data to link a particular level of drugs other than alcohol in the blood to a level of impairment to operate a motor vehical. In fact, some drugs, such as caffeine and amphetamines actually improve alertness and responsiveness. This is one of the reasons that the US Navy and Airforce routinely gives amphetamines to fighter pilots on long patrol missions. Truck drivers also routinely dose with both or either caffiene and amphetamines. Other drugs such as canabis, while they impair your motor functions, they actually make you drive more cautiously and SLOWER. That doesn't mean you should smoke up before driving.

The test for many drug detect not only drugs that are active in your system, but the presence of the drugs in your system for days, weeks or months after use. A typical test for canabis can detect use as long as 90 days in the past - well past the point where it impairs your driving. If the experience from the world of sports is any indication, drug tests are also notoriously inaccurate. False negatives and false positives are common place.

Finally, there is also little need to put in testing for drugs. A roadside sobriety test detects impaired function - regardless of the intoxicant. This gives law enforcement officers all the tools they need to immediately get impaired drivers off the road. In the end, it is the impaired abilty to operate a motor vehicle that we want detect, not the presence of some compound in your blood stream.

So if there is no known crisis of drug impaired driving, the test are inaccurate and imprecise, and no evidence to link a detectable level of drugs to a level of impairment, then what is the motivation for this change to the criminal code? It is nothing more than a bone thrown to the conservative base to show that the new Conservative government is tough on crime - unlike the soft on crime liberals.

Incentives
Testing for drugs raises the stakes for a DUI offence. One of the reasons that the 24 hour roadside suspension is so effective is that it removes any incentive to avoid, resist or fight prosecution or to mask detection. The immediate suspension gets the driver off the road - ending his/her risk to the public, and saves the courts the costs of prosecuting the large volume of cases that would otherwise be litigated to the bitter end. Adding drug testing to the mix, with the above mentioned inaccuracies and uncertainties, would virtually assure long and costly prosecution.

Arbitratry limits are generally ineffectual as behavioral incentives. If there is no connection between the indicator of a bad behavior (drug levels in the blood) and the behavior that we are trying to prevent (impaired driving) then people tend to simply accept the risk of getting caught because it is arbitrary. The police need probable cause to test you for drugs or alcohol. If your functioning is not impaired, the police have no cause to test for drugs. Similarly if your functioning is impaired but you test negative, what's the point?

Anytime you change a law, you change the incentives for self serving people (all of us) to abide by the law. We all flaunt the law and drive too fast from time to time. The reason we do this is because the punishment is not severe enough to give us an incentive to always stay below the speed limit. The reason the penalty is not higher, is because we have arrived at the point where the penalty (incentive) is sufficient to accomplish the public good. Habitual or excessive speeders pay a much higher cost than most of us occaisional or moderate speeders.

So with this in mind, what behaviour are we trying to incentive with the proposed ability of the police to test for drugs at DUI roadblocks? Are there significant numbers of drivers that are driving around high and causing accidents? If a failed road side sobriety test is sufficient in most jurisdictions for a roadside suspension, what do we hope to gain by dragging someone down to the station for a drug test. If the testing just results in more and longer prosecutions, have we gained anything? If there is no correlation between impairment and the legal limits for differnt drugs, the limits will be struck down (eventually) by the courts.

Let's see this for what it is, a bone thrown to the law and order types. If the conservatives want to do this, let them go ahead. There is little harm, but it is not going to make any real difference.

Why the next elections are must wins.

2006-11-10T10:36:00.000-08:00

So why are the next federal elections in Canada and the United States must wins for the Liberals and Democrats? At the risk of sounding alarmist, I really believe the future of the planet is at stake here.

1. Global Warming. Now I know, every time anyone posts something on Global Warming, the nut jobs start coming out of the woodwork spouting the pseudo-science spoon fed them by right wing think tanks and propaganda machines. But anyone who seriously doubts the reality of global warming is simply not paying attention to what is happening around them every day.

In BC, there is an area of dead forests the size of New Brunswick - caused by a natural pest, the mountain pine beetle. This bug is native to the northwest forests, but has historically been controlled by severe winter colds, which drastically reduce the beetle's populations. BC hasn't had the severe cold snaps (sub -40C for 2 weeks or more) for years. The total number of annual frost free days has increased by anywhere from 12 to 45 days per year since the 1950's. The annual average temperature in the interior of the province (where most of the pine forests are) has increase by 1.1C in the last 100 years.

Other BC indicators of warming include:

The Helm Glacier in Garabaldi Park and the Illecillewaet Glacier in Glacier National Park have each retreated by over a kilometer in the last century. The Wedgemont Glacier in Garabaldi Park has retreated 200+ metres in the last 20 years alone.
100 year trend in later autumn freezing and earlier spring thaw in the north. This has a profound affect on Carribou migratory patterns as well as the spring/fall mixing cycle (and therefore nutrient content) of lakes which stratify in the summer and/or winter.
Changes in river flow patterns. The Fraser, Thompson and Columbia river systems which drain over half of the province's land area have all experienced a steady trend in earlier and larger peak spring flows and lower summer and autumn flows. This equates to drier summers and increased spring flooding. Increased scouring from higher spring flows can also increase mortality of salmon smelt.
Increased river temperatures. The average summer time temperature of the Fraser River (measured at Hell's Gate) has increased by 1.1C over the last 50 years. Higher water temperatures increase stress, exhaustion, infection and mortality in spawning salmon. This, combined with lower water levels has been devastating on wild salmon and steelhead populations with enroute mortalities of over 50% in several years in the last decade. The Columbia River, as a result of hydro electric projects has not been a significant salmon spawning river in BC and Washinton State since the 1950's.

Now no doubt someone is going to find something wrong with the above statements which I have summarized from publications such as Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia 2002. If I have miss represented or overstaded something, in this case, the devil is not in the details but in the big picture. All of the trends indicate that we are running headlong into a cataclysmic natural disaster in our life times. While it is certainly true that the Liberals under Cretien and Martin lacked the courage to address climate change in a meaningful way, the Conservative's approach of criticizing the lack of progress by the Liberals, while boldly declaring that they intend to do even less is beyond irresponsible.

2. Sustainable Energy Policy. While this is somewhat related to global warming, it would still be a concern independent of global warming. We are simply consuming too much energy and sourcing too much of what we consume from non-renewable sources. People tell me that changing personal consumption behaviors is a hopeless cause. I'm not convinced of this. I get my motivation to change my consumption by looking at my young children and envisioning the world they are going to become adults in. Our planet was blessed with a one time endownment of a very special resource that took hundreds of thousands of years to develop and we have burned most of it up in less than 100 years. Leadership means looking past the next election cycle and doing what is right for the next generation - not just of Canadians and Americans, but of human beings.

There are very practical things that can be done right now. The first step should be to implement fuel economy and emission controls equivalent or better to those of California. The real alarmists are the auto industry apologists who claim that the technology to make more fuel efficient cars either doesn't exist or would bankrupt the auto makers. Japanese, Chinese, Korean and European auto makers seem to be doing okay, and all of these countries have higher emissions standards than Canada or the Unites States. The Conservative Party has committed to enforce Canadian fleet fuel efficiency and emissions standards and to harmonize these with those of the US. However it is likely that if and when this happens they will choose the US federal standards rather than the more stringent California standards adopted by California, Washington, Oregon and 6 north eastern states.

The Republican dominated US Congress has done nothing signficant to the CAFE standards for the last 12 years, and the Bush Whitehouse has has supported an industry legal challenge seeking to prevent California from implmenting stiffer air quality standards and fuel economy requirements on auto makers. Under the Bush Whitehouse, the EPA has punted on enforment of existing regulations - allowing power producers to upgrade and increase output without complying with modern emissions standards. Rather than a hard push on renewables, the current focus from both the Republicans and Conservatives is to extract more of our dwindling fossil fuels.

Leadership means doing the right thing. The public has a broad, but unfocused support for renewable energy. A visionary leader would harness that support and make sustainable and renewable energy sufficiency a national goal the way President Kennedy make landing on the moon a nation priority in the 1960s. In 1962, the path to the moon held far more challenges that the path to clean, sustainable energy does today. Virtually all of the technology exists, we simply lack the will to employ it. Economically, the $300+ billion spent to secure access to Iraqi oil would have been better spent on securing a stable state in Afghanistan and developing renewable energy in the United States.

3. Human Rights. This is more of an issue in the US than in Canada where the USA Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have dramatically stripped away rights to due process, privacy and even the most fundamental right, habeus corpus - protection from arbitrary or unlawful imprisonment and legalized many forms of torture. These are acts which future generations will look back on with the same lense we now view the illegal internment of Japanese Americans and Canadians during WWII, head taxes on Chinese and other gross exertions of the power of the state over the rights of individuals. Many states passed ballot initiatives to preserve property rights from state powers of emminent domain. These same states should consider the impact of syping, incarcerating without charges and the torture of Americans and foreign nationals under the guise of homeland security.

4. Healthcare. Canada is challenged to ensure the sustainability of our healthcare systems while the US is challenged to extend health insurance to the 20% of the population whom are either uninsured or under insured. Leadership in healthcare means looking past the medical, pharmaceutical, insurance, and union lobbies who seek to secure an ever increasing share of the world's largest industry. Leadership means ensuring that the system works for those it serves.

5. Peace, Security and Terrorism. Leaders in both countries need to re-evaluate when and how military and diplomatic coersion is applied to avert or intervene in humanitarian crisis and bring rogue nations into compliance with world human rights and arms control regimes and to support the rebuilding of failed states. At any given time, there are dozens of states that are flagrantly violating human rights on massive scales, proliferating banned weapons, sponsoring terrorism, engaged in civil war or genocide of whole populations or destablizing their neighbours through invasion or insurgency. Western powers can not militarily intervene in all situations. Sometimes we must make a "Sophie's Choice" between children in Africa, Asia or the Middle East. Many of the PNAC cabal have pointed to Iraq as an example of the impotance of the UN to act in a time of crisis. Retrospect however shows that the UN's caution with Iraq was well founded. The deployment of US and coalition military resources to Iraq - where no crisis existed - prevented an effective intervention in Darfur, where a current and on going humanitarian crisis has killed thousands of civilians.

There is pressure from some quarters in Canada to get out of Afghanistan (which I oppose), as there is pressure across the board in the US to get out of Iraq (which I sort of support). So the task remains for the leadership of the Liberal Party and Democratic Party to explain why the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan is needed to prevent the struggling state from decending into civil war, while the continued presence of American and British troops in Iraq may just ignite a civil war there. Much of the differnce comes down to the justification for being there in the first place, the level of international participation in the action, the support of the UN Security Council and the scale of the deployment needed to prevent the failure of these two states.

Lead to win

2006-11-10T06:09:00.000-08:00

The future leaders of both the Liberal Party of Canada and the US Democratic Party will be chosen in the next 18 months. In the States, none of the front runners have declared themselves in the race yet, but most of them have a Political Action Committee (PAC) and were very active in supporting key democrats in the mid term election. In the end, the front runners will include:

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York;
Senator Barak Obama of Illinois;
General (ret) Wesley Clark of Arkansas;
Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina;
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; and
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

And probably some others too. It is possible that John Kerry could run again, very unlikely that Al Gore would run, and Joe Libermann and Howard Dean are probably out of the picture now.

The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada will be chosen at the convention in Montreal on December 2nd and 3rd. The list of hopefulls include:

Author and scholar Michael Ignatieff;
Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae;
Ontario MPP and Cabinet Minister Gerard Kennedy;
MP and former Cabinet Minister Stephane Dion;
Former hockey legend, lawyer and MP Ken Dryden;
MP and former Cabinet Minister Joe Volpe;
MP and former Cabinet Minister Scott Brison; and
MP and former Cabinet Minister Marta Hall-Finnlay;

Both parties will try to choose a leader who will revitalize their party and lead them to victory in the next election. I hope everyone caught the second part of that statement. Let me repeat it. Elect a leader who will lead them to victory in the next election.

The Liberals probably have a slightly easier job than the democrats as they have not been out of power as long, and Canada doesn't have a strong advantage of incumbancy that the US does. However if the goal is to win the next election, the future Liberal leader must have broad appeal in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. These are the three most populous provinces and are all provinces that traditionally split a significant portion of their votes.

Unfortunately, all of the candidates have warts. As much as I like Gerard Kennedy, his lack of command of French is a liability for him in Quebec. He would probably fare worse the Paul Martin in Quebec. Bob Rae is going to have a tough time convincing Ontarians to forget his disasterous premiership of the province under the NDP banner. Michael Ignatieff is a very smart and sophistocated man, but he seems to lack the political experience to know when to simplify and/or dumb down the message for media and public consumption. Intelligent, complex and nuanced look a lot like uncertain, contradictory and even deceitful once filtered through the dumb-o-matic that is our main stream media. John Kerry didn't learn this in time. Stephen Harper is also smart, and finally learned this lesson; look where it got him. Ken Dryden also has all of the right components, but will have a hard time shaking his image of being little more than a celebrity MP - which is not true, but none the less, it is a perception that is out there. American's like sports hero politicians. Canadians don't. Stephane Dion is intelligent, politically savy and a native son of Quebec. He could win it all.

The democrats have different problems, but more time to solve them. The problem I see is that, unlike the Canadian Conservitives, the Republicans have at least two very credible, popular and experienced potential candidates in Senator John McCain and former NY Mayor Rudolph Gulliani. Both McCain and Gulliani also have strong appeal with independents and moderate Democrates. Both are perceived as strong on national security. Gulliani could win New York - a frightful thought for Democrats, while McCain could possibly even put California in play. This is a problem for the Democrats. Senators Clinton and Obama are also very strong candidates, but this may not be enough.

Senator Clinton is intelligent, articulate, experienced, and unfortunately, seems to be a lightning rod for hate from the Republican base. There is no doubt that as much as she would mobilize the Democrat base, she would also mobilize the Republican base. Would she have enough appeal with independents, moderate conservatives and women voters to overcome the massive Republican turn out against her, particularly against McCain or Gulliani? Senator Obama is just as strong a candidate as Clinton and lacks the hate from the far right. He would get a very strong turn out from black voters to vote for the first African American President, but the Democrats usually carry the black vote, so is this enough? Neither is a Southerner - which conventional wisdom holds is an advantage for a presidential candidate.

Wes Clark is a southerner who also has a strong appeal with moderates. As a miliary man, he would have some appeal on homeland security, but he is still seen as an outsider in the democratic party and has little political experience. The national security advantage may not be as important in 2008 as it was in 2004 and 2006. Governor Richardson of New Mexico is a dark horse. He has all the credentials - former ambassador, senator, a southern governor, etc, and if elected would be the first Latino/Hispanic president. But again, with the exception of Cuban exiles, the Latino vote generally goes heavily democrat anyways. It is also not certain that Richardson will run - he sat out 2004.

The democrats however have an advantage that the Liberals don't; control of the legislative agenda. Over the next 2 years, the democrats will be able to put issues before Congress and make the Republicans support or oppose them. How will the Republicans react when the Democrats kill most of the Bush tax breaks that only affect the most wealthy Americans? Will they vote against (or veto) an increase in the minimum wage? Will they oppose more stringent CAFE fuel efficiency standards or efforts to regulate CO2 emissions? In the end however, the Democrats will likely be judged on how they influence the President to extract the United States from Iraq.

The Liberals also have an advantage that the Democrats don't have; some control over the timing of the next election. This is not an exact science however. The Conservatives could pull the plug when it suites them as well, and most Canadians understand that forcing an election when it benefits you is at worst self serving and best opportunistic.

Democracy

2006-11-08T06:35:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to my American friends for not just voting, but for voting for democracy, peace, human rights and social justice. Even though the president wasn't on the ballot yesterday, and regardless of what the GOP spin machine says, this election result is nothing less than a repudiation of the policies of the Bush Whitehouse. President Bush is now officially a lame duck.

He'd better not go hunting with Dick Chenney.

I seriously doubt anyone in the United States Congress or the public has an appetite to impeach Bush, and looking foward to 2008, that would be a strategic mistake for democrates. But with control of the legislative agenda and all of the House committees (and possibly Senate too), I hope the Democrates use their new majority and power of subpena to shine a light into some very dark places over the next 2 years because let's face it, as much as the President is a lame duck, Congress is now offically grid locked. With the Democrates lacking a veto proof majority, and with a distinctly different legislative agenda than the President, nothing else is going to get done in Congress for the next 2 years.

In addition to investigating some of the abuses of exucutive power, another thing the Democrates can do is use their control over the legislative agenda to frame the terms of debate for 2008. Obviously, Iraq was front and centre in voters mind yesterday, but beyond Iraq, where do American's priorities lie? What is more pressing on the social agenda in America - banning gay marriage as Virginia voters did yesterday, or making real progress on alleviating poverty? On healthcare, should Congress invest its invest its political capital in extending healthcare coverage to the 40+ million Americans who are uninsured, or continue to ban embryonic stem cell research? Yesterday Missouri voters moved cautiously to allow embryonic stem cell research. Thanks Michael J. Fox for "faking it". Should corporate greed continue to drive the agenda? Why else would the last Congress have prevented the Vetran's Administration from pooling its purchasing power to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs for vetrans. These are the questions that a new Democrate driven Congress can put on the public agenda and dare the President to veto.

Clean Air - Act II

2006-10-19T10:57:00.000-07:00

There may be good reasons for the opposition parties to allow the passage of the Conservatives new neutered Clean Air Act. While the new act is flawed, the keys to what may make it acceptable are the fact that it is only a regulatory framework - i.e. it does not set specific targets or standards, and that the opposition parties are united on strengthening environmental protection and hold a majority in Parliament. This would allow the opposition parties to pass additional legislation that would set far more aggressive targets and standards than the Conservatives have in mind.

For example, the new Clean Air Act has apparently encorporated the 1981 Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act - and the Conservatives plan to "Harmonize" Canadian fuel efficiency standards with those of the United States. Rather than complying with US federal emissions and fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards, the opposition parties should force the government to comply with tougher California standards which Washington, Oregon, New York, Massachusets, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey and Rhode Island have all either already adopted or signalled their intention to do so. Likewise with Green House Gas emissions, the new legislation provides a regulatory framework (which Conservatives claim the Canadian Environmental Protection Act lacked) to allow the governent to set targets and regulate green house gas emissions. With the framework in place, the opposition parties, rather than demanding the government present a plan to meet its obligations under the ratified Kyoto treaty, should legislatively enforce the 2002 Kyoto targets.

Of course, from a purely political point of view this is probably bad politics. Opposition MPs from all parties would have to explain why they voted to pass the Conservative's new bill, while at the same time saying it is weak and ineffectual. The public generally doesn't have the attention span to understand nuanced arguments. Sometimes there is a political price to doing the right thing.

If CO2 was Purple ...

2006-10-16T10:50:00.000-07:00

Blame God. CO2 is invisible. The problem is that Conservatives can believe in an invisible god, but can't accept the reality of pollution you can't see. With global warming a looming global economic, environmental and human catastrophy, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose and Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week announced their intention to table a new Clean Air Act, the primary focus of which is smog and air quality rather than meaningful reductions in green house gasses. In fact on October 5th, Minister Ambrose stated that air quality rather than global warming was the government's top environmental priority. You can see smog, you can't see CO2.

I don't meant to under estimate the health hazards from smog, which is a serious problem for the very young, very old and people with weakened respiratory systems. It is certainly not attractive to look from a distance at the purple brown haze that cloaks most of Canada's urban centres. But while air quality is an environmental concern, it is not the most pressing concern. The effects of smog are localized or at least regionalized, not particularly accute to the majority of the population and readily mitigated for others, and in the long term, completely reversible. Global warming is global, irreversible (at least for several centuries), highly accute, and could effect everything from agriculture to desertification, sea levels, the spread of certain diseases such as malaria and the frequency of severe weather incidents. Whole cultures such as those of Fiji and Tonga and Mirconesia could disapear under the rising seas. Perhaps it is God's revenge on Forida for electing an idiot to the White House.

On global warming, the conservatives continue their mealy mouthed double speak. While criticizing the Liberal's timid and half hearted efforts to meet Canada's Kyoto targets, Ms. Ambrose boldly announced that the Conservatives will do even less. Actually, they will change the targets and then fail to meet them as well. While the Liberal's programs were timid and ineffectual, at least they didn't change the targets to make it look like they were accomplishing something. The intensity based emissions targets proposed by Harper and Ambrose will ensure that Canada's green house gas emissions will continue to increase.

What will it take to put meaningful reductions in green house gasses on the federal agenda? The liberals paid lip service to global warming, recognizing the problem, but were too affraid of damaging the economy to do anything about it. The Conservatives, for the most part, have moved past denying global warming, but still don't think it's an environmental priority, at least not on the same level as smog. The New Democrates and Bloc are on record as supporting rigorous limits on CO2 emissions, but neither party will ever form a federal government. The retreat of glaciers, thinning of polar ice sheets, increase in severe weather, early harvests and other first signs of significant climate change are apparently not enough. Perhaps if you could easily see CO2. To their credit, the three opposition parties did manage to pass Bill C-288, An Act to Ensure Canada Meets its Global Climate Change Obligations Under the Kyoto Protocol. Unfortunately, this bill, rather than prescribing a plan, only calls on the government to present a plan. Once again, the opposition - even when united, comes up short. A private members bill, if supported by the three opposition parties could force a Kyoto plan upon the government. But then they would have to share credit. I guess it is considered preferable to just make political points.

In 1991, the Conservatives under Mulroney were finally (after 10 years) successful in getting the US to sign the Acid Rain Treaty. But it is easy to see dead fish, measure the ph level of lakes and trace the cause to high sulfer coal fired thermal energy plants in the north eastern United States and Ontario. Conservatives take their sport fishing seriously. While atmostpheric CO2 has been directly measured since the 1950's, global warming and its effects are far more difficult to measure and attribute to human activity. Thankfully, 3 decades of scientific research has finally and conclusively made the case for action. The Conservative no longer (officially) doubt the science (although many of their supporters still do). They just refuse to do any thing about it. The opposition refuses to force their hand.

I'm not sure at this point what is worse. The Liberals strong words and weak action, or the Conservatives weak words and weak action.

Heck of a job Denny!

2006-10-11T22:26:00.001-07:00

So was this written by a Jon Stewart script writer or what?

Denny's very credible as far as I'm concerned." the president said during a one hour press conference with reporters in the White House Rose Garden. "And he's done a fine job as speaker, when he stands up and says: I want to know the truth. And I believe yesterday he said that if somebody on his staff, you know, didn't tell him the truth, they're gone. I respect that and appreciate that and believe him.

Karl Rove is obviously no longer pulling the strings.

G&M Subtitle Subterfugue

2006-10-11T12:10:00.000-07:00

The Globe and Mail, no lets say all main stream news outlets, just doesn't understand the difference between academic research and think tank research. In reporting the findings of 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq published this week in The Lancet, the Globe and Mail Headlined the story as follows:

Iraq Civilian War Deaths top 650,000, Study Says.

The for effect they included the subtitle: Expert dismisses survey – with results far higher than other estimates – as 'politics' meant to influence U.S. congressional elections

In an effort to provide "balance" for the article, the G&M sought out an expert to provide a different view point. Unfortunately, the expert they found, Anthony Cordeman, while a recognized expert in military strategy, is not an expert in public health, nor would he be expected to be intimately familiar with instruments and methodologies used by public health researchers to measure mortality rates disaster ravaged areas. The Center for Strategic and International Studies - a right wing think tank which employs Mr. Cardeman, lists him as an expert in:

Middle East Military Balance;
Weapons of Mass Destruction;
Ballistic Missile Defense;
Critical Infrastructure Protection;
Homeland Security;
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;
US and Middle East Energy Policy; and
Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Cardeman currently holds an Arleigh Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has also served as a middle east analyst for ABC News, a security assistant to Senator John McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has held a variety of posts with the US Department of Defense. He has also lectured at Georgetown University on National Security issues. Mr. Cardeman is extensively published on the subjects of military and security strategy and policy and while not an academic is widely considered a scholar in these areas. He is not an expert on public health nor is he likely to be even remotely familiar with the methods used by the Johns Hopkins researchers.

All research is not the same. The gold standard in research has the three "P's". Public funding, Peer review and Publication in a major journal. Private think tanks such as CSIS produce third rate analysis and little or no research. News outlets need to understand that "balancing" publicly funded, peer reviewed and published research with "expert" opinions from private think thanks is misleading and dishonest.

Private think tanks can pick and chose, via a closed process, which studies they want to fund and publish. The have obligations to the private institutions that provide their funding to espouse certain view points - regardless of what the evidence says. And they often have a lot to say on a lot of different topics. It is dead easy for a journalist to get a quote from one of these think tanks, be it the Fraser Institute, CSIS, the CATO instutute, Brookings Institute, American Enterprise Institute etc. But getting the ease quote does not always make for honest and balanced reporting.

If the Globe had wanted to provide real balance for the story, they would have had to do some research. Not scientific research, but journalism research. Such as that done by the Columbia University Journalism Review when the inital 2004 study was publish. The Columbia author interviewed 10 biostaticians and mortality experts and found that none of them had serious issues with the methods or conclusions of the report. The Chronical of Higher Education also interviews statisticians, public health researchers, epedemiologists, and mortality experts from several medical journals and universities, the Red Cross and the World Health Organization and concluded that the 2004 study was without fatal flaws.

But I guess it is much easier to mislead the public with lazy journalisme and call it "balance".

Not Credible

2006-10-11T10:10:00.000-07:00

Lancet/Johns Hopkins report - 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq since 2003

President says not credible.

Public Health researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health surveyed 47 clusters of 40 homes on randomly selected residential streets from 18 cities and regions in Iraq for a total of over 12,500 Iraqis. They found that the crude mortalithy rate in Iraq has risen from 5.5 per 1000 per year pre-invasion to 19.8 per 1000 per year after the invasion. Excess mortalities, defined as deaths above the baseline established in 2003 now exceed 14.2 per 1000. In total they found that 655,000 Iraqis have died over above the number that would have been expected based on the pre-invasion mortality rates.

The same group did a previous study in 2004 and extimated, based on a smaller sample, over 100,000 excess deaths up until 2004. When the current survey results were applied to the period covered in the previous study they now estimate that 112,000 excess deaths up to September 2004, thus validating their previous work.

The president doesn't think these public health researchers from the nation's most prestigious health sciences school are credible. Even though their work was peer reviewed and published in the highly respected British medical journal Lancet - a journal with a publication history dating back to the early 1800's. A man who needs a road map to sort his name out of the alphabet blocks had the audacity to say their methodology has been discredited. I wonder how many times he had to reherse those words?

But then again, the president doesn't think that evolution or global warming are based on credible science either.

Foley's Follies

2006-10-03T21:30:00.000-07:00

In scanning the stories in the Washington Post, NY Times and CNN online, I have to wonder which revelation the Republicans are more concerned about, that Representative Mark Foley is gay, or that he is a sick sexual predator relentless in his pursuit of teenage Congressional pages and that the GOP House leadership has known about it for years and covered it up? There seems to be about as much ink devoted to his sexual orientation as to the real scandal.

Smells like mean spirit - part deux.

2006-09-26T21:54:00.001-07:00

The Globe and Mail today ran a story detailing Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's $2B in budget cuts the Conservatives intend to go ahead with even in light of a $13B budget surplus. Now I am all for cutting redundant, wastefull on ineffective programs - but let's have a look at some of the cuts.

$50-million: unused funding for NW Territories devolution.
Sounds reasonable.

$4-million: medical-marijuana science funding
meh - IMO this program has more to do with a vocal advocacy agenda than with meeting a health need with the most effective medical intervention

$78.8-million: End to program that gave GST rebates to tourists
I guess there are not a lot of tourists in Alberta. I know in BC the Cruise Ship industry is facing fierce competition from American ports and has already been hurt by the surging Canadian dollar. This is certainly not going to help.

$11.7-million: Removal of unused funds for mountain pine beetle initiative
I guess I would start with why are there "unused" funds in any program to combat an infestation that some project could wipe out most of BC's pine forests. This scourge is already spreading into the northern boreal pine forests and steadily moving into Alberta. Given that the seriousness of this problem and that in the Conservative's 2006 fiscal plan they promised an additional $500 million in funding to programs to combat pine beetle infestation, I am baffled as to why they are now cutting "unused" funding from this program. Clearly the Conservatives have no appeal to urban Canadians outside of Calgary and Edmonton - but are they abandoning rural British Columbians too?

$46.8-million: Smaller cabinet announced in February
meh

$45-million: "Efficiencies" in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
meh

$4.25-million: Consolidation of foreign missions
meh

$13.9-million: Cancellation of National Defence High-Frequency Surface Wave Radar Project
Okay - this one makes no sense at all. When small leaky boats laden with Chinese refugees were appearing off the coast of BC several years back, the Conservatives were screaming about our permissive refugee evaluation programs that allowed these people to stay in Canada while their status was adjudicated. In the post 9-11 world, we are spending millions if not billions on beefing up security at airports, ports, borders, etc. Every year or so we are embarrased by foreign fishing vessels flaunting our econmic exclusion zone (EEZ) and illegally stripping our coastal waters of fish. So why are we cancelling a promising program that is already deployed in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that if fully deployed could detect and track small ships approaching our coasts while they are still outside our EEZ?

$6.5-million: Elimination of funding for the Centre for Research and Information on Canada
meh

$4.6-million: Cuts to museum assistance
Conservatives don't think much of arts or culture

$5-million: Administrative reductions to Status of Women Canada
or women.

$6-million: Operational efficiencies at the Canada Firearms Centre
We knew this was coming but interesting timing.

$4.2-million: Cuts to Law Commission of Canada
$15-million Elimination of residual funding for softwood-lumber trade litigation
$4.6-million: Elimination of the RCMP drug-impaired-driving program's training budget
meh, meh and meh

$5.6-million: Elimination of Court Challenges Program
Conservatives have never liked this program, but most fail to understand why with a relatively young constitution it is important to have key test case issues litigated before the Supreme Court to establish a body of Canadian constitutional law.

Bad Rae Day

2006-09-19T20:47:00.000-07:00

Bob Rae was interviewed on CKNW news talk radio in Vancouver the other day. I was driving, and missed the first part of the interview, but I think he really missed an opportunity to clearly communicate a progressive, but sensible policy on drug addiction and drug abuse. To be fair, he hit one some of the major themes - that drug addiction is a healthcare problem and needs to be addressed as such, through mental health and public health programs rather than solely treating it as a crime.

When asked if he would support a supervised safe injection site in the Greater Toronto Area, Rae was very quick to respond with an "absolutely yes". He went on to mention that "war on drugs" approach followed south of the border has not worked, and that drug use should be decriminalized. In my view his response at best missed the mark, and at worst, is vulnerable to the "soft on crime" messaging that plays so well with conservatives.

InSite is not about decriminalization. Let me be clear. Use of scheduled drugs is still illegal in Vancouver. InSite has an Ministerial Exemption under Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that allows the administration of scheduled drugs for scientific and research purposes. These drugs are not decriminalized nor is production, sales or distribution of drugs decriminalized.

More importantly, InSite does not operate as an isolated program divorced from other healthcare and social services programs. Supervised injection, is one instance of a fairly broad harm reduction program (others include needle exchange programs, distribution of bleach kits, condoms, and education on transmission of infectious diseases, etc.) in Vancouver, that is a component of the City's "Four Pillars" approach to reducing drug related crime and harm in the city. Harm reduction is one pillar, the other three pillars are treatment, prevention and law enforcement.

The important messaging about InSite is not decriminalization. In fact, law enforcement is one of the four pillars. While many Canadians might support decriminalization of marijuana, I doubt that many would support the decriminalization of heroine, methamphetamine, barbituates, cocaine, etc. Safe injection is about harm reduction not decriminalization.

The progressive response to the question "would you support a safe injection site in Toronto" should be:
Supervised, safe injection as a method of harm reduction can be an effective component in the reduction of drug addiction, crime and the associated social and public health problems if it is combined with treatment, prevention and law enforcement. Outside of an integrated approach such as Vancouver's "Four Pillars" approach, an isolated safe injection site in Toronto is not advised.

What are we doing in Afghanistan?

2006-09-08T17:41:00.000-07:00

I support our mission in Afghanistan, at least for now. I question if it is being planned and executed effectively.

Canada has proudly led the NATO mission in Afghanistan from its inception. The conditions that existed three years ago which compelled our government to commit Canadian troops and aid to this struggling nation by all accounts have not improved measurably. While I am too lazy to look up the official objectives of the UN stabilization force in Afghanistan and the specific objectives of the Canadian contingent, they probably include stabilizing the fedgling democracy, suppressing the insurgent forces of the Taliban, training the Afghan army and providing reconstruction aid to the nation.

Unfortunately, most of these objectives are only articulated at the beginning of each new deployment of our armed forces to the region. As each new wave of soldiers embarcs for Afghanistan, the military and civilian leadership and television talking heads provide the obligatory speeches about winning the hearts and minds of Afghans, rebuilding schools and generally improving the every day living conditions of the "ordinary" Afghans. However within days, all we hear about are the military operations - each with its "code name", the predictions of impending victory against the "enemy" and the inevitible casualty reports. When was the last time you heard a news story on reconstruction?

There are two possible explanations for this. Either the reconstruction efforts are proceeding all the while, they just are not exciting enough to attract the attention of the "liberal" press, or within weeks, the sole focus of each new contingent of soldiers becomes the counter-insurgency effort. While there are those who will argue each of these viewpoints, several things are becomming apparent. If military convoys in armoured vehicals can not safely traverse many of the nation's rural roads except with air support, it appears the counter-insurgency mission is at best making extremely slow progress against an embedded, organic insurgency. The Afghan government is little more than a mirage in many vast regions of the country, and the Afghan army is invisible in the field. The poppy economy is still the primary source of income for many rural Afghans. Where efforts to eradicate poppy fields have succeeded, a sustainable replacement has not been found or taken hold. It appears that outside of a few isolated urban centres, the lives of most Arghanis have not been measureably improved after 3 years.

This leaves me asking several questions. These are not rhetorical, but I have no easy answers.

Have we made the right committment to Afghanistan? Clearly you can't provide aid or reconstruction without security, but it appears that our presence in Afghanistan is primariliy military focused (or maybe that is all we hear about). Is the perfect modern soldier anything more or less than a highly professional, disciplined, efficient, human killing machine? I don't say this to denigrate our soldiers, they are among the best all volunteer professional forces in the world, but a rifle is a weapon not a tool.

Should the mission continue if there is little or no hope of acheiving our objectives? I find it difficult to even describe let alone predict what an acceptible outcome would look like. But if, recognizing that our efforts may be futile, we pull out, are we willing to accept the inevitibility of a failed state from which terrorist attacks will once again be planned and executed? Another grizzly alternative is that the "civilized world", what ever that is, may have to indefinitely administer Afghanistan and continually repress the extreme elements that nurture terrorism.

At any rate, our mission in Afghanistan must be continually examined and debated without the proponents of debate being labelled as terrorist lovers or lunatics. The human costs of our mission, on both sides, are too high to continue doggedly down the same track without debate.

Insight on InSite

2006-09-08T11:40:00.000-07:00

First of all, I would like to give Health Minister Tony Clement some half hearted applause for his half hearted decision to extend for one year the exemption under Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the Vancouver INSITE safe injection site. Maybe I’ll just use one hand. Did you hear that?

For weeks, the Stephen Harper and Tony Clement have been coy on the future of Vancouver’s innovative but controversial experiment in harm reduction as a component of a a “Four Pillars” approach to reducing illicit drug abuse and drug related crime in the downtown core. Under mounting pressure from the current and three former Vancouver mayors, the Premier of BC, the entire population and public health professional and academic communities, the entire Vancouver social services community, Vancouver’s chief of police, virtually all of the public sector unions, national and international HIV/AIDS and epidemiology experts … virtually every expert in the fields of public policy, healthcare, social services, public health, epidemiology and substance abuse, Harper punted, renewing the exemption and funding for the site for one more year, when researchers have asked for three more years to complete the ongoing research.

Given the fact that virtually everyone who knows anything about the related fields has spoken out in support of the site, why did Harper wait until the 11th hour and then only renew the site’s license for one additional year? It is probably due to the fact that people who live in Canada’s urban centres are not Harper’s constituents. The Conservatives did not elect a single MP in a major urban centre outside of Calgary and Edmonton. So while Harpers constituents don’t have to deal with the impact of drug abuse, overdoses, the spread of infectious diseases and the related prostitution and property crime that result from drug addiction, his constituents DO have strong opinions on so called “vices” such as drug use and prostitution. For the most part their opinions could be distilled down to “throw them all in jail”. Publicly, Harper has said that the deliberation was needed to review the research. The evidence on the results of the site is pretty clear. More likely, Harper needed to assess the political impact of doing the right thing. Harper needs to appeal to his base – suburban and rural conservative. To do so he has to come across as tough on crime, regardless of whether or not his policies result in a dozens junkies and prostitutes dying or the spread of HIV and Hepatitis B. Inner city junkies and prostitutes probably don’t vote conservative.

The research on INSITE is pretty clear. It was publicly funded under grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), has been peer reviewed and published in some of the most respected and rigorous academic journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. This represents the platinum standard in academic research. For a review of the results, please look here. But this is not clear enough for Mr. Harper. We have heard musings of needed more independent and arms length research.In fact, this is exactly what (heard on CKNW radio in Vancouver) the head of the BC RCMP (the only law enforcement agency that does not support the site) has said. More independent and arms length research? What he really means is that the Fraser Institute (whose work is neither peer reviewed or subject to independent editorial review) or some other third rate, right wing propaganda machine has not weighed in yet.

To be honest, I was initially sceptical about the INSITE program. On the surface it seems to be enabling drug use. But to really understand the safe injection site, you have to view it in the context in which it was designed. It is only one component, in a comprehensive “Four Pillars” approach to reducing drug related problems in Vancouver. Outside of such a comprehensive approach, I probably wouldn’t support it. Vancouver has been at the forefront of including harm reduction - reducing the spread of deadly communicable diseases, preventing drug overdose deaths, increasing substance users' contact with health care services and drug treatment programs, and reducing consumption of drugs in the street into its policies around drug prevention. The other three pillars are Prevention, Treatment and Enforcement. For more information on Vancouver’s Four Pillars program, look here.

But all of this information was available to Stephen Harper before the last election when he said he was “not committed” to the InSite program and would be opposed to using tax payers money to fund it. So rather than allowing the best scientific evidence direct his government’s policies on drug abuse, Mr. Harper seems to be falling back on the failed “war on drugs” policies of the 1980’s and 1990’s.

I'm back!

2006-08-17T08:04:00.000-07:00

Well, after a self imposed 6 month vacation from blogging, I'm back. All in all, it's not a bad time for blogging. We have a Liberal leadership race that should start to heat up as the September delegate selection process approaches its nadir. The International AIDs conference and our Prime Minister's absence from the afair is certainly comment worthy. Is it just me, or does it seem a bit whimpy for the PM to avoid the conference for fear of being heckeled and booed. Is that leadership? When it comes to pandering to his base, Mr. Harper can be very resolute. Evidence the strength of his statements on Canada's role in the middle east and Afghanistan, on gay marriage etc. There is also the interesting fact that Mr. Harper seems to believe (by raising the age of consent) that a 14 year old is not responsible enough to make reproductive and sexual choices, but a 10 year old can be held responsible for crimes in adult court. Again - lots of strong words to appeal to his conservative base. But when doing the right thing (like funding the Vancouver safe injection site which all of the research says is making a difference) goes against his base - Mr. Harper is weak.

However today - I just thought I would mention that my neighbourhood was visited early yesterday morning by an unwelcome element - gunfire. At about 5:30 yesterday morning, somewhere around 8 to 10 shots were fired on the front street directly in front of my home and then a Japanese car with a "sport" muffler sped away. Thankfully, our home was not the target, but the house across the street. All in all, I am told by the Vancouver Police community liaison officer that 10 9 millimetre shell casings were recovered. One of the shots made a 6 inch long 3/4 inch diameter furrow through the hood of the Volvo parked across the street. At least one shot penetrated all the way into a rear bathroom shower.

I don't know much about my neighbour across the street - I know the neighbours on both sides of me quite well because this side of the street and the homes that share the same back alley have a block watch program and we have had block parties and BBQs and our children often play street hockey in the back alley. What I do know about the house across the street is that there is a basement rental suite, that appears to be rented to a couple of young guys with very expensive cars. This is probably a good indication that I should get to know the other side of the street.

On the subject of getting to know the other side of the street, if Mr. Harper is ever going to form a majority government he need to expand his appeal outside of his base. Pandering is not going to get him anywhere.

No Sermon this Sunday.

2006-03-26T21:21:00.000-08:00

Thoughts havn't entirely coalesced this week, not for a lack of material, in fact, just the opposite, a lack of focus is more like it. After the dust up on Cherniak's blog this weekend maybe I need to cover morality and tolerance.

Hypocrites

2006-03-25T15:44:00.000-08:00

I picked this up from a comment attributed to Michael Ignatieff on Cherniak’s blog.

"I've never regarded hypocrisy as the worst of all virtues, perhaps because I'm a bit of a hypocrite myself."

I believe the context of the above quote is Michael’s initial support for the Iraq war which he later regretted. If one were to peruse the political blogs and forums on the Internet, you wouldn’t have to look very far to find accusations of hypocrite or a “flip flopper” being hurled at people for simply changing their mind. Others, such as John Kerry in the 2004 US Presidential race have been accused of hypocrisy for seeing moral choices as shades of grey rather than black or white.

It is not hypocrisy for one’s views to evolve, change and/or mature over time. In fact I would argue that anyone whose views don’t change over time either lives in a very isolated environment, lacks self awareness or is comfortable with cognitive dissonance. Likewise, no one is completely internally consistent.

I’m 42 years old. In my youth, I would have described myself as a moderate conservative. I voted for Brian Mulroney (twice) and Kim Campbell. I then moved to the United States for 10 years. Even in California, it didn’t take long to appreciate the benefits of Canada’s “liberal” social reforms of the last 50 years. Even in a region as obviously wealthy as the Bay Area, disparities in education, healthcare, opportunity, employment, etc. are striking. What is also very apparent is the way in which opportunity and wealth are distributed along racial lines. Black and Hispanic communities are by and large poor, have poor schools and poor infrastructure in stark contrast to Caucasian and Asian communities.

In the 10 years I was in California however, my core values didn’t change all that much – I have always felt that just societies must work for all people. My political outlook and views on the ways to achieve social justice are what changed. I can no longer accept that minimal governments, free markets, the private sector and private charity alone are the best mechanisms to address the obvious disparities in the social well being of the poor and at risk members of society.

Part of my own gradual enlightenment was also due to my completing my undergraduate degree at the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit School with a strong history of social responsibility. The mandatory “breadth” courses in history, philosophy, and political science that were missing from my earlier technical school education speak volumes on the value of a liberal arts education regardless of one’s major or field of study. I am now literally a few days away from completing my MBA at the University of British Columbia. A business school education has actually sharpened rather than dulled my social conscience.

So I am accepting of change in myself, most people are, but what about other people? I marched in and cheered the street demonstrations in San Francisco leading up to and immediately following the start of the war. This much to the consternation of a few of my friends who were San Francisco fire fighters. I can understand they had to deal with crowd control, blocked streets and public safety. At the time many of my friends did not appreciate that they were seeing democracy in action. Many of them have since come to the realization that the war was not just a mistake, but was an immoral initiative from the start.

Michael Ignatieff, an early supporter of the war, once he saw how the war was executed, that it was sold on a bunch of lies and that only token efforts were given to creating a workable society in the aftermath, has repented of his earlier position. Once he saw that his writings on the limits of torture were being construed as support for torture, he clarified his views. Unfortunately, like with Senator Kerry, the talking heads that dispense what passes for news to the public just don’t get nuance.

George Bush is not a nuance guy. The public likes that in a President. Black, white, Axis of Evil, Evil Empire, Patriots and Terrorists – what else is there? I can’t however accept this. I don’t mind leaders making mistakes; I will still criticize them when I feel they are making a mistake. But to stay with a failed policy or continue repeating a mistake is inexcusable. I would have at least some level of respect for George Bush if he came out and said – “Okay, Iraq was a big mistake, but we are there now and we have to make the best of it”.

I have previously called Stephen Harper a hypocrite because things he said as president of the National Citizens Coalition and during the 2004 election campaign were inconsistent with his public postures during the 2006 campaign. Harper supported the Iraq war, and has never really repudiated that stand. In the past, Harper has expressed his undying admiration for the US conservative movement, whose political agenda reads like a manifesto for jingoes, robber barons and oligarchs. He has criticized Canada’s social welfare system and mocked the unemployed. He now says all this was a joke. But Harper is not a hypocrite, he is far worse. He’s a conniving weasel who wants it both ways. He seeks to appeal to the Alberta wing of the CPC with all of the neo-conservative (neo-liberal really) themes, but at the same time, in order to get elected he couldn’t sound like the scary Stephen Harper of the NCC and Canadian Alliance. Given the choice, I think I’d take the hypocrite.

Not Nuff Nads

2006-03-25T12:09:00.000-08:00

We are happy to report that the recent inflamation and swelling of Lyle Oberg's testicles appears to be subsiding after some agressive treatment by Dr. Klein late in the week. While they at one point had swollen almost to the size of marbles, they appear now to be slowly returning to their normal size and should once again resemble dried peas by this time next week.

Useful Idiots

2006-03-25T11:58:00.000-08:00

Under the headline “May God bless and keep the Christian Peacemakers … far, far away” and a quarter page illustration titled “Ingratitude” Margaret Wente in this morning’s Globe and Mail assails the recently rescued members of the Christian Peacemakers Team (CPT) for their failure to thank or recognize the efforts of the military and intelligence forces who rescued them from the Swords of Righteousness Brigade – a private “kidnap for profit” group operating in Iraq. Fair enough. I too think the rescued peace workers could have showed more grace by recognizing the heroic efforts of their rescuers. All war opponents should take note of this. When soldiers enlist, they do not have the luxury of picking or choosing their missions. The vast majority of them do a very difficult job honourably, a few rise to heroic and unfortunately, the actions of a few are inhumane and deplorable. Responsibility for the mess in Iraq however lies squarely on the civilians who sent them there.

However Ms. Wente goes on to not only rail against the CPT for their lack of gratitude, but to attack their motives, mission, purpose and character, and in the process demonstrates what a empty shill for the “lets remake the middle east in our image, and to hell with the consequences” neo-liberal PNAC ideologues she really is. Who but a partisan shill would continue to support such as demonstrably failed policy as the Iraq war, as the country, and potentially the whole region, slowly spirals into sectarian violence and civil war. What were the reasons for the war again? Was it weapons of mass destruction? Oh right none were found. Was it 9/11? Oh right, no connection to Al Qaeda. Was it humanitarian intervention? Oh right, 30,000 to 100,000 dead civilians and an escalating civil war, not to mention Abu Ghraib. Somehow when it comes to standing on moral principles I would trust the Christian Peacemakers just a bit more than Ms. Wente and the people she shamelessly shills for.

In her column however, Margaret Wente abandons any journalistic integrity – if she had any left after her March 2005 editorial praising the discredited work of climate change denier Steve MacIntyre as a climate change expert. In this current piece however, Ms. Wente makes the mistake of assigning or associating other people’s words and opinions to the three rescued Peacemakers and then attacks them on this basis. She writes:

“I heard of friend of Mr. Loney’s, Ted Schmidt, who is a former editor of the Catholic New Times. He got straight to his talking point, which was a passionate denunciation of the occupation in Iraq and of the Catholic Church for not opposing it. He said it was a lucky thing that Stephen Harper wasn’t in charge last fall ‘There is a good chance that if Mr. Harper had been Prime Minister and these people had known that Canada was a part of this operation, … they might not be alive’.

So let me make the distinction that Ted Schmidt is not one of the three rescued peace workers, Jim Loney, Harmeet Sooden or Norman Kember, and he does not speak for them. Mr. Schmidt has a valid point, in light of the fact that Tom Fox, the lone American in the groups was executed. However it is shoddy to criticize the CPT on the basis of what a friend of theirs has said.

Ms. Wente goes on to say that radical Palestinians and Hamas have endorsed the Christian Peacemakers.

The Christian Peacemakers are also well known on the West Bank, where they stand in front of Israeli bulldozers that arrive to raze the houses of Palestinian suicide bombers. Why were the hostages lives spared? Perhaps the season has less to do with the affecting please of family members that were broadcast on Al Jazeera and quite a lot to do with the ringing endorsement that came from radical Palestinian Imams and members of Hamas. “Freedom for the Iraqi and Palestinian people. Shame and disgrace on the Zionist and American occupation” said a press release issued by Hamas and several other groups.

First of all, Israel has not just bulldozed the homes of suicide bombers, but the homes of any Palestinians thought to be supporting terrorists. This is done without any burden of proof or due process, the decision is usually left up to military commanders in the field.

However, it is true that a group representing virtually all of the Palestinian political parties (not just Hamas) issued a statement on November 29th appealing for the kidnappers to release the members of the CPT (Christian Peacemakers Team) in Iraq. Here is the full text of the [translated] statement – see if it leaves the same impression as the highly rhetorical salutation/sign-off that Ms. Wente quoted and mischaracterized.

In the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful "O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done."-The Holy Qur'an, 49:6

The Islamic and National forces in the governorate of Hebron/Palestine express their deep regret for the kidnapping of four members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) in Iraq.

The Islamic and National forces in the governorate of Hebron/Palestine have had long experience confronting Israeli crimes and violations with the CPT since 1995, and wish to confirm that the members of this group have had and still have a major role in confronting Israeli crimes and violations, and in the protection of the property and the lives of the Palestinian citizens.

More than once they placed themselves in front of the occupation's tanks, and they confronted Israeli occupation bulldozers with their bodies defending Palestinians' homes against destruction. They accompanied our children when they were threatened and attacked by Israeli settlers on their way to and from their schools. Because of what they were doing, the CPT members were subjected to arrest, beating and pursuit by the Israeli soldiers and settlers in more than one location in Palestine. Many of them were denied entry to Palestine, or deported by the occupation authorities because of their activities in confronting the occupation.

We appeal to our brothers in the resistance and all those with alert consciences in Iraq, with whom we consider ourselves to be in the same trench confronting American aggression and occupation, to instantly and quickly release the four kidnapped persons (two Canadians, one Briton and one American) from CPT, in appreciation for their role in standing beside and supporting our Palestinian people and all the Arab and Islamic peoples.
Freedom for the Iraqi and Palestinian people.
Shame and disgrace on the Zionist and American occupation.

The Islamic and National Forces in the Governorate of Hebron

Some might read this as an endorsement, others as an appeal for the lives of people who, driven by compassion, have put their lives on the line repeatedly in the cause of humanitarianism. More telling of Wente’s distorted worldview, by quoting the single line of over blown rhetoric and associating all of the groups in the Palestinian government with radical Imams and Hamas, Ms. Wente radicalizes all Palestinians and portrays them as terrorists. In this case, the only crime they have committed is to appeal for God’s (Allah’s) mercy towards the hostages. This may have been what kept them alive for four months.

But Wente is not done yet. She goes on to compare the CPT to “Lenin and Stalin’s useful idiots” aiding the cause of Saddam and Al Qaeda, like “westerners who defended Russia and denounced the West”. The CPT was in Iraq before the war, trying to lessen the humanitarian impact of the UN Sanctions regime. But Al Qaeda was not active in Iraq prior to the occupation.

The only current connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is the elusive and ethereal Abu Mousad Al Zarqawi – who has incidentally regrown a leg recently. Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath party were secular Arab nationalist, the sworn enemies of Al Qaeda’s Islamic fundamentalists. The current insurrection is a marriage of necessity to drive out the American occupiers. Saddam was nominally a sunni muslim, but only got religion when he had a quarter of a million troops on his border and started quoting the Qur’an like Mike Tyson’s cellmate. Al Qaeda has its roots in Sunni Wahabism which while fundamentalist is at odds with the Shi’a fundamentalists of Iran. If you want to talk about radical Islam, look at what replaced Saddam. The Americans have installed a weak, Iran friendly Shi’ite government in Iraq, that is barely able to restrain the Mahdi army of the radical Shi'ite fundamentalist cleric Muqtada Al Sadr or the Kurd militias. The American coalition and their apologists have been able to accomplish in three years what Iran’s Ayatollah’s couldn’t do in over a decade of wars. Talk about useful idiots.

Riccota or Cottage?

2006-03-22T14:08:00.000-08:00

In the most inane poll yet, the Globe and Mail asks "Would you be more or less inclined to vote for the federal Liberals if fiddler Ashley MacIsaac were leading the party?"

Since TG&M has committed its staff to such deep analysis I have some suggestions for some future polls.

Who is a better ambassador for Canadian hockey, Todd Bertuzzi or Danny Heatley.
Who is more irritating, Celine Dion or Shania Twang
Rocky or Bullwinkle?
Survivor or The Apprentice?
Nipple electrodes or the anal pear?

Smells Like Mean Spirit(ed)

2006-03-22T10:38:00.000-08:00

Story from Common Dreams - Exxon Exxposed

If Exxon-Mobile does not represent everything that is wrong with corporate America I don't know what does. The Wall Street Journal story, picked up by Common Dreams, reports that the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has audited Greenpeace on the basis of a tip from Public Interest Watch, a group that received 97% of its funding from Exxon Mobile.

Now Exxon has for years engaged in a public mis-information campaign on Global Warming and in support of the Iraq war (which incidently drove world oil prices into the $60-$70/bbl range for the first time). A partial list of Exxon's donations in 2002 include:

Acton Institute for the Study or Religion and Liberty ($30,000) (Anti-Kyoto, Pro-SUV, Anti-Environmentalism)
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research ($200,000) (Anti-Kyoto/Global Warming deniers, pro-Iraq war, pro-gun, closely linked to and rents space to PNAC, board members include Lynne Cheney, Richard Perle, Robert Borke, Richard Cohen, Newt Gingrich and Exxon CEO Lee Raymond)
Atlas Economic Research Foundation ($50,000) (An association founded to seed right wing think tanks across the world. Linked to Fraser Institue, Manhatten Institute, Pacific Research Institute etc.)
Cato Institute ($30,000)(generally libertarian, advocats of privatization of social security, vocal deniers of global warming science)
Center for Strategic and International Studies ($145,000)(generally non-partisan, includes Democrats and Republicans amoung its membership: Madeleine K. Albright, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Warren Christopher etc.)
Committee for Economic Development ($75,000)(no information)
Competitive Enterprise Institute ($405,000)(Strongly Anti-environmental, Anti-Kyoto, Global Warming Deniers)
Foundation for American Communications ($175,000)(no information)
Frontiers of Freedom ($233,000)(pro-big tobbacco, pro-big oil, RJ Reynolds, Phillip Morris and Exxon are Founding members, Anti-environment, anti-kyoto, global warming deniers)
George C. Marshall Foundation (90,000)(one of the chief disseminators of anti-global warming misinformation and pseudo science.
Reason Foundation ($50,000) Libertarian, strongly anti-environmental

Source: Wikipedia

But now it appears that Exxon's war on environmentalism and climate change science has taken a new offensive. Attack the oppositions organization by sicking the IRS on them. Greenpeace by the way was cleared in the IRS investigation. According to a 60 Minutes story, Exxon was also the lobbying influence behind the White House and NASA's attempts to silence NASA Climate Changes scientist James Hansen. I guess if you can't win on the message, attack the messengers

Kangaroo Courts

2006-03-21T08:59:00.000-08:00

The US interrogator who supervised the brutal beating of former Iraqi major general Abu Hamad Mawoush, then stuffed him upside down in a sleeping bag and sat on his chest until he died, got 60 days confinement to barracks and forfeiture of $6000 worth of salary.

The US First Lieutenant threw 19 year old Zaidoun Hassoun off a bridge into the Tigris river causing his death was sentenced to 45 days confinement to barracks. The original charges of conspiracy, aggravated assault, involuntary manslaughter and obstruction of justice carried sentences up to 29 years, but he was convicted on lesser charges of simple assault. The explanation was that the commanding authority did not pursue the manslaughter charges.

So now we see a story in the Globe and Mail where a dog handler who turned his vicious dogs on inmates in a contest with another dog handler to see who could make the inmates soil themselves may face charges up to 24 1/2 years in prison. I wonder how many days he will spend in the dog house.

Edited 03-24-2006: Well I guess this has been answered. Mr. Smith got 6 months.

Conservative Childcare Program

2006-03-20T08:46:00.000-08:00

While fliping to "Crossing Jordan" last night, I caught a few minutes of a CTV interview with Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Diane Finley - I think it was Pamela Martin interviewing her on the proposed Conservative tax credit based childcare program. After getting over the distraction that Ms. Finley never blinks, the interview was pretty much the BS that I expected it to be. However right at the end of the interview, Ms. Finley indicated that initial indications from both the Liberals and NDP were that they would not vote against this legislation. This was a bit of a surprise for me. Pamela Martin then confirmed after the interview that she had spoken with both Bill Graham and someone from the NDP who had confirmed that they were not going to vote against the governments first major legislative initiative.

Between the Liberals, the NDP and most of the Bloc, social progressives still control Parliament. Parliamentary committees are also generally representative of the make up of the House of Commons. We really do not have to accept this crap from the Conservatives. While the government controls the legislative agenda, once a piece of legislation is out there it can and should be amended. In fact in this case, if NDP, Liberal and Bloc work together, they should be able to completely rewrite this bill to resemble a childcare program that we can actually support.

This of course means that the opposition parties would have to coordinate their opposition and work together more than we are accustomed to seeing in Canada. While I would not advocate a unite the left movement, I could see a progressive caucus forming in this Parliament around shared social objectives such as healthcare, childcare, environmental protection etc. I can also see such a united opposition being quite frustrating to the Conservatives. Perhaps I am just naive.

Christianity and the Religious Right Wrong - Installment II

2006-03-19T21:04:00.000-08:00

Installment I can be found here.

It’s Sunday, time for another sermon on the Religious wrong and Social Responsibility. I’ll start with a question, what is a social conservative?

Classical conservatism is an ancient philosophy that advances tradition above other values such as reason, equality, justice or egalitarianism as the foundation for governing human societies. Conservatism, while ancient, was probably first formalized by Edmond Burke (1729-1797), in Reflections on the Revolution in France, in response to the 18th century Enlightenment in general and the French Revolution in particular. Burke argued that traditions such as family, church and state draw on the wisdom of generations while reason is untested by time or may mask the prejudice of its proponents.

Conservatives do not oppose change per se, but prefer organic change to radical or revolutionary change. Burke strongly supported the American Revolution, but vigorously opposed the French Revolution which were pretty much contemporary events. It is important to note that conservatism is neither right wing nor left wing and does not favour one tradition above another. Lenin was a revolutionary, Stalin a conservative and Gorbachev a reformer, but all were Communists. Conservativism then is ideologically ambivalent; supportive of entrenched power, regardless of who wields it.

It is not surprising then that modern conservatism’s connection to the traditions of family, church and state is attractive to many modern day Christians. But is this the place, philosophically and politically where the church rightly and morally belongs? The answer to that depends on the extent to which the traditions of family, church and state support true Christian values.

Clearly there is some overlap between Christian values and what American conservatives call family values, but there are just as obviously some huge disconnects. A so called “culture of life” that protects a fetus and a catatonic soccer mom, but justifies the execution of criminals and the torture of prisoners is not even internally consistent let alone consistent with Christian values. Economic policies which under the guise of fiscal restraint, slash programs (head start, Medicaid etc.) designed to ease the burden of the poor to pay for an unjust foreign war and tax cuts for the wealthy are likewise morally deficient. How this is rationalized in light of the preponderance of Christian teaching on social responsibility defies not only reason, but tradition as well.

As I am writing this, I am listening to a Christian radio station, and have just heard back to back to advertisements which cause me to shake my head. Focus on the Family, an organization that is currently fighting against a public health program to immunize young women against human papilloma virus, the leading cause of cervical cancer, says that “Loving your neighbour is easy – just give to our ____ fund …” while a Bellingham, Washington “ministry” provides a shelter exclusively for “whole families (defined as those having both a mother and father) in need” – I guess single parents and non-traditional families in need should look elsewhere. Is this not sick and wrong?

Does anyone other than me not see a major disconnect between this and the values exemplified by Christ? Are the poor, meek, humble, righteous and poor in spirit no longer blessed? How is this consistent with Proverbs 14:31 which says “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honours God.”

It is also, sadly, increasingly difficult to separate the community of faith from the community of wealth, power and privilege. The parallels between the self righteous religious rulers our Lord called vipers and hypocrites and the religious right of our time are deniable only to those willing to suspend reason. Jesus offered grace and forgiveness to sinners and outcasts and reserved his wrath for the self righteous and corruptors, selling religion (sacrifices) and sitting in smug judgement of the poor, sick and disadvantaged. So why does His church expend such energies condemning sinners and praising the ruling establishment that exists on the backs of the poor.

The golden rule has become “Those with the gold make the rules”, and sweat equity now means “your sweat, my equity.” The poor have been deceived. Freedom without options, a vote without a voice and free speech when “they” own the channels are not currency neither will they provide sustenance. All the while a church, addicted to wealth, gives without sacrifice, ministers to those it deems worthy of its offerings, and seeks God’s blessing. God does not bless this.

They seek me day after day, and desire to know my ways. The church asks “Why do we fast, and you do not see it? Afflict ourselves, and you take no note of it?”

God through Hs prophet Isaiah answers “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” (Isaiah 58: 2,3,6-7).

Let My People Trade

2006-03-18T16:52:00.000-08:00

Much has been said about the Kyoto Protocol and its provisions for global emissions trading. It has been described by some as a provision for the exportation of wealth, and by others as some form of foreign aid. Neither of these descriptions accurately captures the mechanism.

Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocols authorizes Annex I countries to meet their Kyoto emissions reduction quotas in part through the purchase of credits (there are actually three different types of credits, but we will just call them credits for now) from other Annex I nations. As these transactions are only between Annex I, i.e. developed nations, this is hardly a wealth transfer or aid to the developing world (which is not a bad thing either). It does however provide an advantage to countries which are aggressive in reducing CO2 emissions and are able to achieve compliance quicker.

Global emissions trading as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has a lot of advantages:

It is a global solution. Global warming is a global phenomenon, caused by the global over production of greenhouse gasses. All countries must therefore contribute to the solution.
It does not dictate how a country domestically achieves compliance; it simply provides a market based incentive to do so.
It benefits from comparative advantage and increases flexibility. It may be much cheaper for Country A to reduce emissions by a certain amount than for Country B. If Country A is in Kyoto compliance, then it would be far more cost effective for Country B to purchase credits from Country A than to achieve the same level of emissions reduction through domestic programs. This scenario is then a win-win situation. In addition to the global abatement benefits, Country B achieves credit for emissions reduction at a lower cost and Country A gets a benefit for reducing emission below the required level. The planet doesn’t really care where the reductions occur.
It has already been demonstrated to be an efficient and effective abatement regime in the US. The US, under the Clean Air Act or 1972 adopted a SO2 emissions trading regime. Under this regime SO2 targets were met far ahead of schedule with savings over the life of the program estimated to be greater than $10B.

Finally, let us not confuse a global CO2 emissions trading program with a domestic cap and trade program – considered by many to be a cornerstone of compliance efforts in Canada. A cap and trade program is likely to be a key part of any domestic Kyoto implementation plan – even the Conservatives new “made in Canada” approach. Domestic cap and trade system work because within an industry, they make dirty (CO2) producers more expensive and cleaner (CO2) producers less expensive. This provides the essential conditions for a market based domestic abatement approach and may finally put renewable energy, subsidy wise, on the same footing as fossil fuels.

Stealth Minister

2006-03-16T15:54:00.000-08:00

Has anyone seen the Minister of International Trade recently?

It appears that the new Ambassador to the United States, former Mulroney Minister of Finance Brian Wilson has now taken the lead on the Softwood lumber negotiations. As one of the architects of the Canada US Free Trade Agreement, Wilson is a skilled negotiator (with a silky smooth falsetto and a gift for harmonies) and is respected in both countries.

As the Minister responsible for the 2010 Olympics, Emerson was also notably missing from the Olympic Flag raising ceremony in Vancouver last month.

He hasn't been seen at his constituency office in Vancouver (the scene of a recent sit-in occupation, and more recently a convenient recepticle for 2 large bags of manure), pretty much since he crossed the floor.

He is being sued by three seperate groups of Vancouver Kingsway constituents.

He has appologized to Liberal campaign workers, but so far refused to make ammends by doing the right thing, resigning his seat to face the voters.

At what point will the Stealth Minister of International Trade realized that he was elected first and foremost to represent his constituents. His legitimacy in Ottawa is rooted in Vancouver Kingsway - he can not escape this fact. He can not claim to represent this riding if he can't even show his face at his constituency office. This will not blow over. At this rate, the Minister might as well join former Senator Andrew Thompson in Mexico.

Iran out of Options

2006-03-14T08:50:00.000-08:00

Two articles (here and here) on TomPaine.com offer a grim prediction of coming US and western policy in the middle east. The problem is, neither really offers an alternative approach. Clearly the pieces are starting to fall into place in a familiar order for a showdown between the US, or the UN Security Counsel and Iran over its nuclear weapons program. But what do we really know about Iran's nuclear programs.

Here is a good start: Iran and the IAEA Part II.
Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Nuclear Material Safeguards Agreement, but Iran is not a signatory to the Missile Technology Control Regime. Iran has recieved considerable techology assistance from the former Soviet Union, Russia, Pakistan and North Korea in the develepmont of its nuclear energy and balistic missile techologies.

Russia has offered to sell Iran all the enriched uranium they require for nuclear energy production if the proper audits and control are put in place, but Iran insists on developing its own enrichment facilities. Iran insists that it is pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program - but then why remove the IAEA seals and controls from the existing facilities?

The IAEA has raised a number of questions about possible violations of the IAEA Nuclear Safeguards Agreement (SGA) that Iran is a signatory to. Iran has also not signed the IAEA Additional Protocols (AP) agreement (although it has agreed to voluntarily abide by most of its conditions).

Some of the IAEA concerns relate to activities undertaken by Iran in the 1980s and 1990s, procurement and developement of gas centrifuge techology (aluminum tubes anyone?), the construction of a heavy water reactor that produces plutonium as a by product and construction of plutonium seperation techology etc. The problem is that like in Iraq, most of this technology is dual use - plutonium seperation technology can also be used for medical isotope production, centrifuge techology can also produce Low Enriched Uranium for a civilian fuel cycle etc. Also as in Iraq, it is important to determine what nuclear activity is current and what documents and components are relics of the 1980's and early 1990s when Iran was at war with Iraq.

The big problem is, that IAEA has only raised questions. Most of the intelligence on Iraq's clandestined nuclear activities is coming from the United State - which has absolutely no credibility after the Iraq debacle. Also not really helping the situation is US rhetoric towards Iran. "Axis of Evil" type statements do not help to resolve the situation and after the absolute failure of US policy in Iraq, make it look more and more like the US goal is to establish a permanent hegemony in the region.

In fact, all of the would be mediators in this issue have compromised positions. Germany and France's positions (Continental Europe really) and stature in the Islamic world have been compromised by the publication of the Danish cartoons. How can Europe possible appear neutral and unbiased toward Iran after such a gratuitous display of intolerance? Russia, China and Pakistan are compromised by past complicancy in the illegal transfer of nuclear and missile techology to Iran. The United States and the UK are obviously damaged by Iraq.

To me, it is like watching a car accident in slow motion, knowing what is going to happen, but not being able to stop it.

Dick of the Week.

2006-03-12T06:10:00.000-08:00

This week, you get to decide if Harper is a Dick or a Quail. The Bernard Shapiro ethics investigation provides us with the perfect opportunity to determine Harper's true nature.

I guess it really comes down to the end game. If Harpo pulls this off, flips Parliament the bird, refuses to cooperate with the ethics commissioner and gets Shapiro replaced, in true Dick Cheney fashion he will have solidified his stature as Canada's top dick in charge. If on the other hand Parliamentarians call his bluff and he is forced to cooperate with Shapiro, he is truely a wounded quail.
Well, now you get to make the call, is Harper a Dick or a Quail and like an Ohio Republican, vote early, vote often.

Christianity and the Religious Right. Wrong

2006-03-10T20:22:00.000-08:00

Why is it that evangelicals have so readily embraced the social conservative agenda, an agenda which includes marginalization of the poor and exaltation of the rich, privileged and powerful, thinly veiled racism, intolerance, an erosion of civil rights and an ultra-nationalist aggressive foreign policy? From an evangelical’s theology is God a conservative? What does the bible teach about a range of issues that have come to be known as conservative Christian values? I would like to tackle the foreign policy issue first. I will try to tackle Christian social responsibility in future instalments.

The bible contains no teaching on public or foreign policy. God is more concerned with souls than “pols”. If you hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible however, there are many events where God spoke to or issued judgements upon nations. In ancient times God used pagan states as tools to implement his judgements against Israel and through his prophets delivered judgements against some of these same nations. Based on this pattern it appears that there are many who believe the United States is a tool of God; exercising His judgement against the Islamic world for their treatment of modern Israel. I don’t believe this position is theologically supportable.

At the time of Christ, the contemporary Jewish theological thought was that the Roman Empire was a vile pagan judgement upon God’s people from which God would eventually deliver them. If that line of thought held true, one could only conclude 2000 years later that God had abandoned His people. What we now see is that without the rise of Rome, Christianity would not likely have spread from Palestine to Europe. The pagan empire was a necessary tool that God used to spread His gospel or grace. From this we see that it is dangerous to think that as a state God is on your side and that God’s will is not easily determined on a geopolitical scale.

The prophets are dead. The Apostle John was the last prophet of the biblical age and his writings were directed first century believers not at nations, states or peoples. The prophet John the Baptist proclaimed that “The Kingdom of God is at hand, prepare ye the way for the Kingdom”. But Jesus taught that “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but my kingdom not from hence." Those who had hoped the Messiah would deliver Israel from the Romans were disappointed forming the mob that yelled “give us Barrabus”. One of Jesus’ 12 Apostles, Simon the Zealot was an anti-Roman terrorist prior to his calling. There is no evidence that he returned to his activist ways. He is known to have preached the gospel in Egypt and Persia and possibly even in Britain.

From the teaching of Jesus it would easy to make a case for individual pacifism. Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers”, “Render not evil for evil”, “Love your neighbour” and “Turn the other cheek”. These teachings concern individuals with eternal souls, not nations or states however a theology of pacifism is easily supported. Making war in God’s name, passing judgement on nations and peoples on His behalf is simply not a Christian value. It is not supported by scripture and is inconsistent with orthodox Christian teaching. The duty of a Christian then to a state of war is a personal decision and should consider the gravity and humanity of the cause.

What's Up with This?

2006-03-10T09:49:00.000-08:00

It's March in Vancouver. Yesterday our cherry tree was beginning to bloom, the daffodils are up and blooming, the Canucks were losing, it must be spring right? Time to start biking to work, play some tennis, a little gardening, spring skiing (at whistler, not Queen E. Park).

Here is the cherry tree now - with the snow in the background. These were taken at 9:00AM. At 6:30 when I got up, it was far more impressive, the melt has already started. The sun is out, clouds are already starting to clear. Maybe later in the day after they have cleared from the north shore mountains I will post some a pictures of the world's most beautiful skyline.

Say - what's it like in Edmonton or Regina today?

UBC Research Gala

2006-03-09T23:13:00.000-08:00

Just got back from the UBC annual research awards gala where over 350 faculty and researchers were honoured for a wide variety of local national and international award. One of them was my wife who was honoured for a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR) Career Investigator award.

Some of the more notable awards were:

Brett Finlay and Robert Brunham from the UBC Centre for Disease Control and Dept. of Microbiology at the Michael Smith Laboratory were honoured with a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Partnership award for their work in isolating the SARS virus and championing international collarboration on the SARS Accelerated Vaccine Initiative.

Martin Barlow from the UBC Math Dept. was admitted as a fellow in the Royal Society of London - the world's oldest scientific academy. His work is on something called Markov Chains.

Daniel Pauly from the UBC Fisheries Centre recieved an International Cosmos Prize - an international award annually awarded for research that promotes "The Harmonious Co-existance of Nature and Mankind" - for his work on sustainable fisheries.

John Zaritzky - an oscar winning director from the Dept. of Theatre and Film was also recognized for his Gemini Award recieved this year.

Robert Hancock - Microbiology and Immunology was honoured for his Royal Society of Canada McLaughlin Medal,

Plus many many more. Basically, I got fee wine and cheese, listened to the UBC Opera Program do a few arias from the Marriage of Figaro, the Borealis String Quartet and the UBC Singers (choir). Good thing I didn't have to drive.

Shout out to some Incredible Women

2006-03-08T08:24:00.000-08:00

On international Women's Day 2006, I would like to salute some incredible women have and are makeing a difference, and whom I very much admire (neither my mother nor my wife would appreciate me putting their bio and photos up here).

Nancy Barry: Ms. Barry has been President of Women's World Banking since 1990, and has served on the WWB Board of Trustees since 1981. WWB is a global not-for-profit financial institution devoted to increasing poor women’s economic access, participation and power. Founded in 1979, WWB is at the forefront of microfinance globally. The WWB global network of 55 microfinance institutions and banks provide financial services to over 15 million low income women and men in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. WWB had led work to build performance standards in the microfinance industry, and financial policies and systems that work for the majority.

Marian Wright Edelman: Founder and President of the Children's Defense Fund (CDF), has been an advocate for disadvantaged Americans for her entire professional life. Under her leadership, CDF has become the nation’s strongest voice for children and families. The mission of the Children's Defense Fund is to Leave No Child Behind® and to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start, and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. I had the pleasure of hearing Ms. Edelman speak at a University of California at San Francisco founder's day dinner and on top of everything else, Ms. Edelman is a powerful and moving orator.

Louise Arbour: Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour is best known as a chief prosecutor for tribunals into the genocide in Rwanda and human rights abuses in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. She earned an international reputation for courage and tenacity and gained the respect of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as human rights groups around the world. In February 2004, Arbour announced she would leave the Supreme Court in June to become the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. She will replace Sergio Vieira de Mello, killed in the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad on Aug. 19, 2003. It takes takes courage to step into a position when the last person to hold this office was assasinated for defending human rights in Iraq.

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Ms. Clinton is included because she has earned my respect, not because the mere mention of her name will attract trolls from every corner of North America. She is a highly accomplished women which appears to be a threat to some men. Her credits include Editorial Board of the Yale Law Review, Counsel to the Children's Defense Fund (she interned with Ms. Edelman), and was asked by President Clinton to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. As a driving force in health care reform in the US she came close to pulling together a package that would have provided for the first time, universal access health care to all Americans. Unfortunately, the poor and uninsured have no constituency with the US Congress. As the first women Senator for the State of New York she continues to work for progressive change. Flame on if you must

Cindy Sheehan: A late addition, this is one tough mother. While I disagree on her "bring the troops home now" stance, I can't say have a better moral solution to the human tragedy that is Iraq. I also admire her for continuing to speak out while being constantly vilified and attacked by the GOP attack dogs. G. Gordon Liddy, a former Nazi sympathizer even accused her of being anti-semitic. She has been called anti-american, a terrorist sympathizer, an extremist, and every obscene name in the book, often by people who have sacrificed little for thier positions.

Louise Fréchette: Another late addition on the recommendation of a commenter. She is the first Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. The post of Deputy Secretary-General was established by the General Assembly at the end of 1997 as part of the reform of the United Nations, to help manage Secretariat operations and to ensure coherence of activities and programmes. She is a former Deputy Minister of Defense and assistant deputy minister of trade and has served as Canada's ambassador to Argentina, Uraguay and Paraguay. She is being proposed by some as a potential leadership candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Something that needs some policy attention as the Liberal Party seeks new direction

2006-03-07T21:30:00.000-08:00

Transparency and Accountability

2006-03-07T08:21:00.001-08:00

CTV: PM preparing to dump ethics commissioner

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is either so arrogant as to think that he can get away with replacing the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner while Mr. Shapiro is in the process of investigating him, or he is too clueless to understand that this is more than a problem of bad optics. The ethics commissioner is a Parliamentary officer. If he can not be independent and must be concerned for his job if he investigates the Prime Minister then the office and function of the ethics commissioner in Parliament is empty and meaningless. The precedent this will set is injurious to Parliament.

Since the Ethics Commissioner can only be removed for cause, and this would require a resolution of the House of Commons - is this really something that Harpo wants to put before the House? Regardless of what they think of Shapiro, the opposition caucuses would be foolish to support such a motion.

I'm not sure at this point if this is an uber-dick move, or quail scurry and cover.

Democracy is like a Box of Chocolates ...

2006-03-06T11:55:00.000-08:00

Is democracy an end, a means or just another human right? When you look at Palestine, Venezuela, Iraq, Cuba, Indonesia and Singapore you come to the unmistakable conclusion that more democratic does not necessarily equate to better human rights. All of these countries have systematic human rights abuses to some extent, and none have exceptionally strong democratic traditions.

Cuba routinely represses all dissent, any expression of free speech that is critical of the state and most religious freedoms. Cuban prisons are abysmal, and officials that violate its meagre human rights laws do so with impunity. However Cuba’s health and education level are rated by UNESCO to be the best in entire hemisphere. Youth illiteracy rates are close to zero, infant mortality rates are on par with those in the United States, all Cubans have access to zero cost healthcare, the doctor to patient ratios are among the highest in the world.

Singapore is democratic in structure, but one party has held power since the republic was founded in 1959. Freedom of assembly, speech, the press and religion all have restrictions placed on them. Assembly of more than 5 people requires a police permit. But Singaporeans enjoy a very high standard of living, very low crime, universal healthcare, excellent education, good protections for women, children and some minorities etc.

Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez is democratic, has enacted many land reforms and has universal healthcare, but dissent is repressed, the courts lack independence, prisons are abysmal and police brutality is common place.

Indonesian is democratic in name only. The government is dominated by one party at all levels, and the military is still the most influential political movement in the country. It is believed that only a strong man, with the support of the military can keep the dozens of ethnic minorities in the sprawling archipelago together. Human rights are an inconvenience that only tolerated when the international community is watching.

In Palestine, democracy is on the rise, but it brought the Hamas, essentially a terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel, to power. Not exactly what most of the western world had hoped for.

So in this light, it is not surprising that the United States’ zealous push for democracy in Iraq has not brought with it an improvement in human rights. American forces picked up the practice of turture where Sadaam left off, and have now passed the bloody torche to the Iraqis. With over 1300 Iraqis killed in the last week, Syria and Jordon lining up to support Sunni factions and Iran supporting Shi’a factions, installation of a weak democracy may have just plunged the whole region into war. While I disagree with the justification for the invasion of Iraq - once you are there you have a moral imperitive to restore order, protect the civilian population and rebuild the infrastructure. It seem however that the American plans focused too much on paper constitutions and elections and not enough on the human suffering in the streets.

Fun with Dick and Quail

2006-03-05T11:19:00.000-08:00

I’ve decided to have a little fun, and have come up with a classification scheme for our favourite conservatives.

A Dick is well …. a dick. A dick is a leader, never a follower. He is smart, tenacious, focused, rich, dirty, nasty and mean spirited. He takes great delight in shooting at small defenceless upland game birds, octogenarian lawyers, liberal senators, journalists, foreign leaders, and Vietnam veterans. A dick however is usually smart enough to have other people (quail) do the dirty work or take the fall for him.

A quail longs to be a dick, but generally lacks either the brains or the tenacity. When attacked, quail depend on stealth, but when flushed, they are easy targets for dicks with guns. Quail however are often lucky; occasionally an octogenarian lawyer will graciously step into the line of fire allowing the quail to escape unharmed.

Some Notable Dick and Quail

Dick Cheney	Need you ask? Dick is the archetype dick, the US Alpha Dick. He is simultaneously the head dick and a dick head.	Dick
Goerge W. Bush	This may surprise some, but he is really a quail masquerading as a dick. He is not smart enough to be a dick on his own, but it is convenient for the Alpha Dick to have a bird brain in the lime light.	Quail
Stephen Harper	A marvel of evolution (which he doesn’t believe in), but he has evolved from a BBQ circuit quail, where he was nearly stuffed and roasted to head dick in charge in a remarkably short period of time.	Dick
Ralph Klein	Able to take down a 17 year old page with the flick of his wrist, willing to toss thousands off the welfare rolls, throws spare change and homeless and tells them to get a job. In Canada, Ralph is the Alpha Dick.	Dick
Peter MacKay	In Peter we see the typical behaviour of a wounded quail as he sulks off to the family covey when injured.	Tory Blue Quail
Gordon Campbell	While Gordo emulates and aspires to Ralph’s stature, he is neither smart enough or mean enough to rise above his quailness. A true dick would have got someone else to take the blood alcohol test for him – or at least found a way to delay the police having access to the scene for 16 hours or so. A true dick would never have blinked in his war with BC teachers and hospital support employees.	Dan Quayle
David Emerson	A newly minted convervative, the jury is out on Emo. While his crossing the floor and flipping the bird to his constituents clearly demonstrates dick qualities, there is a certain lameness about the way in which it has been handled that leads me to believe that when the covey flushes Emo will be on the wrong end of the shotgun.	Dick? Quail? You make the call.
Bill O'Reilly	Now I know what you are thinking, but his pathetic whining about Keith Olberman puts Bill in the Quail zone.	Bob White Quail
Bernard Shapiro	Ethics Commisioner made the mistake of stepping in front of a loaded dick.	Sorry Ass Lawyer

A Grizzly affair

2006-03-04T12:24:00.000-08:00

Globe and Mail Story

In a surprise move, Alberta has placed a three year moratorium on grizzly bear hunting in the province citing uncertainties surrounding grizzly populations in the province. British Columbia faced the same uncertainties in 2000, and intially moved to ban grizzly hunting. One year later however, bowing to pressure from the guiding industry, Premier Gordon Campbell lifed the moratorium citing .... wait for it ....

uncertainties surrounding bear populations in the province!

It would seem to me, that if bear populations are in doubt, the responsible thing to do would be to stop the hunt at least until research can verify the sustainability of the bear population. Now before you all accuse me of being a bleeding heart, city dwelling, dork, I am not opposed to hunting per se. I used to hunt myself, and having grown up in communities like Ft. MacMurray (population 1200 in 1969), Port Hardy (population about 2000 in 1973), Golden (population 3000 in 1976) etc. I still own a (registered) hunting rifle, I have just neither felt the compulsion to go hunting nor have I had the time. I am opposed to trophy hunting in general, and trophy hunting of endangered or threatened species seems to be pretty stupid.

Travelling to Montreal

2006-03-04T10:18:00.000-08:00

I'm going to Montreal at the end of April and will have my two young boys (5 and 7) with me. I have a couple of days to kill and would appreciate any suggestions for kid friendly activities. Last time we were there for just one day, we went to the Biodome - they really enjoyed that, so we will probably go back. We are also going to Ottawa, but I have been there several times and have a pretty good idea of what they will enjoy seeing there.

American Taliban

2006-03-03T16:06:00.000-08:00

What kind of a parent puts the life and health of their child at risk rather than accept that they may be or may become sexually active? This story is from Sojourners Online - an organization of progressive Christians for peace and justice, you can find the link on my side bar. I'm not sure if this story is linkable or if you need to subscribe to see the content, but here are some excerpts.

When it comes to teen sex, all parents hope and pray that their children make wise choices. Children as young as 12 or 13 weigh decisions with consequences that could impact the rest of their lives in a dramatic way.
Parental anxiety therefore is unavoidable, all the more so because they realize that the ultimate choices their teens make about sex are beyond their control. That begs a question: If a child violates the moral code that parents set, are those parents willing to put their child's life in mortal danger? Tragically, some Christians are willing to answer, "Yes."
A little-known debate is smoldering at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that may burst soon into a major fire. Two pharmaceutical companies - Merck and GlaxoSmithKline - have designed a cervical cancer vaccine. In clinical trials the Merck drug, Gardasil, is proving to be up to 100% effective in fighting the dominant strain of the virus causing cervical cancer. The pharmaceutical companies and a growing movement of public health advocates want all girls to be inoculated with the vaccine as they presently are for other high-risk viruses.
The Family Research Council is leading a charge of Religious Right groups to halt any such national inoculation program. The human papilloma virus (HPV) that generates cervical cancer is most typically passed along through genital contact with others. The Religious Right bloc concludes that offering a vaccine for HPV would undercut their promotion of sexual abstinence for adolescents.

So the logic of the religious right goes - I would rather my daughter risk cancer than have her vaccinated and have a conversation with her about reproductive choice and the risks of sexually transmitted diseases.

Progressive Wasteland??

2006-03-03T13:44:00.000-08:00

Is there any chance for a progressive resurgence in Alberta? I’m talking progressive as in giving a damn about the poor, aged, infirmed, disadvantaged, mentally ill, homeless, neglected, and minority ~~members~~ outcasts of Albertan society that many pretend don’t exist. I’m talking about progressive as in giving a damn about sustainability beyond switching to coal after you have steam blasted and sucked every last barrel of oil out of the soil creating great lakes and frozen deserts of contaminated water and soil. One would think that somewhere in the province of Alberta there is a core of people who have some consideration of those who have been left behind, for cultural diversity or even for the natural legacy left for their own children.

In the 2006 Federal Election, every urban centre in Canada with the exception of Calgary and Edmonton elected at least one Liberal. The New Democrats are at least competitive in one or more ridings in every province except Quebec and Alberta. While the Liberals managed to get 4 members elected in 1993, their Alberta caucus was cut in half in 1997 and cut in half again when David Kilgore (who could never really decide what party he belonged in anyways) resigned and sat as an independent 2005.

In Edmonton, at least you can attribute the Conservative sweep somewhat to vote splitting as two Edmonton seats were won by the Conservatives with a close plurality (Edmonton Centre, Edmonton Strathcona). But in Calgary, there was not a single riding that was even close. This is pretty much the only province where you can basically send your neighbour to vote for you, because they all vote the same.

Provincially, Alberta has always been ruled by political dynasties and their federal voting record has pretty much followed the same pattern.

1905-1921 Alberta Liberal Party
1921-1935 United Farmers of Alberta
1935-1971 Social Credit Party of Alberta
1971-present Alberta Progressive Conservatives

The Progressive Conservatives, Reform, Alliance and Conservative Party of Canada have swept every rural riding in Alberta since 1972 and only lost 4 urban Edmonton ridings in 1993.

I know there are progressives in Alberta, so I personally do not believe that the answer for the Liberal party in Alberta is to become more conservative. The Liberals under Cretien and Martin were more fiscally conservative than the PC under Mulroney. While the “Stephen Harper is a scary SOB” strategy may resonate with some progressives even in Alberta, I don’t think it makes a compelling case to vote Liberal. I think the difference is leadership. Stephen Harper is not a great leader, but neither was Don Getty. Conservatives in Alberta do not need a reason to vote Conservative. Progressives in Alberta need a dynamic leader and clear vision for Canada that includes Alberta in order to vote Liberal.

That’s why I am excited about a meaningful wide open Liberal leadership race, and why I unofficially endorse Gerard Kennedy as the next leader of the Liberal party of Canada.

Okay - the last sentence was a bit of a non-sequitor, but I'll explain why Kennedy in some future post. Until then .....

Healthcare Outcomes

2006-03-02T14:53:00.000-08:00

An anonymous comment on Calgary Grit’s blog posted a statement that Canada is ranked 30th among OECD nations in health outcomes, but is third in spending on healthcare. I think he needs to wash his hands after where he obviously pulled that little gem.

I believe the source of this little dropping of wisdom was probably the Fraser Institute’s “How Good is our Healthcare.” But even they didn’t distort the data as badly as this. The Fraser Institute observed that:

Canada does not rank first in any of the seven healthcare outcome categories or in any of the comparisons of access to care, supply of technologies, or supply of physicians.”

Also – the report said that Canada was third in healthcare spending per capita among nations with universal access healthcare systems, which is why I am assuming that the anonymous poster was referring to this report. A report which concluded (as you could imagine considering its source) that Canada needed private healthcare.

If we break down the seven measure of general health outcomes used in the Fraser Institute report, here is how Canada fares against other nations.

Infant Mortality : Canada ranks 20th among OECD nations with 5.2 deaths per 1000 live births. However let's look at the numbers. Is 5.2 deaths per 1000 live births (20th) significantly worst than 5.0 deaths per 1000 live births (15th – Australia)? Perhaps this is why if you go to the OECD report rather than the Fraser Institute version, they show these as whole numbers. Canada is still ranked 20th, tied with 8 other nations, but just behind 14 nations tied for 4th over all. When you rank things by fractional percentages you need to know the margin of error on the measures. In this case, the WHO used whole numbers which is a good indication of the accuracy of the measurements taken across countries.
Life expectancy. Canada ranks 3rd on the OECD scale. The Fraser Institute however does not use this measure. Instead, they use Health Adjusted Life Expectancy (HALE) – where Canada ranks 7th and express this as a percentage of Life Expectancy (3rd over all) as a measure of the effectiveness of our healthcare system. By this measure (HALE/LE * 100) Canada ranks 22nd among OECD countries at 90.3%. Again, by ranking based on fractional percentages on a scale calculated from 2 different measures (calculated by the authors – not used by WHO or OECD) with god knows what margins of error, this tends to spread the scale. Is 90.3% (ranked 22nd) significantly worse than 91% (ranked 11th)?
Perinatal (under 5) Mortality – Canada ranks 12th.
Mortality (deaths per 100,000) Canada ranks 9th.
Mortality Amenable to Healthcare (deaths per 100,000 from causes considered amenable to treatment in the healthcare system): Canada ranks 4th.
Potential Years of Life Lost (a measure that gives more weight to mortality early in life) Canada ranks 8th.

So while the Fraser Institute was correct in saying that we did not rank first by any measure and ranked 22nd according to one hybrid measurement manufactured by the authors, of the indicators of gross health outcomes included in the OECD report, Canada only ranked out of the top 12 in 1 measure.

Here are some comparisons of specific outcomes across countries from the Commonwealth Fund five country comparison of Health Quality.

Australia:

Breast cancer screening rates are higher than in other countries (+) [AU=74% vs. NZ=63%]
30-Day AMI (acute myocardial infarction) case fatality rates are lowest (+) [AU=7.3% vs. CA=11.1%]
Childhood leukemia 5-year relative survival rates are lowest (-) [AU=69% vs. CA=81%]
Pertussis incidence (whooping cough) per 100,000 people is higher than in other countries (-) [AU=31 vs. ENG=1.3]

Canada:

Childhood leukemia 5-year relative survival rates are highest (+) [CA=81% vs. AU=69%]
Kidney and liver transplant 5-year survival rates are highest (+) [kidney: CA=94% vs. US=83%; liver: CA=87% vs. ENG=71%]
AMI 30-day case fatality rates are higher than in other countries (-) [CA=11.1% vs. AU=7.3%]
Pertussis (whooping cough) incidence per 100,000 people is the second highest of the five countries (-) [CA=20 vs. ENG=1.3]

England:

Suicide rates (per 100,000 people, all ages) are low compared to other countries (+) [ENG=6% vs. NZ=13%]
Polio vaccination rates (age 2) are highest (+) [ENG=95% vs. NZ=82%]
Five-year survival rates (relative) for breast cancer are lowest (-) [ENG=75% vs. US=86%]
Five-year survival rates (relative) for colorectal cancer are lower than in other countries (-) [ENG=53% vs. NZ=65%]

New Zealand:

Colorectal cancer 5-year survival relative rates are the highest (+) [NZ=65% vs. ENG=53%]
Non-Hodgkins lymphoma 5-year relative survival rates are highest in Australia and New Zealand (+) [NZ=67% vs. ENG=58%]
Suicide rates are highest, particularly among young people (rate per 100,000 people ages 15-19). (-) [NZ=25.1% vs. ENG=3.3%]
Ischemic stroke 30-day mortality rates are highest (-) [NZ=11.8% vs. CA=9.0%]

United States:

Breast cancer five-year relative survival rates are highest (+) [US=86% vs. ENG=75%]
Cervical cancer screening rates are higher than in other countries (+) [US=93% vs. CA and NZ=77%]
Asthma mortality rates (per 100,000 people age 5-39) are increasing (-)
Kidney transplant 5-year survival rates are lowest (-) [US=83% vs. CA=94%]

You will notice that each country leads the other four in at least once indicator and lags the other four in at least one indicator. If you really want to of course you can dig and find some specific health outcome in which Canada lags other countries, but by all indications, Canada’s general healthcare outcomes are among the best in the world.

Klein's Third Wrong Way

2006-02-28T19:18:00.000-08:00

Kegan’s Blog asks if Healthcare in Alberta has taken a hit due to Ralph Klien’s recently announced Third Way initiative, a 10 point framework for healthcare in Alberta. Let’s try to cut through some of this crap.

Most of the announced framework is simply window dressing for the one real substantive change; the introduction of a parallel private healthcare system and the ability for doctors to participate in both the private and public healthcare systems. Of the different funding models, this is possibly the worst alternative in terms of its impact on the public healthcare system. It is being sold to sheeple of Alberta under the guise of increased choice – a well worn conservative euphemism for pandering to the wealthy. Alberta Health Minister Iris Evans says “It’s people making choices for themselves. These will be alternatives for people that can afford to pay for them”.

Dr. Arnold Relman, professor emeritus of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School and emeritus editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, in testimony to the Canadian Senate committee in 2002 warned of the deceptive dangers of “choice” in healthcare.

“While there is much to be said for making more information available to people about their health care, it is a fundamental misconception to imagine that sick patients can or should behave like ordinary consumers in commercial transactions, selecting the services and prices they want. Health care is totally different from most goods and services, and that's why we have medical insurance and why sick people need the professional and altruistic services of physicians and other providers.”

Klien maintains that privatization under this model will reduce waiting times – I’m sure appealing to the near universal belief that private delivery is more efficient than public delivery of services. This is of course in the healthcare sector a total fallacy as Canadian hospitals are far more efficient than private hospitals in the United States. Efficiency gains in Canadian healthcare delivery come from massive economies of scale, greater purchasing power, specialization (centres of excellence) and lower administrative overhead. A 1991 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that administrative costs in US hospitals were at least 117% higher (and growing) than in Canada, accounting for almost half of the total healthcare spending difference between the two nations. Competition and market forces do not always improve service and reduce costs. When hospitals compete, they often duplicate expensive equipment required for certain procedures and build in excess capacity to compete on service. They then waste money on advertising to ensure that this capacity is utilized. It is far more efficient to coordinate services between facilities and establish centres of excellence for certain types of procedures so that economies of scale and comparative advantage can reduce costs and improve efficiencies.

Even Ms. Evans admits that “[Privatization], of its own accord, may not help the public system by withdrawing people.” If wait lists are reduced and service in the public system improved it will be through the addition of resources to the public system.

This two tier dual access system with practitioners participating simultaneously in both the private and public healthcare systems has not produced the desired results anywhere it has been tried or studied (England, France, New Zealand and Australia). The reason for this is that the problem is a lack of capacity, not the single payer funding model. Dividing healthcare resources between the private and public system is not going to fix the capacity problem. In fact it will make it worse, as doctors will have a perverse incentive as long waiting lists actually add value to their higher margin private practices. Additionally, it is feared that doctors will treat the simpler procedures in their private practices and dump the more complex and costly cases on the public system – with its long waiting list.

The really sad fact about the whole Alberta plan is that it might actually improve healthcare in Alberta. Not because of privatization – although Klien’s sycophants will no doubt make that claim. The presence of a for-profit private system in Alberta may just attract more doctors from other areas of Canada; providing enhanced healthcare services to wealthy Albertans at the expense of other Canadians. That's the third way.

Pass the Milquetoast

2006-02-28T12:43:00.000-08:00

Yesterday’s all party review of Justice Rothstein’s pending appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada was as historic as it was meaningless, but I would not go so far as to call it a waste of time. The idea of a Parliamentary review of judicial nominations is a good one, but the implementation is a bit tricky.

Patrick Monahan and Peter Hogg from the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University proposed several principles for such a review process in April of 2004 when Prime Minister Paul Martin first suggested such a review.

The ultimate decision must rest in the hands of Cabinet on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
As the goal is transparency and accountability, the role of a Parliamentary review must be advisory, rather than executive.
The review should occur after the PM has made the selection, but prior to final appointment.
A protocol should be established to govern the proceedings and establish limits for appropriate questions.

Monahan and Hogg also recommended that the review committee include members of the Canadian Judicial Counsel, Law Societies and Bar Associations as well as representatives of the Provincial Attorneys General.

For Justice Rothstein’s review, the protocol for questions was limiting to the point of being absurd. The restriction from asking hypothetical questions and inquiring about issues that might come before the court makes sense – you do not want Parliament to pressure the court to decide cases in certain ways. As I am not a legal scholar however, I fail to understand why questioning a nominee to explain the legal basis for past judicial decisions compromises judicial independence. I can however see how it could make the process more partisan and acrimonious. The result was civil and respectful, but not exactly probative.

One thing is sure, now that the process has been opened up, it would be very difficult (and just as meaningless) to go back to a closed process. Additionally, just because this particular review was cordial, does not mean that the format will always produce such results. I can imagine a scenario in which a Liberal cabinet nominates a fairly liberal judge and the Conservatives repeatedly ask questions pertaining to past, present or future cases before the court, and making a big partisan deal of the nominee’s refusal to answer these questions.

In the end however, like a pair of warm socks at Christmas, this time everyone got more or less what they needed, but not what they most desired. Parliamentarians and the Canadian public got a public review process lacking both partisan rancour and probative rigour. Conservatives got a well qualified moderate conservative judge who will apply constitutional law as narrowly as required and who lacks an activist social agenda. Liberals got a well qualified moderate conservative judge who will apply constitutional law as broadly as required, but who lacks an activist social agenda.

50 Cent should have such a posse

2006-02-27T11:15:00.000-08:00

CNews Report: Top Zarqawi Aid Captured. The Iraqi Interior Ministry has reported the capture of "Top Al Zarqawi Aid" Syrian Abu al Farouq in Ramdi Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of course is the "Top Al Qaida Lieutenant" in Iraq. Al Farouq was captured along with five other Al Qaida operatives:

Ibn El Kaboom - described as the "Top Coadjutant to the Top Aid to the Top Lieutenant of Al Qaida in Iraq"
Muqtar Ihateyouall - the "Top Assistant to the Top Coadjutant to the Top Aid to the Top Lieutenant of Al Qaida in Iraq"
Ibrahim al Sadist - "Top Under Secretary to the Top Lieutenant of Al Qaida in Iraq"
Sayid Mustafa - "Top Homey in the posse of the Top Coadjutant to the Top Aid to the Top Lieutenant of Al Qaida in Iraq"
Ali baba - "Top Poor Bastard who got got in the wrong place to the Top Under Secretary to the Top Lieutenant of Al Qaida in Iraq"

Of course only a cynic would suggest that this announcement has any thing to do with deflecting attention away from the brewing civil war.

The Softwood Lumber Messiah

2006-02-25T15:58:00.000-08:00

Vancouver Board of Trade Welcomes Emerson

The Board of Trade applauded the appointment of former Liberal minister of industry, David Emerson. “I believe he has put Canada and British Columbia ahead of partisan politics” declared Darcy Rezac, managing director, The Vancouver Board of Trade.

The argument goes that Emerson’s role as a former CEO of a British Columbia lumber company, and in the Vancouver Olympic bid committee make him by far the best qualified person in Canada to oversee the International Trade portfolio. The constituents of Vancouver Kingsway should be showering the path of the new Minster of International Trade with rose petals. Aside from the arrogance and distain for democracy, this argument demonstrates a shocking misunderstanding of the role of Cabinet in the Canadian Parliamentary system.

By tradition in Canada, cabinet is drawn from the ranks of elected members of the House of Commons in Parliament. There is no law that requires cabinet members to be elected, however this is a pretty strong tradition of Parliament. This makes a pool of 308 people to draw from to select the government’s executive committee, however if you exclude opposition members, this leaves (currently) 125 members. Not exactly a deep candidate pool from which to draw 27 men and women. What this means, is that in Canada, we generally don’t have an expert cabinet, we have an accountable cabinet. The selection of cabinets for the provincial legislatures is drawn from an even thinner pool. By comparison, in the United States, the cabinet is appointed by the President from a vast pool. Cabinet Secretaries in the US tend to be experts in their field - partisan hacks for sure, but experts none the less. However they lack direct voter accountability and are therefore less of a political influence on the President.

As a result of this fundamental difference, cabinet ministers in Canada often rely heavily on the expertise of their deputies, assistant deputies and senior ministerial staff both to do the work of the ministry and to provide counsel on policy issues. Cabinet secretaries in the US are far more hands on.

In the case of David Emerson, and his major duties, the Vancouver Gateway project, the Olympics and International Trade (in particular the softwood lumber dispute), he brings a lot of expertise to the table and is no doubt an asset to the government. However, even with his estimable abilities, it is unlikely that he will play a pivotal role in the running of his ministry.

In the case of the softwood lumber dispute, there is nothing of a technical, lumber industry oriented nature that is left to be discussed. The NAFTA panel has already heard form legions of experts on allowable cuts, stumpage rates, economics, taxes, etc. and made its determination. Canada has already prevailed in that case – without the input of the Softwood Lumber Messiah (SLM). The negotiations now are of a political nature. The United States need to find a way to largely comply with the NAFTA ruling, but still save face with the US Lumber lobby. This work will be done by professional negotiators. The Christ of Canfor will show up for the photo-op.

Iraq Civil War

2006-02-24T14:27:00.000-08:00

Back to Iraq has some very good analysis from Iraq on the civil war that is breaking out there. He believes that the Jihadis are behind the attack on the Askariya shrine in Samarra; trying to ignite sectarian violence to force the collapse of the American backed state and plunge the country into civil war. The situation looks pretty bleak. I didn't have a blog three years ago, but I predicted this exact scenario on several Internet political forums. Sectarian violence, armed militias with links to Iran, Syria, the Taliban, Turkish Kurds, Iran escalating its nuclear weapons program, domestic pressure in the US to cut and run; there is no satisfaction in saying I told you so. Of course, I'm not the only one who predicted this. In September of of 2004 - admittedly a little bit late, the CIA in the National Intelligence Council Assessment of the Iraqi security situation predicted that "in the best case scenario [Iraq] could be expected to achieve a tenuous stability over the next 18 months. In the worst case, it could dissolve into civil war." That was .... oh about 18 months ago, about the time Dick "shotgun" Cheney was predicting that Iraq was turning the corner. But realistically the blunder, rather series of colossal blunders, was made 18 months before that. The die was cast during the invasion and the several months immediately following it. There was little the Administration could do by 2004. And there is still no clear path ahead. Unfortunately, this thing could easily escalate into a broader conflict involving any of the neighbouring states. The situation is truly tragic, the Iraqi people need our prayers. At this point it appears the this is out of the hands of the US Administration. I just hope the leaders of the Shi'a and Sunni communities and the fragile Iraqi government are able to bring this thing back from the brink.

Balistic Missile Defense.

2006-02-23T17:15:00.000-08:00

National Post: O'Connor willing to re-open missile defense debate.

When you intend to shoot yourself in the foot, is it wise to use the heavy artillery?

The reasons this is a stupid thing to do are many.

First of all, let's look at the political reasons. The Canadian public, when last polled, overwhelmingly opposed joining the Americans in a North American ballistic missile defense. Harpo has a minority government. The other three parties are on record opposing BMD. This is the biggest non-starter in the entire Harpo agenda. All this will accomplish politically is to throw a bone to the neocon elements of the Convervative Party and unite the opposition.

It is inconsistent with Canada's international posture as a mulitlateralist. The Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty has been a cornerstone of an intricate, interconnected system of treaties that have been developed since the early 1970s to prevent the escalation of conflicts between the world's nuclear powers into nuclear war. While it is true that the thawing of east-west relations in the last 20 years has obsoleted some cold war structures, the perceptions of the Russians and Chinese are still that ABMs provide a first strike capability that could potentially upset the delicate balance of nuclear stalemate.

It has been argued that a BMD of the nature proposed is insufficient to counter a Russian or Chinese nuclear strike - and therefore provides no first strike threat. The BMD as proposed is designed to counter the potential threat from rogue nations acquiring nuclear technology. This is a specious argument. Has no one in the Conservative party seen a map lately? There are massive oceans and whole continents between Canada and the closest "rogue nations". Rogue nations do not have ICBMs, nor do terrorists. North Korea is probably the closest thing to a rogue nation with both nuclear weapons and missile technology. North Korea is estimated to have maybe 6 to 10 nuclear devices (some of which are not weaponized). North Korea has ballistic missile technology (1 partially successful test flight) capable of just reaching the West Coast of the United States or Canada with a very low probability of any accuracy. I would not make the argument that Kim Jong Il is a rational man, but would he risk a low probability launch and put his population of 22 million at risk? If we were in South Korea or Japan, there would be reason to worry - and a missile defense would make more sense.

More importantly, North Korea's nuclear and missile technology is now under very close and constant surveillance. This underscores an other important point. It is very difficult to develop either nuclear weapons or long range missile techology. Both technologies require testing that is highly visible to the outside world. To develop both, and do so covertly is virtually impossible. Once a nation is identified as seeking nuclear weapons and/or ballistic missile techology, it is much more effective to deal with the threat directly than to build a multi-billion dollar boondoggle to provide a low probability shield against such an unlikely threat. If tensions between the US and North Korea rose to the point where it was reasonably feared that they would launch, it is pretty easy to prememptively destroy their launch facilities.

The terrorists who brought down the World Trade Centers used nothing more sophisticated than box cutters. If a terrorist organization got ahold of a nuclear device, there are far more effective ways to deliver it than a missile - like a shipping container. BTW - on September 11, 2001, Condoleeza Rice was schedule to make a major speech on an important national defense issue. The issue? Ballistic Missil Defense.

The system does not work. Phil Coyle, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense and Senior weapons tester, in an interview with the Globe and Mail called the system a collosal waste of time and money that would make the country more vulnerable to attack, not less adding "it's destabilizing, it's incredibly expensive, and it doesn't work." Recently the Congressional Budget Office recommended that the system be decomissioned and moved from the field back into the lab where the many, many technological challenges can be addressed before it is re-introduced to the field. The missiles that are currently in silos in California and Alaska have performed so poorly to date that it is now feared that a completely new generation of launch vehicle will be required. The United States is spending something like $10B per year on this system. Why don't we let them waste their money?

Finally, Ballistic Missile Defense is not a DND spending priority. We would end up spending enormous amounts of money on a system our defense planners don't really want. So what would suffer? Body armour for our soldiers? Tactical or Strategic airlifters? Replentishment at Sea vessels? Polar ice breakers? If we are considering missile defense, rather than a continental land based missile defense, maybe we should consider a sea based theatre defense system based on standard (tested) SM-3 missiles (and radars) for our frigates. This would allow our surface ships to better integrate in task force operations with allied fleets.

I can't wait until the Conservatives bring this one up in the House of Commons. Even rookie defense critic Ujjal Dosanjh should be able to hit this one out of the park.

Edited: It seems Tim at Peace Order and Good Government has also posted on this topic so I'll link his post as well.

Klein Koal

2006-02-23T12:02:00.000-08:00

Calgary Sun: Clean Coal New Goal, Feb 22, 2006

Ralph Klein in a move that would make a medieval alchemist proud, pulled out his philosopher's stone, uttered an incantation and in the blink of an eye, transformed Alberta's energy sector into a David Suzuki dreamland. In his 25 minute broadcast to Albertan's on Tuesday night, the Premier claimed:

"We already use clean coal to meet more than half of our electricity needs,"

Skeptics, non-believers and infidels such as Mary Griffiths of the Pembina Institute immediately scoffed at Ralph's enlightenment, claiming that while Alberta may produce 70% of its electrical energy from coal, none of it could be even remotely described as clean. In fact, most of Alberta's coal fired generators would not even pass current standards for new generation plants in the United States.

Even erstwhile desciples of Klein cast doubts on his tremendous accomplishment. David Lewin, chairman of the Canadian Clean Power Coalition, asserted that "We're a fair ways away from having zero emission coal-fired plants. That technology doesn't exist."

Alberta's newest coal fired thermal generator, the 450 MW Genessee 3 (G3) plant that began operations on March 1, 2005 is one of the most advanced coal plants ever constructed in Canada, but even this plant is not "clean", barely approaching the pollution and CO2 emissions levels of a modern Combined Cycle Natural Gas generator.

Clean coal is just a concept right now that involves gassification of the coal, burning it in an oxygen rich environment to elliminate NOx and SOx emissions and concentrate the CO2 levels in the flue gas so the CO2 can be scrubed and sequestered in depleted oil fields and underground aquifers. A scale project in Weyburn Saskatchewan, operated by EnCana is being used to store 5000 tonnes per day of CO2 generated from a North Dakota industrial plant. It is the first of its kind in the world and is little more than a pilot project at this point.

But if Ralph said it, I believe it. And hey, for a modern day alchemist, if you have Fire, Water, Earth and ~~Oil~~ Coal, who needs air?

When Egos Collide

2006-02-22T12:14:00.000-08:00

From the CBC: Trump Dumps on Martha. Excerpt:

Trump blasted back in a harsh letter to Stewart published Tuesday, charging that she should take responsibility for her "failed show." He attacked her performance on The Apprentice: Martha Stewart, that of her daughter and criticized her current daytime lifestyle show, Martha. "Essentially, you made this firing up just as you made up your sell order of ImClone," Trump wrote.

I can just picture the epidsode of Celebrity Death Match now. ~~~~ cue dream sequence ~~~ The Donald (in a blue pin striped Armani three piece and patten gucci kicks) comes off the top rope with a flying scissor kick to the throat. But Martha, (in a simple pale green skirted ensemble) in a move perfected in the stir, side steps, grabs him by the comb-over and stuffs a dozen currant scones down his throat. As she walks away she is heard to exclaim "that aught to shut your cake hole. Trump your fired!" Back in her corner, Martha picks up a fountain pen and starts to write "Dear Donald ....."

Healthcare: Private versus private.

2006-02-22T11:59:00.000-08:00

As Liberals, I think we need to be careful that we are not just engaging in polemics. In Canada, the debate over delivery of healthcare services must be framed within the five principles of the Canada Health Act

Public Administration: The plan must be administered on a non-profit basis by a public authority accountable to the provincial government for its financial transactions.
Comprehensiveness: All medically necessary services must be insured.
Universality: All residents of the province must have access to insured healthcare services under uniform terms and conditions.
Portability: Insurance must cover residents who are temporarily absent from the province.
Accessibility: Insured persons must have reasonable and uniform access to insured health services, free of financial or other barriers.

So where does private delivery of healthcare services fit into this framework? Hospitals and clinics have contracted out certain medically necessary tests, procedures and services for years. Lab work, blood work, diagnostic imaging (MRI/CT scans), radiology, day surgery, haemodialysis, physiotherapy, etc. have all been provided to various degrees on an outsource basis in most provinces. This outsourced private delivery model presents no threat to public healthcare in Canada, as long as insured services are not provided or billed directly to patients. There is also no threat in private providers providing non-insured services such as cosmetic surgery. As long as private providers are willing to live within these constraints, they present no threat to the Canadian healthcare system. The only threat in this private delivery model is to the unionized employees in our public hospitals – and we can let the NDP worry about that.

BTW - I also see no particular threat in hospitals providing enhanced services such as private rooms, lightweight casts, or turbo-charged wheel chairs to patients whom are willing to pay or have extended healthcare insurance, as long as the provisioning of these extended services in no way constrains the provision of universally insured services.

Where the threats to universality start to appear is when you allow private clinics to provide insured services to private patients (either within regular business hours or after hours). This is where the parallel or two-tiered system shows up. In such a system there is a perverse incentive for providers not to provide service to patients in the public system as wait lists enhance the value of their private service.

I am not advocating private delivery but we need to fight the right battles. There is a difference between private delivery of services within a single payer system and private delivery of service in a parallel system.

More bad Iraqi intelligence

2006-02-21T17:17:00.000-08:00

MacKay Plays Down Hostages Statement Newly minted Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is off to a good start. After indicating yesterday based on intelligence from Iraq that the two captured Canadian aid workers were "very much alive" and that they were expected to be released imminently" he has backed off from these statements today citing faulty intelligence. He was probably just distracted from all the excitement surrounding his new girlfriend moving in.

Quebec Leadership Candidates

2006-02-21T13:38:00.001-08:00

As a Vancouverite who has been in La Belle Province exactly twice in my lifetime, I am at a little bit of a disadvantage in handicapping the candidates from Quebec. The party is in desperate need of polishing its image in Quebec, so a leader from Quebec would be very good for the party.

Martin Couchon: 5:1. It was assumed that Couchon would challenge Paul Martin for the Liberal leadership following Jean Cretien's retirement but, probably sensing the futility of it, he declined to run (although he did endorse John Manley). Couchon has the resume for the job; an MP since 1993, senior cabinet portfolios, a good network, a lawyer, etc., but as high profile opponent of Paul Martin, he has some fences to mend if he intendes to unite the party. At 43 years of age, Couchon is young, intelligent and good looking (so I'm told).

Stephane Dion: 4:1. Another noted accademic (along with Ignatieff) potentially in the race. The difference is that Dion also has a solid political resume and a political organization. Like Couchon, Dion is a Cretien loyalist, however he also served under Paul Martin as Minister of the Environment. He is also a strong federalist from Quebec. If Mr. Dion is a eloquant a speaker and debater as he is a letter writer, the rest of the field should beware.

David Emerson - Flash

2006-02-20T11:43:00.000-08:00

Click Flash icon for movie. I've created some messaging for the campaign to shame David Emerson into resigning. There is a Flash version (low quality due to the poor tools I have) a JPEG and a high quality PDF version. I don't have anywhere to post the PDF version for downloads. If anyone knows of a place to do this I would be happy to post it there. I hope his children don't cry too long over this.

Central Canada Liberal Leadership Candidates

2006-02-17T09:51:00.000-08:00

In my mind, an Atlantic Canada, Quebec or Western leader is probably preferred to another Ontario leader, but horses from Ontario stables are odds on favorites to show.
Michael Ignatieff: 2:1 to show, 7:1 to place. Iggy certainly has the bloodlines, both his paternal grand father and great-grand father were cabinet ministers in the courts of Tzars Nicholas II and Alexandre III of Russia. His connections to the Liberal party and to Canada's elite are just as impressive, being close friends with Bob Rae and having attended all of the best schools. He also has the liberal credentials as a celebrated writer on human rights. As a well published author, his controversies are all in the open. There should be no surprises. His accademic stature is no less impressive and gives him standing and credibility in any debate situation. Academically, he is what Stephen Harper aspired to be at one time (only liberal). My doubts about Iggy stem from his lack of political experience. He is also good looking and a natural in front of a camera. He has never been in a close, hard fought campaign, he hasn't had to deal with a divided caucus. Can he handle the every day, practical business of politics and government?

Joe "silver fox" Volpe: 12:1. I have few doubts Joe be there on race day, but I think he will come up short of the winners circle. He has been an MP since 1988, and held the Citizenship and Immigration, and Human Resources and Skills Development cabinet portfolios in the Cretien and Martin governments. He is to my knowledge, neither a Martin or Cretien partisan loyalist. But he is hardly a dynamic campaigner. His cabinet portfolios have been medium to high profile, but not influential. He has never held Finance, Foreign Affairs, Health, Deputy PM, Justice and AG, Defense or Public Works which tend to be more influential on general policy. I guess he has all of the right components, but is not deep enough in any of them.

Belinda Stronach: 8:1. Belinda is a perfect candidate, but she has simply not been with the Liberal Party long enough to be a credible leader. If she runs, she will lose the Liberal leadership for the same reasons she lost the Conservative leadership - lack of experience in government. She is a moderate, Ontario liberal/red tory. She is attractive, young, a dynamic public speaker, and is well connected to the Toronto corporate empires that fund the Liberal party. However - if it takes the Liberals a year to elect a new leader, that would put her into her 3rd year as a MP and 2nd year in the Liberal party .... probably still not enough.

Martha Hall-Findlay: 400:1. She has even less experience than Stronach, but she is currently the only declared candidate. She doesn't even warrant a wikkipedia page so far. For Martha, the best she can do is to try and raise her profile a bit, and then try and get nominated by some TO area riding association so she can win a seat in the next election.

Bob Rae: 6:1. Rae is an interesting (non) candidate. He is a former NDP premier of Ontario, but his tenure as premier was marked by a prolonged recession and a very divided cabinet. He is also a former NDP federal Member of Parliament. It was his motion of non-confidence that sunk the Joe Clark Tory government. Rae is a centrist social democrat, who had previously cooperated in alliance with the Peterson Liberal government in Ontario. As a "third way" Tony Blair socialist, Rae sought to combat the recession with fiscal discipline, but his caucus pressed him towards a more Keynesian approach with much public sector spending to stimulate the economy. The result was a disasterous combination of both which allienated both the business community and the traditional labour and social democratic base of the NDP. Since his electoral defeat in Ontario, Bob Rae has tried to reinvent himself as a Liberal. In several written articles since 1996, Rae has lamblasted the NDP for outdated policies. Over the last 10 years, the federal Liberals have appointed Bob Rae to several committees and inquirys. It is also thought that he was a finalist for consideration for the appointment of Governor General of Canada, and his brother John Rae is an Ontario organizer for the federal liberals. He is also a close friend of Michael Ignatieff. Unfortunately for Rae, he is probably best remembered for his unremarkable tenure as Premier of Ontario. Had he ran as a Liberal MP in 2000, he would have been much better positioned now.

Gerard Kennedy: 5:1. Here is another interesting (non) candidate. Calgary Grit has an interesting piece on Kennedy. He has all of the right stuff. A popular member of Dalton McGuinty's cabinet, strong Liberal and liberal connections, he has won a series of important elections. He also has western connections. Born in Mannitoba, educated in Calgary, has done work for the Alberta government. He is also credited with establishing the Edmonton Food Bank. Along with Ujjal Dosanjh, he would bear the standard for the liberal wing of the liberal party.

Western Liberal Leadership Candidates

2006-02-16T09:31:00.000-08:00

It seems the Atlantic Canada favorites for the Liberal leadership race, Brian Tobin and Frank McKenna have returned to the barn, leaving what looks to be a wide open race. So I will try and handicap the western horses.

Gordon Campbell: 4000:1 long shot. Even though he leads the BC Liberal party, and one would think a 2nd term Liberal premier would have to be contender, he is neither a liberal nor a Liberal. I guess he is about as liberal as David Emerson. I'm sure if he were 3 years into his second term he would be salivating at the opportunity, but less than a year into his (reduced) mandate, there is not a chance. Besides, as a candidate, the man has the personality of a kitchen appliance. His mug shot photo from his Hawaii DUI would make a great campaign poster.

Hedy "Crosses are Burning" Fry: 1000:1 long shot. She certainly has the Liberal party connections, tenure with the party and has held numerous cabinet positions, but this mare is lame. Take her out and shoot her.

Christy Clark: 350:1 long shot. Her tenure as Minster of Education in British Columbia was an unmitigated disaster. While it is understood that in the first few years of the Liberal government following the financial wreck left by the NDP, all ministries were required to cut costs, her outright denial that per student education funding was reduced was a flimsy lie - while absolute funding was marginally increase, real funding (inflation adjusted) was reduced. Her clumsy war with the BC Teachers Federation over control of the BC College Teachers college was well intentioned, but it failed due to poor strategy and even worse execution. Besides, I thought she quit politics to spend more time with her family. Or was it to run for the NPA Vancouver majoral nomination? Federal Liberal leadership? Her family must suck. She is however well connected. He husband is a federal Liberal BC organizer.

Ujjal Dosanjh: 25:1 long shot. Ujjal is my MP, a good man and an incredible asset to the LPC. As a former BC and federal cabinet minister and premier for a few months, he has a solid resume. He has very strong connections to the Indo-Canadian community in Vancouver and some ties to the labour movement. He founded the Farm Workers Legal Information Service to help Indo-Canadian janitorial, farm and domestic workers have access to legal services. This organization led to the formation of the Canadian Farmworkers Union. He has solid Civil Liberties credentials working for a number of civil liberties groups in BC. His big weakness is the shortness of his tenure with the Liberal Party of Canada. In my opinion, this is not long enough to form the network of connection needed to win a leadership race. He also doesn't speak french - a serious handicap for any leadership hopful. Ujjal would certainly bear the standard for the liberal wing of the Liberal Party, however it has been reported in the Vancouver Province that Ujjal has officially opted out.

Anne McLellan: 50:1. Landslide Annie won in races for the Liberals in Edmonton. Any Liberal who can do that is a hell of a candidate. She has held high profile federal ministerial portfollios (Natural Resources, Justice and Attorney General, Health and Deputy PM). She is outspoken and a dynamic campaigner. Anne is far more centrist than Dosanjh, as she would have to be to get elected in Edmonton.

Ralph Goodale: 5:1. Ralph is probably the closest thing to a front runner that the west has. He has impecable Liberal Party credentials as the former leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party. He like Anne has also held a series of high profile federal cabinet positions, the most recent being Finance. He is an experienced campaigner, fund raiser, and connects very well with audiences. Like Jean Cretien, he has a great ability to connect with common people in everyday situations. The only knock against his is that he has fairly close ties to Paul Martin, but to my knowledge he has not alienated the Cretien side of the party. Politically, I would probably class him as a moderate.

Any other suggestions?

Iran and Iraq

2006-02-13T18:32:00.000-08:00

Globe and Mail: Iran begins to enrich uranium (sigh) We have now arrived at the point I feared we would since the US began its campaign to invade Iraq in 2002. Iran is rushing headlong into a nuclear weapons program that the west is pretty much powerless to stop. The United States has pretty much exhausted its political capital. There is not an ally in the region who would be willing at this point to deploy any diplomatic, economic or military means to confront or head off a frightful escallation of Irans nuclear weapons program. Pakistan with its own covertly incubated nuclear weapons program has neither the moral authority nor the political will to confront its neighbour Iran. Iraq and Afghanistan have been bombed into the stone age. Turkey is more worried about Kurdish nationalism. The Gulf states have hung way to much on the line supporting the US in the Gulf War and Iraq War. Saudi Arabia and Jordan and similarly constrained by domestic unrest and anti-americanism. The United States now has no credible threat of military action - it is spread too thin already. 150,000 troops tied down in Iraq, falling enrollment, poor morale and war fatigue, the most powerful military force on the planet has been squandered on a meaningless war while the real menace lurks next door. Now thanks to a foolish Danish cartoonist, and race riots in France, the EU has lost its honest deal broker roll in the muslim world. We might as well resign ourselves to it, an extreme totalitarian fundamentalist Islamic regime will within a matter of months possess weapons capable of annihilating whole civilizations. Or infidels as they call us. God help us all.

Wiretaps show Gretzky Exhonorated

2006-02-13T09:24:00.000-08:00

From the Vancouver Sun (click the post title for the link). It now appears that Wayne Gretzky was telling the truth - he had no prior knowledge of the Rick Tocchet - New Jersey gambling ring. The wiretap that recorded Wayne inquiring about his wife occured after New Jersey detectives showed up at his door in Phoenix asking to talk to Janet. Further, it appears that even his wife Janet Jones-Gretzky did nothing wrong. She placed a bet and won some money betting on the SuperBowl (just as I predicted). It is not illegal to place bets, but it is illegal broker gambling transactions. All of those people prematurely demanding Gretzky's resignation from the Canadian Olympic team need to swallow hard and take a deep breath.

Possibility of Fire

2006-02-12T15:49:00.000-08:00

This blog is so good I just had to link to it. Click on the title.

A moment of silence.

2006-02-11T21:50:00.000-08:00

Let us pause for a moment in memory of former BC NDP cabinet minister Dave Stupich who passed away yesterday at the age of 84.

Okay, the next number is B-13. Under the B, number 13.

Is Harper a Dick or A Quail?
Dick: A Dick is Loathe to cooperate with a Liberal Appointee. When the covey flushes a Dick is always on the right end of the shotgun. Parliament, Blam! Ethics Commissioner, Blam! Opposition, Blam! Voters, Blam!
Tricky Dicky: I am not a crook - Richard M. Nixon. A tricky Dick doesn't need a shotgun to bag his bird.
Tory Blue Quail: The Tory Blue will occaisionally take one for the team but when the shot starts flying, it is more likely to scurry under a bush.
Dan Quayle: What a waste it is to lose one's mind - Dan Quayle.A Dan Quayle blithely struts into certain danger, unware of the loaded Dick in the blind.

Free polls from Pollhost.com