Draft Bob

Wouldn't it be great if Bobby Rae became Liberal leader? It wouldn't guarantee that conservative ideas would be brought to bear federally, but it sure would give them a fighting chance because there's no way that people would dare let this guy anywhere close to the levers of power. (At least, I like to think Canadians wouldn't.)

Perhaps we ought to start up a phantom "grassroots campaign" to draft him into the race.

Tuesday morning dribs and drabs

- In advance of the State of the Union speech tonight from President Bush, the idea of demand-side conservatism has been put forward, which is basically another way of looking at the term "ownership society". As the theory goes, when individuals are given the freedom to choose how they'll run their lives, they won't look to the state to fill in the gaps. (Needless to say, this idea will never catch on in Canada.)

- Also on the State of the Union, various commentators will be looking for a signal that the Administration is going to promote energy independence. I sure hope so.

- On Hamas, spokesperson Khalid Mish'al says that they are prepared to work towards peace if Israel basically denies its own right to exist. Hitchens takes on the corruption explanation, but I find it suprising that he says that Israel should have granted a state to the PLO twenty years ago. That would assume that the PLO actually wanted a state rather than the elimination of Israel altogether. Warnings here and here about those who would downplay Hamas' intentions, while Jack Kemp says

(t)he short answer to the gloaters and the basis for crafting a policy to deal with the situation is there is more to democracy than simply voting. Elections without the accompanying institutions of democracy - the rule of law, individual liberty and civil rights, private property, civil society, functioning government institutions - is "all sail and no rudder." The political system scuds along at a frightening pace in whatever direction the wind is blowing, but it lacks any institutional steering mechanism to drive the system into the political winds to reach its ultimate destination of security and efficient delivery of government services.

- And finally, the Chicago Tribune looks at moves by the UN to isolate rights abusers by creating a new council on human rights to replace the spectacularly ridiculous Human Rights Commission.

The indefatigable Rex Murphy

OK, I'm about as sick of talking about the Canadian election as everyone else is, but I couldn't resist posting this Rex Murphy column from the weekend Globe and Mail.

Message to Michael: Butt out
REX MURPHY

Well, it was a narrow escape. But we did it. Canadians have preserved their liberties and independence against the always rapacious American beast.

We knew there were powerful elements in the United States that wanted us to kowtow and genuflect to a simplistic worldview, that knuckle-dragging Good-versus-Evil script they have been remorselessly propagandizing all over the world since 9/11. They have been trying to drag Canada into this simpleton's game for years, mauling truth and banishing nuance with a continuous stream of invective posing as reason, and caricature passing itself off as accuracy.

It's a difficult thing to resist the mighty United States at any time, and especially difficult in all the dust and storm of a national election. But we did it.

It was a close-run thing. But on Monday night, Canada fought back and won. On Jan. 20, just three days before our vote, Michael Moore, entrepreneur, fabulist, philosopher, issued a broadside to the citizens of this country warning us sternly, and with the imperious irony of which he is so fully a master, against the perils of electing a Stephen Harper government:

Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch on the cowboy belt?

I was worried at first that the subtlety of the pitch might obscure its wonderful impertinence -- worried that the charm of Mr. Moore's address might distract Canadians from the consideration that an American millionaire celebrity pitchman was interfering in, and attempting to influence, the Canadian vote.

I was worried, too, that this one-man shock-and-awe "documentarian" might be leading a charge, that the other bright bulbs of international busybodyism were massed behind his formidable massed behind. Was Sean Penn on the way to monitor the vote in Etobicoke? Was he planning one of his patented fact-finding junkets like the visits that brought such comfort and peace to the citizens of Baghdad? I could see the headlines: Penn in Halifax. Visits Bar. Reads Construction-Site Posters. Warns Harper is Christian. Says "God Bless Canada."

Well, that didn't happen. We're were spared the fast-food internationalism of Mr. Penn, and that probably meant we were spared assorted sermons from Alex Baldwin, Janeane Garofalo, Al Franken and that whole posse of celebrity dilettantes who see the whole world as an audience for their inch-deep, paint-by-numbers, cause-a-day homilies. Maybe they were off somewhere saving a seal.

Or, what is much more likely, maybe he concluded there was really no need for the secondary battalions. We, the respectful, bland and polite citizens of a country that is really only a farm team for the U.S. entertainment industry -- hello Celine, Jim, Dan and Avril -- would naturally be flattered into sheer insensibility that the portentous Mr. Moore even knew we were having an election. He has a taste for insolence, referring to Stephen Harper, who has more brain than Michael Moore has girth, as someone "who should be running for governor of Utah," and whose election would "reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co."

One size fits all -- that's our Mikey. Because he thinks he has a problem with George Bush, that must be the script for the rest of the world. This is the very essence of imperialism. To believe that your story is everyone else's. To believe that your political drama is the template for every other political drama in the whole wide world. Michael Moore could go to Fogo Island, Nfld., for the municipal elections and find them a perfect parable of the Halliburton super-conspiracy. He'd see Dick Cheney's influence in the selection of the town clerk.

Ego turns the world into one big mirror, and nothing looks back at the celebrity narcissus but the vacant monomaniac staring in. News flash, Mr. Moore: Our election wasn't about Dick Cheney. Or George Bush. Paul Martin (thank God) isn't Bill Clinton. Stephen Harper doesn't own a decoder ring sent him by Karl Rove. Considering the success you've had in stopping George Bush in the country where he actually runs -- and on last report he is in his second term -- do you really think you should be sparing the time and the shavings of your wit to offer advice to others?

George Bush got three million votes more than John Kerry in the last U.S. presidential election. Karl Rove is on bended knee every day in thanks for the contribution Fahrenheit 9/11 made to that surplus. If you can't win your own elections, Michael, what made you think you had anything to say about ours?

Other than that, I'm glad you called. But we defied you. Stephen Harper is prime minister, and I suppose that tells you all you need to know, which is: Canadians don't care what you think you think.

Hypocrisy or realism?

Tonight on his show, Michael Coren accused the United States of hypocrisy because they are refusing to recognize the democratically-elected Hamas as legitimate. For Coren, if the US is going to preach democracy, they have to live with the results and can't cut out a democratically-elected government just because they (the White House) doesn't like what they have to say. One of the panelists countered by saying that Hamas' number one goal is the destruction of Israel through violent means, and so they cannot be viewed as legitimate because they are not peaceful. Coren then responded that the US propped up terrorists all over Central America during the Cold War, etc. etc., and, well, I'll save you the rest.

I can see Coren's point, but I don't agree with it. I think any government has the right to end relations with any other government, democratically elected or not, for any reason it wants to. It may not look good all the time, but that's the prerogative of individual nations. Sure, the Bush administration has put itself into a bind by portraying democracy as the solution to all the world's ills - often before a stable middle class exists in those countries that are making the transition from authoritarianism to free and fair elections - but it doesn't mean that the American government is obligated to just throw up its hands and blindly accept and endorse the choice of voters, be it in Gaza, the West Bank or elsewhere, especially if the stated goal of a democratically elected government is to wipe a key US ally like Israel, and for that matter, the United States itself, off the face of the earth.

What you won't hear tomorrow night ...

... in the President's State of the Union address here from Neil Boortz, who expects big government conservatism will continue to be the order of the day in DC.

Saudi prince buys Fairmont hotel chain

See here. One thing is for sure - I won't be staying at any of these hotels in the future. You can bet that with a member of the Saudi royal family at the helm, some of the profits from this venture will eventually find their way to al-Qaeda breeding Wahabbist clerics the world over.

The Canadian government should immediately stop bookings for corporate travel with Fairmont.

McKenna not running

CTV Newsnet is saying that Frank McKenna has taken himself out of the race for the Liberal leadership.

Apparently Tobin was supporting Stronach until now. I wonder if that will change?

Government-run babysitting

We're always hearing about how impossible it is to get a day care space despite the fact that there are literally thousands of parents who are willing to pay for it. It seems that while the demand is there, the supply is not, and so, over the recent election campaign, the Tories and Liberals decided that government needs to step in by "creating" day care spaces because the private sector won't do it. Obviously there is money to be made here by some entrepreneur who is willing to get into the day care business, however, not too many seem to want to take the opportunity.

Why is child care proving to be such a glaring example of market failure? I suggest it's the same reason why a lot of parents want to put their kids into day care in the first place: no one wants to be up to their elbows in poo, puke and tears all day long. Can't say I blame them, but then again, I don't have any kids of my own.

I know some would say that the economy demands that two parents work ... well, I beg to differ. A lot of the people who are complaining about the lack of day care spaces live in two-storey brick homes while we turn hung-over, 22-year old early childhood education grads into basically unionized bureaucrats along the lines of postal workers and garbagemen. It's impossible to credibly argue that child care should be treated as a public good (in other words, something that is fundamentally impossible for the private sector to provide) like national defence, and I think it's a sad commentary on society that we have the nanny state proving to be more than just a pejorative term used by so-called conservatives.

Liberals and Maple Leafs

Paul Wells looks at the fallout in Liberal-land after Monday's loss. He says that while the braintrust is "accepting full responsibility", that responsibility comes with a tonne of ifs, ands and buts, including blaming the media, the RCMP, and pretty much everyone else except themselves.

This leads me to wonder if legendary excuse-maker and Toronto Maple Leafs coach Pat Quinn was involved with the Liberal campaign. It's always the refereeing, injuries, or some other excuse with that team. Is it any wonder that Leaf Nation stuck with the Liberals?

The Biggest Loser

Tonight, our contestants are Janet Reno (h/t: Daifallah via Drudge) and Brian Pallister, he of "All in all, it's just another Ding in the wall" and "You're not going to Wrigley out of this one" fame.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that neither of these two inhaled?

UPDATE: Cindy Sheehan, estwhile US Senate candidate from California, has joined the competition.

"You know why they call you guys the Heat? 'Cause you're not cool."

It looks like Miami Heat C Shaquille O'Neal is going to be gracing a WWE ring with his presence sometime in the near future, thanks to this this wet noodle of a chair shot that he delivered on Carlito for running down his team. Money shot: "You know when I said this is his house? I lied. This is Carlito's house."

Album Review: Gretchen Wilson "All Jacked Up" (2005)

Gee Dub returns with her second release, hot on the heels of 2004's "Here for the Party", which took the country world by storm. Much like her first affair, it's largely hit and miss. The album starts off with the unsurprisingly trashy title track which describes what happens when you stop by the bar for a couple of ales after work but soon end up downing Jack Daniels on the way to closing time. We've all been there. Next up is an rollicking ode to curvy, fried-chicken eating women called "California Girls", a position I completely endorse, but after that, the album takes a turn for the worse. Here's a sample lyric from the tune "Skoal Ring":

I've always been a bandit girl and he's a long-cut man
Somehow we still get along with different colour cans
When that boy comes home from work smellin' like the farm
That berry blend on his lips still turns me on

Ok, the less said about endorsing tongue cancer, the better, while the absolutely AWFUL current single, "I Don't Feel Like Loving You Today" sounds like something Tammy Wynette left on the studio floor, and for good reason. Even a duet with Merle Haggard titled "Politically Uncorrect" can't save things. However, Wilson avoids a complete downward spiral with "Rebel Child" and "Raining On Me" towards the end of the disc.

Bottom line is this: If you like country, you MIGHT like this album, but if you don't really like country, you will absolutely and positively 100% hate it. It would make for half-decent background tunage for when you are camping, at the cottage or tailgating before a sporting event but that's about it.

Overall rating: 5.5/10

Coffee spoons and looney tunes

In a moment of confusion, this UK Labour MP says that Hamas' victory is all Ariel Sharon's fault for pulling out of Gaza, while hawk Daniel Pipes says that the reason for democracy's failure is because the ideological underpinnings of extremist Islam have not yet been discredited. The Financial Times endorses sanctions as a step towards reining in democratically-elected anti-democrats across the Middle East. In my humble opinion, sanctions are half-measures that only inflame the populace and give more power to the mosque rather than affecting change in the halls of power. Dick Cheney seems to be unenthusiastic about sanctions himself, here in a Wall St. Journal interview:

We also discussed foreign policy with Mr. Cheney, the highest-level official to serve in both the Bush administration that left Saddam Hussein in power and the one that overthrew him. What changed? "I think that 9/11 was a watershed event," he says. "It became clear that we were up against an adversary who, with a relatively small number of people, could come together and mount a devastating attack against the United States." This brought into focus the danger of proliferation: "The ultimate threat now would be a group of al Qaeda in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear weapon."

By 9/11, Mr. Cheney notes, "we had 10 years of experience with Saddam Hussein defying the international community and refusing to come into compliance with U.N. sanctions . . . and, based upon the best evidence that everybody had at the point, proceeding with his WMD programs." Saddam also supported international terrorism, "everything from $25,000 payments for the family of suicide bombers to a home for Abu Nidal and Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

This newspaper had argued since 1991 for regime change in Iraq, so Mr. Cheney had a sympathetic audience when he made this case. But we wondered why the current administration is taking a much more cautious approach to Iran, a sponsor of terrorism that is eagerly pursuing nuclear weapons. The vice president disputed our premise. "We tried for a long time . . . to resolve the questions with respect to Iraq peacefully, and through international organizations and mechanisms. . . . We didn't immediately jump to Operation Iraqi Freedom." Yet given that those efforts failed, what makes him think the same approach will work with Iran?

"We're not the only ones who've been hit since 9/11," Mr. Cheney responds. "We're not the only ones who'd be threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran that was a state sponsor of terror. And the international community needs to come together and find effective ways of dealing with this to make certain that that situation doesn't arise." Fair enough, but one could have said that about Iraq anytime between 1991 and 2003.

Four years ago tomorrow, President Bush delivered his first State of the Union Address, in which he famously declared that Iraq and Iran, along with North Korea, made up an "axis of evil." In light of the divergent ways in which the administration has approached the three countries, I asked Mr. Cheney, was it a mistake to lump them together like this?

No, he said, it wasn't. "There are ways to approach different problems, and I think we've got to be sophisticated enough to figure out which one is most likely to work." After all, "you wouldn't want to accuse us of being simplistic."

The administration needs to outline a plan soon, because the neo-con foreign policy community is starting to get impatient. Ergo, this week's must-see-TV: The Anatomy of September 11, Flight 93, and the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

Oh, and rasslin', South Park, Family Guy, the Office, and Flip This House.

The myth of recycling

Recycling household waste is one of the most counterproductive things a person can do. It's costly to the taxpayer, increases bureaucracy, wastes time, and ironically, creates pollution.

Don't believe me? Read this:

The truth, though, is that recycling is an expense, not a savings, for a city. "Every community recycling program in America today costs more than the revenue it generates," says Dr. Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute.

A telling indicator is that cities often try to dump recycling programs when budgets are tight. As Angela Logomasini, director of risk and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, points out in the Wall Street Journal, every New York City mayor has attempted to stop the city's recycling program since it was begun in 1989. Mayor David Dinkins tried, but changed his mind when met with noisy criticism. Rudy Giuliani tried, but was sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which won the case. Mayor Bloomberg has proposed temporarily ending the recycling program because, as Logomasini notes, it costs $240 per ton to recycle and only $130 per ton to send the material to a landfill. The numbers for other areas are roughly comparable. The net per-ton cost of recycling exceeds $180 in Rhode Island, while conventional garbage collection and disposal costs $120 to $160 per ton.

The funds go for trucks and collectors and inspectors and bureaucrats. Clemson professor Daniel K. Benjamin points out that Los Angeles has 800 trucks working the neighborhoods, instead of 400, due to recycling. Radley Balko at aBetterEarth.Org, a project of the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, writes, "That means extra wear and tear on city streets, double the exhaust emissions into the atmosphere, double the man hours required for someone to drive and man those trucks, and double the costs of maintenance and upkeep of the trucks." Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute says costs include "the energy necessary to deliver the recyclables to the collection centers, process the post-consumer material into usable commodities for manufacturers, and deliver the processed post-consumer material to manufacturing plants." Franklin Associates, which provides consulting services for solid waste management, estimates that curbside recycling is 55 percent more expensive, pound for pound, than conventional garbage disposal.

So next time you empty out a jar of Cheez Whiz, guzzle some milk right out of the carton, or scarf down a pizza like the slob that you are, just throw the packaging right into the garbage where it belongs. And don't feel bad about it. After all, you'll be helping the environment.

Odds on the Liberal leadership

I'm going to look at each name that has been mentioned as a contender for the Liberal leadership and give them each two rankings out of ten. The first ranking is going to be how likely I think it is that they'll make a run for it, and the second ranking is how likely it is that they may actually win the thing. So here goes:

Frank McKenna: 9, 8
Michael Ignatieff: 10, 6
Martin Cauchon: 10, 7
Belinda Stronach: 10, 7
Brian Tobin: 5, 8
Maurizio Bevilacqua: 10, 3
Joe Volpe: 9, 0
Stephane Dion: 7, 6
Sheila Copps: 5, 3
Bob Rae: 5, 3
Jane Stewart: 6, 5
Anne McLellan: 4, 5
Hedy Fry: 8, 0
Scott Brison: 6, 6
Herb Dhaliwal: 3, 4

Outstanding

5 conference finals.
4 Cup finals.
3 Cups.
2 Vezinas.
And 1, soon to be 2, Olympic gold medals.

Now, Marty Brodeur has signed a six-year, $31M deal where he'll receive exactly the same salary he's making now every year over the course of the contract to stay in New Jersey. What a competitor. Here's a guy who loves to win and knows what it means to be loyal. Marty is a role model for all athletes (even if he did schlup his wife's brother's wife a few years back). If all goes well, he'll stay in red, white and black his whole career, just like Kenny Daneyko before him (who is going to have his number 3 retired on March 24). I'm hopeful that if the Devils franchise remains competitive, and there's no reason they shouldn't, he'll surpass Patrick Roy on the all-time wins list for goaltenders.

Go Devs Go.

Friday morning dribs and drabs

- A clear-headed analysis of the challenges facing Hamas, here. Is it going to be one step forward and two steps back in the Middle East or will the world hold Hamas to task?

- A look at the upsides and downsides of globalization, here. On balance, it's a good thing, but I think that big labour needs to recognize and adapt to the new realities of the world's economy or else they are betraying their members by giving them false hopes.

- There is a new generation of black conservatives emerging in the United States, led by Pennsylvania's Lynn Swann, Maryland's Michael Steele, and Ohio's Ken Blackwell. The "up by the bootstraps" message of the Right is slowly starting to find resonance.

State of the same-sex debate

Yesterday, our new PM said he wants to deal with a free vote on same-sex marriage sooner rather than later (see here). I think this is a colossal mistake. Consider the following: Of the two-thirds of Canadians who voted, two-thirds of them voted against a party that was clearly and explicitly anti-same sex marriage. This translates into approximately one in four adult Canadians endorsing the anti-same sex stance. Now, that's not to say that every non-Tory vote was an endorsement of gay marriage, but I think that it if was a make-or-break issue for someone, they would most likely cast their ballot for the Conservatives. Given that only 25% of Canadians expressed a willingness to re-open the debate, I consider it closed. I also think Harper knows it's over, but as I've said before, the party's base contains a significant number of activists for whom same-sex marriage is unthinkable. They're expecting Harper to deliver, and so he's snookered. I'm pretty sure he wants to move on ... perhaps not going this far (marching in a gay pride parade - there would be no quicker way to resurrect the old Reform party), but I'm sure his instincts would be to just leave it as is if he didn't have a backbench that wants to see a free vote.

I also think this will have implications for cabinet building. If I were Harper, the last thing I would do is put a grey, gruff, grumpy, older, rural Westerner like Vic Toews at Justice to steer this contentious issue through the House. A more measured and urbane Minister like Mackay would be much better for the Conservatives because he is less likely to reinforce the curmudgeonly image that the party has. Thing is, would the ambitious Mackay be willing to take a potential career-killing issue like this on? It would depend on whether he could get this over and done with and then move quickly on other issues so that he is not associated with trying to undo Charter rights as ruled by the Supreme Court. I suppose another option for Justice would be lawyer Jim Flaherty ... he's not a Westerner, he's good with the press and he comes from the Harris Cabinet, so he could balance off the Alliance and PC wings of the caucus, both of whom see this issue as potential dynamite. However, he's most likely to be tapped for Finance.

In the final analysis, this is going to be a real test for Harper.

Number two in Saddam's air force says that WMDs were transported to Syria

On the heels of Israeli intel which suggested that Syrian Ba'athists were colluding with Saddam in the runup to the Iraq invasion, now a top Iraqi official in the Hussein administration has asserted that yes, Syria is indeed hiding Saddam's WMDs. See here (h/t to Neale News):

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

More:

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.

Hamas wins II

In all of today's commentary about Hamas winning the Palestinian election, no one has mentioned what impact this will have on the West's relations with Iran and its burgeoning nuclear program.

Although the ties between Iran and Hamas are not as strong as Iran's ties with Hezbollah, it's clear that the election of Hamas will embolden all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East.

Hopefully this will spurn the West to take action against Iran and move more quickly to dismantle the development of nuclear weapons now that Israel faces yet another political entity that is determined to destroy it.

I suppose there's an explanation for everything

"Angry" Al Gore has decided that our new PM owes his victory to oil interests who broke the law in donating to his campaign.

See here.

Live Wire

Heavy metal bad boys Motley Crue were given a well-deserved star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame yesterday.

Now, if only KISS would get into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame. And on that subject, here's one musician's take (scroll to bottom).

Movie Review: "The Aristocrats" (2005)

This documentary just came out on DVD and I watched it the first chance I got since I missed it in the theatres. For those who don't know what it's about, here's the scoop: An old joke from the 1920s/1930s that was used by comedians to either a) warm up before going on stage or b) outgross each other is dissected, told, dissected again, and retold. The punchline of the joke is "The Aristocrats", hence, the title. However, the humour is not in the punchline, but rather, in the buildup. The goal is to be as sickening and offensive in telling the joke, and damn, some of the comedians on this DVD certainly do a good job of that.

One of the depraved minds behind this whole project is the irreverent Penn Jillette. If you know anything about Jillette, he just doesn't care about the boundaries of taste and appropriateness, and that's basically the Aristocrats in a nutshell.

Did I like it? Yes, in that "this looks like a traffic accident but I just can't turn away" or "this is so shocking that I can't believe I'm actually laughing" sort of way. I first saw a clip from the movie about 6 months ago and at first I thought it was absolutely appalling, but after watching it again and again, it grew on me. The full movie has the same effect ... after the first half hour, you sorta develop a taste for it. I guess it can best be compared to an acquired taste, much like coffee, cigarettes, and receiving anal sex, so I'm told.

And if you can't handle that analogy, it's probably best that you don't see this movie.

Overal rating: 6.5/10

Hamas wins

Hamas, the humanitarian organization which delivers health and welfare services to Gaza and the West Bank, and oh, by the way, is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, has won yesterday's Palestinian election.

A couple of thoughts out of the gate:

- There was much shock and confusion at Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza and his refusal to condone more Israeli settlements on the West Bank last summer. It was seen as a puzzling move for the leading Israeli hawk. However, some commentators suggested it was his way of saying to the world, "You want to see what a Palestinian state will look like? Just wait and see". I think that hypothesis has been proven at least somewhat correct. Until yesterday, with the opening Sharon had provided, it appeared that the Middle East peace process was really and truly getting somewhere. No longer. This morning, it's clear that the majority of Palestinians do not want peace.

- The next Israeli election is Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu's to lose.

More later.

One guy's take on the Brokeback Mountain phenomenon

Ok, I don't know if it's a good flick or it's a bad flick, and I don't plan on seeing it because it's just not my cup of tea. If studio execs want to invest money into making a film because they see an opening in the marketplace for it, than that's great. However, I'm sure - SURE - that there are a lot of straight fellas that fit the profile I've bolded in this article here from RightWingNews. These misguided souls are all over the Brokeback Mountain bandwagon for one reason and one reason only, and that's this: They think that by going to movies they really and truly wouldn't otherwise care for, it's going to make them seem enlightened, cultured and sophisticated, and that's the way to - wait for it - impress the ladies!

Oh, the irony. And don't even get me started on those fakes who pretend to be jazz and wine conneiseurs for exactly the same reasons.

As for Hollywood talking up the film because it's about gay cowboys, well, I'm not too sure about that - hey, it might have some real artistic merit in the eyes of the critics, despite mixed reviews from non-critics - but I have blogged before that the values of the entertainment industry are a little different than those of middle America. Good thing we have the ability to just change the channel or not go to the theatre if we don't want to. In any case, here's the article:

Why I'm Not Going To See Brokeback Mountain or Countering The Brokeback Hype

It's bad enough that Brokeback Mountain has been relentlessly overhyped like no movie in recent memory, so much so that even George Bush is getting questioned about it.

But, last night, I actually had someone, who was completely puzzled, say to me that she'd been watching the coverage of Brokeback Mountain and didn't understand how it could be such an enormous blockbuster hit. Maybe that's a small thing, but for me, it was the last straw.

Let me interject a little reality into the tsunami of ballyhoo that surrounds Brokeback Mountain. Let me take just a moment to counter the overbearing wave of condescending media hucksters and Hollywood high pressure salesmen that have almost been berating the public into watching this film.

First of all, Brokeback Mountain isn't even close to a mega-hit. In fact, numerous movies that are considered mediocrities are topping it at the box office. If you look at the top 50 grossing movies in the theaters right now, here's where Brokeback Mountain, which has been out 9 weeks now, ranks in total gross:

1) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: $285.5M
2) The Chronicles of Narnia: $271.9 M
3) King Kong: $209.9M
4) Polar Express: $173.6M
5) Chicken Little: $133.4M
6) Walk the Line: $102.1M
7) Fun with Dick and Jane: $101.4M
8) Flightplan: $89.5M
9) Cheaper by The Dozen 2: $78.1M
10) The Family Stone: $58.6
11) Yours, Mine, & Ours: $52.6
12) Memoirs of a Geisha: $51.2M
13) Syriana: $45.4M
14) Hostel: $42.7M
15) Brokeback Mountain: $42.1 M

Wow. It even lost to Cheaper by the Dozen 2 which featured a dog attacking Steve Martin's crotch in the promos. That is impressive. On the other hand, forty million dollars is a lot of dough for a movie about gay cowboys / sheep herders. I mean, you should be able to make a movie like that for about $2000 bucks. What do you need a lot of cash for? Cowboy hats? Chaps? Sheep? Still, given that Brokeback Mountain got 10 times more free publicity than even the most successful movies on this list, the fact that it's in 15th place is stunningly unimpressive.

For that matter, so are all the Golden Globes that it won because let's face it, it didn't win 4 Golden Globe prizes because it's a good movie, it won 4 Golden Globes because it's about gay cowboys. And Hollywood thinks more prudish, conservative Americans should be exposed to movies featuring gay cowboys, so they're using the awards to send a message. They do this same thing every year. This year it's gay cowboys, next year it'll be handicapped lesbian Eskimos, and two years from now it'll be Latino union activists fighting Republicans to save the rainforest.

So, if the movie can't be all that good, who's going to see it?

Gay men, women who want to see a movie about relationships, men who want to prove they're not homophobic, guys who got tricked by the hype, and the same sort of people who go to art galleries, look at a pile of crap that looks like a construction accident, and pretentiously rave about the symmetry and use of color because they think it makes them sound sophisticated.

After all, why would a normal man want to go see this film? Men don't even want to go see relationship movies that feature men and women, so why would they want to see a movie about two gay cowboys hopping in the saddle together?

Maybe if the gay cowboys were secretly ninjas sworn to avenge their masters or kill crazy ex-seals out to stop a team of Al-Qaeda terrorists from blowing up school buses full of kids, it might be a movie that could appeal to most guys -- assuming they didn't get all touchy-feely and start grabbing each other like the Hobbits did at the end of "Return of the King."

Whatever the case may be, if people watched the movie and enjoyed it, fantastic, more power to them. But, understand that it's not a classic, it's not a must-see movie, it's just another film that will fade into semi-obscurity like all other lefty cause du jour movies that were promoted before it. The sooner, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Downtrodden and defeatist in the Democratic Underground

Courtesy of RightWingNews.com, here are some highlights of a thread over at Democratic Underground, titled "Is America Even Worth Saving?" From what I gather, this site is unauthorized and unaffiliated with the Democratic Party establishment but is a discussion forum for left-wing activists.

No question that the West is imperfect, but damn, it must be pretty depressing to hate society that much.

A sampling can be found below. Before reading, see here for some context.

mikelewis: Is America even worth saving? The world economy is struggling back on its feet after a century of war both hot and cold and we are now drowning in debt. Our products are too expensive for world consumption and our people are too ignorant and divided to lead in the new world economy. The only thing we really have left to protect our place in the world is the reliance on the dollar and an indestructible army, both of which are becoming less reliable and less indestructible everyday.

Our Constitution is not only openly ignored by our own President but it has been usurped by millions of sub-laws and statutes. The average American person probably violates at least 1 law a day and We hardly have to leave our homes to do so. Our sense of morality is so twisted that even our spiritual leaders are nothing more than two-bit con-men.

Our addiction to oil has turned us into junkies. Our addiction to television has turned us into zombies. Our addiction to fear has turned us into slaves. So is America even worth saving? Wouldn't it be better to let her die than to continue to be some grotesque malignancy on the world? Is it even realistic to believe we can fix a country so broken and depraved?

PVK: We should start over. It obviously is a huge failure.

greyhound1966: Look out your window... see? There it is...the lifeless carcass covered in vultures...America 'died' in the 80's after suffering a long illness, resurrected as amerika by the ignorant, the short-sighted, the greedy, the evil.

Hardrada: What's one "superpower" more or less in the greater flow of human history. Who misses the Russian and Ottoman empires, for instance? Or The French or British? Maybe we have to devolve into smaller states like what might happen with Iraq. I think many of us in the UPPER Midwest would be glad to severe connections with Jesusland.

Ksec: These idiots voted the disaster in. They look past his torture, spying on us, saying outsourcing is good for Americans, cheating on everything he does, backroom deals with corporate powers , etc.

Are the people who say this is fine worth saving? I say no.

mike_c: you know mike, the more I learn about recent American history...and by that I mean post-WWII history, the more I find myself asking the same question. The moral bankruptcy of America did not begin on January 20, 2001. It got worse then, but America has been an imperial power since the 1960s, at least. It has been ruled by greed throughout that time-- its political history is largely the history of greedy exploitation of the rest of the world. Ordinary Americans are notably ignorant about the rest of the world, yet they depend on global exploitation of cheap labor, cheap food, cheap energy, cheap plastic crap, and the cheap lives of poor brown people to a remarkable degree, and even more remarkable, the rest of world has born them upon its bent backs for generations. There's not a whole lot to be proud of in American foreign policy since the end of WWII. At home the democratic republic has gradually been eroded by corporate greed, making America a rich nation with a high infant mortality rate, one of the most advanced medical technologies in the world, but one that many citizens do not have affordable access to, and so on. Our worship of the worst excesses of capitalism, just because they're "not socialist," makes the rich richer and the poor more destitute every year.

Anyone who thinks these problems originated during the last five years hasn't been paying attention. Every American administration since Roosevelt has contributed toward the demise of the Republic, IMO, regardless of political affiliation. The best that can be said about the democrats is that they haven't been as bad as the republicans, generally. That's not a ringing endorsement.

The more I learn about the America I've lived in for the last 50 years, the less pride I have in my country.

MN ChimpH8R: Well said, mike_c. America's imperial ambitions go all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt. The only countries in the world worth emulating are the Scandinavian countries - yes, there can be a successful welfare state - but Americans are, as a whole, so addicted to cheap oil, being told what to think, mindless consumerism and being oblivious to the world that they will tolerate any government policies that maintain the status quo. The American populace is, collecitvely, possessed of the mentality of a selfish 4-year-old.

Zech Marquis: this isn't America anymore same place, but the people are so much indifferent to what's realy going on--for me I think I'll probably say farewell to Jesusland and relocate to Europe or Japan.

chimpymustgo: It's not just the last 50 years - America has been f*cked up since Day 1. Sure, it was founded on some lofty principles and noble ideas, but we had to MURDER the indigenous people here so set up our little "democratic republic", then we built it on the backs of ENSLAVED human beings.

The 20th Century began our terrorization of the rest of the world. And here at home, the elites have the money, the power, the VOTING MACHINES. The Presidency, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the Media, the new Patriot Act.

What is left to save? And just exactly how do you do it?

McKenna resigns

Duffy is reporting that Frank McKenna has resigned as Canadian ambassador to the US.

He has also speculated that Michael Wilson or Preston Manning may be named by Harper. Would it be worth asking Manley?

POSTSCRIPT: Manley has said he's not interested in the leadership. This is a great opportunity for Harper to build a bridge. He ought to at least offer Manley the Ambassadorship. I'm not sure he'd even take it, but it would be one hell of a bi-partisan gesture.

"Progressives" and the "civil society movement"?

It looks like Maude Barlow and friends are circling the wagons in advance of basically declaring war on the new Prime Minister. Her hit list is pretty lengthy:

Harper will not have an easy time of it now. His caucus includes former Mike Harris cabinet members Jim Flaherty and Tony Clement, architects of the infamously unpopular "Common Sense Revolution" who will want to replicate that draconian plan at the national level. It includes radical social conservatives such as Cheryl Gallant and evangelical conservatives such as David Sweet and Stockwell Day. Harper is in debt to social conservative and Christian groups who expect a free vote on abortion and same sex marriage. He is welcomed by the American right wing and the Bush Administration who anticipate a new and closer relationship and expect a reversal of Canada's position on Ballistic Missile Defence. He will face provinces who will not be happy to lose the billions promised for new day care spaces and a First Nations community unhappy with promises to break the accord on housing and education signed merely weeks ago. With a majority government, Harper could have ploughed ahead on some or all of these fronts. But where will he turn for support to implement an agenda Canadians don't really want?

We're likely to find ourselves back to the polls in the next 18 months. Much can happen in that time. We in the civil society movement will be watching closely at any attempts to dismantle vital social programs such as public health care; rip up environmental treaties such as the Kyoto accord; cut funding and support to the arts and the CBC; sell off Canada's fresh water (as promised by BC Conservative member James Lunney); enter the weaponization of space by buying into Bush's Ballistic Missile Defence plan; and moves to become even closer to Bush's military and security agenda and his war on terror.

What I take issue with is this word "progressive". What is "progressive" about returning to an over-regulated economy like we had in the 1970s when inflation, unemployment and interest rates were all at least 10%? What is "progressive" about quashing the entrepreneurial spirit through punitive taxation? What is "progressive" about throwing up tariff barriers that would increase the average family's grocery bill by at least 25%? These are the historic demands of Barlow and her friends in the "civil society" movement (as if only they, the anointed ones, can "civilize" society through bigger, confiscatory, redistributive and more inefficient government as directed by administrative fiat.)

Society is by nature "progressive" because we are always moving in a forward direction. And "civil society" refers to those stakeholders and actors which are outside of government - yet still in the political system - like research institutes, advocacy organizations, and citizen's and community forums. Not to creating a nice, sunny and happy Utopian planet Earth. (What's so progressive and civil about bossing people around, anyways?) As for suggesting that duly-elected yet church-going representatives have no right to their opinions on issues relating to morality, how about arguing them on the issues rather than saying that they aren't legitimate voices in the debate because they derive their political philosophy, in part or in whole, from the Bible? I don't share their perspectives on a lot of things but they certainly have a right to express their opinions in Parliament.

And while I'm defending the rights of Christians not named Bill Blaikie to participate in the national discussion, I'm going to add another term that I think is a complete misnomer, and that's "a woman's right to choose". Don't people of both genders have the right to choose whether or not they're going to a) have sex and b) use proper and adequate birth control? It's not as though North American women are held at gunpoint and forced into committing sexual acts against their will. It seems to me that there's a lot of choosing going on before pregnancy even takes place.

These are three examples that come to mind of how some people like Maude Barlow use misleading language and terms to fit their own political agenda.

Who knew?

Did you know that global warming affects African-Americans more than caucasians? Did you also know that African-Americans emit less Co2 than caucasians do?

BET says so here.

No word if the network is looking into comparisons of how global warming affects Americans of Latino, Asian, East Indian or Native American descent, or if they're only interested in comparing people with black skin and those with "white".

You get where I'm going with this. An adversarial point of view that sees society in terms of "versus" is not reflective of the multicultural, varied, and global flavour of North America today, whether that thinking is "black vs. white" in the US or "French vs. English" in Canada.

Anyways, shouldn't we be compiling data on how climate change affects people based on their status as individual human beings instead of based on their skin colour?

Mario

After suffering a heart scare Monday night, Penguins C and owner Mario Lemieux retired for the second time.

I would say that when he was healthy, Lemieux was the most dominant player of the 90s. He was in a class all of his own. This guy really grew into himself. Early on in his career, he was compared to Gretzky both on and off the ice, and it was always Mario who fell short. While he was a great, great, player, fans didn't have the same affection for #66 as they did for #99 because he wasn't as strong an ambassador for the game as Gretzky was. However, after he won two Cups with the Pens in 91-92 and then returned from treatment for Hodgkin's and played at almost a three-point a game pace, he entered the upper echelon of hockey greats, without question.

After coming out of retirement at 35 as a player/owner of the Pens, he quickly regained his old form and was still able to lead a declining franchise into the conference finals as recently as 2001. Now, he'll have his hands full getting healthy and trying to manage the affairs of the Penguins franchise without losing any more cash before he inevitably sells it.

If he fades away into the background after giving up ownership of the team, no one can fault him because he has done more than enough for the game of hockey at much personal and professional risk.

To Mario.

"The most evil man in the universe"

Who, in your opinion, is the most evil man in the universe?

According to Rosie O'Donnell, it's not Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zarqawi. Nor does Kim Jong-Il make the cut.

Find the answer here.

Les invasions barbares

In Quebec, only 42% of voters chose to mark their ballots for the separatist Bloc Quebecois. The Conservative party, with all of its baggage, was able to gain ten seats in la belle province, which, while not a breakthrough, is certainly a foothold.

I think that Quebec is going to be on the leading edge of libertarian politics in Canada for the next few years. As is well-known, Quebecers have more hedonistic, live-and-let-live social values that do the rest of Canada, which is very much in keeping with the libertarian ethos of "do whatever you want, as long as I don't have to pay for it". On economic issues, public sector unions still run the state apparatus, but even that is slowly beginning to erode despite Premier Jean Charest's unpopularity due to his attempts to rein them in. Witness the Chaoulli decision, very much supported by Quebecers, which suggests that excessive waits for health care services are a violation of the province's Charter. And, as someone much more prescient in these matters than I am once told me, the tipping point was the phenomenal success of the film "Les invasions barbares". Over at the Western Standard, a blogger makes the same point.

If you haven't seen the film, I strongly suggest you do so. It lampooned the Quebec intellectual class, which had historically been so enamoured of all the various "isms" that came in and out of fashion on the Left - socialism, Marxism, Maoism, whatever. However, at the end of the day, the characters in the film soon learn that the free market is the only realistic way forward. The film demonstrates the follies of central planning through the prism of the health care system, and it clearly struck a nerve with Quebecois. What this means for the future of right-of-centre politics in Quebec is unclear, but one has to wonder if the federal Conservatives can harness this emerging desire for less statism in Quebec, combine it with the laissez-faire social values of Quebecois, and use their small victories on Monday night as a platform from which to advance the libertarian option in "la belle province".

Minor storm erupting at the LA Times

LA Times columnist Joel Stein penned a column that ran this week which began "I don't support the troops", and it's turning into a bit of a storm. To get to the bottom of it, Hugh Hewitt had Stein on his show yesterday and just sliced him and diced him. Read the transcript for yourself.

I disagree with Hewitt's implication that only those who have family members in the Forces are allowed to have legitimate opinions on operations abroad, because that type of thinking just helps to build up someone like a Cindy Sheehan. I also think that everyone should be allowed to say whatever the hell they want to say, but they have to face the consequences of expressing ill-informed opinions or sloppy judgements based on lazy thinking. A lot of journalists have their heads up their own asses and are never held to account, and they should be.

Dennis Prager also discusses the implications of Stein's column here.

Cabinet Predictions #2

On to Quebec:

Deputy PM and Foreign Affairs: Lawrence Cannon
Human Resources: Josée Verner
Regional Development: Maxime Bernier
Minister Without Portfolio: Sen. Pierre-Claude Nolin

(I'm sure they will add a couple of MPs to Cabinet from Quebec, like Blackburn from Alma-Jonquiere, but I'm not sure who else or where).

Ontario:

John Baird: Public Works
Jim Flaherty: Finance
Gordon O'Connor: Defence
Diane Finlay: Agriculture
Bev Oda: Heritage
Garth Turner: Industry
Helena Guergis: International Development

Manitoba:

Vic Toews: Justice
Brian Pallister: Revenue

Saskatchewan:

Lynne Yelich: Social Development

Alberta:

Rona Ambrose: Intergovernmental Affairs
Diane Ablonczy: Immigration
Jim Prentice: Indian Affairs
Bob Mills: Environment
John Williams: Treasury Board
Monte Solberg: International Trade

BC:

James Moore: Transport
Stockwell Day: Labour
Jay Hill: House Leader
Chuck Strahl: Natural Resources

With the PM and one MP from each Maritime province, that puts Cabinet at 29 MPs. Key MPs like Scott Reid, James Rajotte, Gary Lunn and Jason Kenney have been left out, but one can be sure that Harper will not hesitate to replace a bumbling Cabinet Minister with one of these young turks. I could see Kenney as deputy House leader and Rajotte as caucus chair. Reid and Lunn could go for caucus chairs of their respective provinces. Finally, I think Rob Nicholson will remain whip.

I also don't think Jaffer or Fletcher make Cabinet.

Cabinet Predictions #1

I'm going to go by province.

First up, the Maritimes.

From Newfoundland, Loyola Hearn at Fisheries and Oceans.

From Nova Scotia, Peter Mackay at Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

From New Brunswick, Greg Thompson at Health.

And from PEI ... no one, because the Conservatives have no representation there in the House, nor do they have any Tory Senators. I believe there is one outstanding PEI vacancy in the Senate ... might this be the first province from which the Harper government tries to appoint an elected Senator to the upper House?

More to come later.

"A passion for the bronze"

David Janes via Mark Steyn, here.

Well, we'll always have Mike Harris' first term - clean, professional, and enthusiastically conservative government. For those who believe in lower taxes, less bureaucracy and red tape, and a more vigourous private sector, I think that period of time will be as good as it gets for quite a while. Canadians just don't have the appetite to go for the gold.

Other coverage from overseas and elsewhere here, here, here, and here.

A glass half-full

Almost 2/3 of those Canadians who voted did not mark their ballots for a Stephen Harper prime ministership.

The Conservative party has to remember that as they move forward. In my view, they need to stick to their big five priorities and those five priorities only: the accountability act, GST reductions, criminal justice reforms, the wait-times guarantee, and the choice in child-care program. That's it. Social issues like gay marriage are clearly off the table, as Canadians have signalled that they want to maintain the status quo. He will also have to be careful to not look like he is too cozy with the White House.

What he has to do is keep his caucus focused and not have them veer off in a million different directions. That is going to be his biggest challenge. This election and the one in June 2004 have shown that the majority of Canadians don't really care about corruption and rot if it implies that big, statist, activist government will be reined in as a tradeoff. Harper has been given a tight leash by Canadians and so he'll have to tread carefully given the lukewarm endorsement that he's received.

Preliminary Thoughts

It looks like the Conservatives will get away with seats numbering in the low 120s and the Liberals in the low 100s. Not a healthy gap for Harper.

Federalists everywhere can take heart that the Bloc lost seats, and it's clear that with 10 seats, the Conservative party is a player in Quebec once again, led by the Pontiac's Lawrence Cannon and the lovely Josée Verner.

In Ontario, Toronto stayed solidly red while "star" candidate Allan Cutler and the woman running against Belinda Stronach, Lois Brown, pretty much shit the bed. Will Jim Flaherty be the political minister for the GTA?

As for the Maritimes, as Ira Hayes pointed out to me, the Tories moderated their platform, leaving in things like regional development and not speaking out against the highway robbery that was the whole Atlantic Accord mess, and still Peter Mackay couldn't deliver the goods. Then again, it's Maritime politics, so who really cares?

As for the Prairies, results are coming in now. No surprises. BC looks like it's split between the Tories and the NDP with more gains for the Party of F. Great, more people in Parliament who look like they smell like piss.

More tomorrow morning after the dust settles.

Two-Time Loser

Well done, Basil.

First, your membership is losing over 1,000 jobs today. (See here.) Yes, it could have been worse, but one wonders if perhaps Buzz's intransigence at the bargaining table didn't hasten the demise of these jobs.

Secondly, your guy for PM is going to go down tonight.

You're a real asset, Buzz.

My mind is made up

Well, despite my reservations about Harper's bow to establishment conservatism with his centrist, Red Tory platform, I'm going to vote Tory nonetheless. The reason why is because from all indications, he'll get a minority, and the weaker that minority is, the more influence that the socialists will have in Parliament because it looks like Harper is going to reach out to the NDP to prop up his government. So, to help neutralize that in my own little way, I'm going to vote Tory because in my riding, it's going to be close and the local candidate will need all the help he can get.

(You can bet that I'm going to ride the Tories like a $2 whore to point out when and where they are straying into small-l liberal territory over the course of their mandate.)

E-day predictions

Democratic Space has the following numbers, which I think are about right:

Conservatives 128
Liberals 94
Bloc 56
NDP 29
Other 1

I also am going to go out on a limb and say voter turnout will top 66%.

Movie Review: "Murderball" (2005)

This short (85 minutes) documentary follows the US men's quadriplegic wheelchair rugby team from the 2002 world championships to the 2004 Athens Olympics.

The guys on the team are a bunch of hard-nosed and gritty SOBs, and their friends and family members live and die with every little victory they achieve both on and off the court. This flick is the real deal: authentic and human, while reminding you that guys in wheelchairs like to drink, get laid, and win at the game of life, just like everyone else does - except without excuses.

I strongly recommend "Murderball".

Overall rating: 9/10

Layton to Environment?

Well, it looks like the Conservatives are going to reach out to the NDP to prop up their minority government when Parliament resumes.

With that in mind, what about giving the Environment portfolio in Cabinet to Jack Layton? While the Tories have said they won't be bound by Kyoto, but would rather develop their own Clean Air Act, this would be a great opportunity for Layton to stave off a nascent Green Party and do some good in a key NDP issue area. With a strong minister at Natural Resources, I think the party would also be able to adquately assuage fears in the oil patch about a Dipper at Environment.

The world's 20 worst dictators

Click here for a list of the world's 20 worst dictators as compiled by Parade magazine.

Much to the chagrin of the Angry Left as shown by the comments, the current President of the United States is not included.

More seriously, it's interesting to look at what's going on in China these days. Despite the plethora of observers who seem to think that the Communist juggernaut will be the next major competitor to the US, I disagree for the reasons that are briefly outlined in the Parade description. Outside of the coastal areas, it is still a brutal, oppressive and unfree society.

(H/T: Damian Penny.)

CD Review: Bon Jovi - Have a Nice Day (2005)

This album is pretty much what you'd expect. There are four great tunes and a bunch of forgettable filler tracks.

Check out the title track, "I Want to be Loved" (great chunky voicebox effects by Sambora here), "I Am" and the rollicking, country-ish duet version of current single "Who Says You Can't Go Home" with Sugarland's Jennifer Nettles. Although the disc is recorded in 5.1 surround sound, it doesn't make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the album.

And they also lose points for having one of the worst album covers ever.

Overall rating: 4/10

A look northward

National Review editor-at-large John O'Sullivan says that those looking for wholesale change after tomorrow's election are in for a disappointment in a very clear-headed, cool, and detached analysis, the likes of which we haven't heard from any Canadian conservative commentators:

Above all, the Tory leader, Stephen Harper, is not a very good candidate for demonization. He is a cerebral politician who has kept cool under the Liberal onslaught. He has fought a controlled campaign on a distinctly moderate conservative manifesto.

Too moderate, some would say, since the Tory manifesto concentrates on cleaning up government after the Liberal scandals, offers only modest tax cuts, is willing to offer the U.S. a “free vote” in parliament on joining a missile defense system (rather than supporting it outright), and proposes raft after raft of government assistance programs rather than a smaller state.

That said, the Tories also propose to rebuild Canada’s shrunken military, to retain the democratic safeguard of the notwithstanding clause, to strengthen border security against terrorists, to advance Canada’s interests by better relations with the U.S. rather than by pointless insults, and in general to revive the more vigorous Canada that existed before Trudeau.

Harper’s moderation is a recognition that the Canadians have become accustomed to the easy chair of subsidies and regulation. He knows that massive change would be rejected. So he is inviting modern Canada to take the first small steps back to economic independence, self-reliance, and national pride — perhaps with more to follow as the patient grows stronger.

But is there still a lumberjack under all that mascara?

The assumptions no longer hold

Paul Martin seems to not like the fact that all the liberals are in his camp now.

See here.

The outgoing leader of the Liberal party is whining about how the other major party in Canada can no longer counted on to protect and defend the ideals of Trudeaupia.

As I've stated before, I disagree with his premise, but what does his point tell you about how unhealthy and underdeveloped the political culture is in Canada, and also, how badly this country needs to be shaken out of its doldrums?

War Porn

Right here.

Be sure to watch the Team America one.

Laugh out loud funny.

The others are somewhat offensive - even to a war monger like me - especially the "Rockin' In the Free World" one. It glorifies death in that "showing Uday and Qusay on the front page of the paper" sort of way. Be forewarned.

In other news, all you apologists for terror have some reading to do. See here.

She's hot

CTV Newsnet weekend anchor Marcia MacMillan.

I can't find a picture of her but she is gorgeous.

Book Review: "In the Pit with Piper: Roddy Gets Rowdy" by "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (2002)

First off, I gotta say that I think Piper is one of the crappiest wrestlers to ever walk the face of the earth. The only moves he knew how how to do were the sleeper and the eyepoke. He was also a loudmouth on the mike who was painfully unfunny, much like Chris Jericho is today. However, he always got a reaction from the fans, and that's what puts bums in seats. I attribute this to his willingness to push the envelope, from the coconut incident with Superfly Jimmy Snuka to how he let himself get just obliterated by Adrian Adonis, Don Muraco and Cowboy Bob Orton on the "Flower Shop" talk segment. Who can forget Piper laying there on his back with lipstick on his face and a mouthful of soil and roses, only to come back the next week on crutches and absolutely destroy the set? Up until then, that was about as real as wrestling ever looked, and he was part of it. He also had me believing in his feud with Bret Hart over the Intercontinental title, which the Hitman won from Piper at Wrestlemania 8 (I think). The good guy vs. good guy angle was played out to perfection because once again Roddy had you asking "just how fake is this stuff, really"? And you gotta mention the MTV "War to Settle the Score" where Piper beat the crap out of Cyndi Lauper's manager. This was what took wrestling out of the gambling parlours and Legion halls and put it front and centre on NBC with "Saturday Night's Main Event".

Like most wrestling books, this one reads like a conversation with Piper. He touches on his youth in Winnipeg, growing up on the streets and how getting into the business as a teen basically saved his life. From there, his travels through the territories and up through the NWA into legendary feuds with Ric Flair and Greg "The Hammer" Valentine are retold, but the centrepiece of the story is Wrestlemania I. Piper has unkind words for Mr. T, and portrays him as basically an egomaniac who thought he would be the one calling the shots. Piper's animosity towards T. reached the boiling point one year later at WM II during the infamous "boxing match" where Piper bodyslammed T and drew a DQ. That was real. Also receiving unfavourable treatment is Mr. Wonderful, Paul Orndorff, who Piper says was one of the most insecure wrestlers of all time. Perhaps that explains why he has no reputation to speak of these days as the WWE pays tribute to their legends.

I think Piper goes a little overboard when he suggests that it wasn't Hogan who put Wrestlemania on the map, but it was (of course) him. He states that people didn't want to see Hogan win, they paid to see Piper get the crap beat out of him. Big difference. The two seem to have a love/hate relationship both inside and outside of the ring. Piper is also hard on Vince McMahon, and pulls no punches when discussing McMahon's sometimes underhanded business practices. This is where the book is different from other wrestling "autobiographies" because it isn't commissioned by the WWE, so Roddy is free to say whatever he wants.

Piper also addresses in stark terms the reasons why wrestlers die younger and more frequently than other entertainers do. He attributes this to "the Sickness". "The Sickness" pretty much refers to the addiction that one gets from hearing the roar of the crowd, when you walk through the curtain, do a high spot, or get a pin. Piper says wrestlers will do anything to maintain that high once they get a taste of it, and this explains why they will stay out on the road 250 nights a year, eating takeout, popping pills and going without sleep, all for that rush. Whether it leads to premature heart attacks (Rude, Guerrero), overdoses (Henning), car crashes (Adonis) or suicide (Kerry von Erich), it's all about the Sickness.

Great stories here about guys like Andre, Jesse Ventura and Rick Martel as well. If you are spending a day travelling or on the beach and want a good easy read about the highs and lows of the rasslin' business from one of its most successful performers ever, pick this one up. Oh, and he's Canadian, not Scottish.

Overall rating: 8.5/10

Reagan

Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the inauguaration of Ronald Reagan.

Eveerything you need to know about the man's leagacy is here and here.

Some choice Reagan quotes:

"When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can - and often will - do too much."

"Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself."

"Government is like a big baby - an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"A truly successful army is one that, because of its strength and ability and dedication, will not be called upon to fight, for no one will dare to provoke it."

"The dustbin of history is littered with remains of those countries that relied on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We must never forget...in the final analysis...that it is our military, industrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace for America in times of danger."

"The years ahead will be great ones for our country, for the cause of freedom and the spread of civilization. The West will not contain communism, it will transcend communism. We will not bother to denounce it. We'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."

"An America that is militarily and economically strong is not enough. The world must see an America that is morally strong with a creed and a vision. This is what has led us to dare and achieve. For us, values count."

"America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, "You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk." but then he added, "Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American."

"Live each day to the fullest. Live each day with enthusiasm, optimism and hope. If you do, I am convinced that your contribution to this wonderful experiment we call America will be profound."

CD Review: Headpins - The Complete Greatest Hits (2002)

Do you find one or both hands uncontrollably go into the rocker sign (index and baby fingers pointed up, third, fourth fingers and thumb down) and your wrist starts moving to the beat whenever you hear Loverboy, Pat Benatar, Eddie Money or early Bryan Adams and Kim Mitchell?

Like this?









If so, go and get this right now.

If not, do you have a pulse?

Overall rating: 9.5/10

Liberals and abortion

Courtesy of stephentaylor.ca:

In their last ditch effort to keep the Conservatives from forming government, Paul Martin's war room is doing its best to try label Conservatives "regressive" social conservatives on the issue of abortion. They've gone after Conservative candidate Jason Kenney for attending a pro-life rally. However, the rally was co-attended by Liberal MPs Dan McTeague and Albini Guarnieri.

Let's consider a few quotes uttered by Liberals on this divisive issue:

Joe Fontana said that abortion should be limited to "exceptional extenuating circumstances" involving rape or incest (London Free Press, October 12, 1988). Joe Fontana is the current Minister of Labour

Minister of Veterens Affairs Albina Guarnieri on abortion and judicial activism and a woman's choice: "The decision as to which life merits protection cannot be left to judges, doctors, or even women themselves" (Hansard, November 23, 1989)

Joe McGuire, the current Minister of ACOA called abortion "the murder of another human being" (Hansard, November 27, 1989)

Consider Minister of Immigration Joe Volpe's comments on abortion: "The government has contented itself with casting the issue in the context of abortion, a context which invariably favours the rights of those who are present against those who are silent, a context which too often is seen as purely a woman's issue" (Hansard, November 22, 1989)

and now, drumroll please...

Paul Martin on abortion:

"I am personally against abortion on demand, but I believe it is very clear that there must be legislation brought in that will deal with what is becoming simply a mish-mash of approaches" - Paul Martin (Halifax Daily News, July 20, 1989)

Further, according to the same edition of the Halifax Daily News:

"Martin said the prime minister must immediately recall parliament to introduce new abortion legislation"

and finally, Paul Martin on abortion laws and judicial activism:

"It's very clear that we are going to have 10 different [abortion] laws and that we are going to have these laws made by judges" (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, July 20, 1989)

and these are just quotes from the PM and cabinet ministers... anybody got any good Tom Wappel quotes?

UPDATE: "There is no legal right to abortion in this country, according to the Supreme Court of Canada." - Tom Wappel, former Martin Liberal MP

According to Wikipedia: In his nomination speech, Wappel called for abortion to be made a criminal offense with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Remember that at their inaugural (and latest) policy convention in March 2005, the CPC approved the following policy:
"a Conservative government will not initiate or support any legislation to regulate abortion."

The nail in the coffin II

Ipsos Reid, who has been regularly polling over 8,000 individuals, puts the Tories at 38% and the Liberals at 26% (h/t to Conservative Life.) Apparently, Ipsos pres Darrel Bricker unveiled the poll earlier today with some choice quotes, reprinted here courtesy of Kinsella:

- His first line: "Canada's next Prime Minister will be Stephen Harper."

- "The exoneration of Paul Martin by Gomery was believed in Ottawa by his Liberal strategists. It was not believed by Canadians."

- Bloc vote is slipping to the Tories alone in Quebec. Nowhere else.

- "The campaign has essentially been over for two weeks."

- "Paul Martin's staff have spent too much time watching the West Wing...George W. Bush is not on the ballot in this election."

- "Gomery, guns, gaffes, Goodale" - why the Liberals lost, Darrel says. "They wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't called the Gomery Commission."

- I repeat: "THEY WOULDN'T BE IN THIS POSITION IF THEY HADN'T CALLED THE GOMERY COMMISSION."

That's what I said about two weeks ago.

"The land of trash"

Al-Qaeda has appealed to North American Islamists to attack the Alaska pipeline, and in so doing, has referred to the continent as "the land of trash".

I think this is a case where racial profiling would make sense. There are not a lot of Arabic persons in northern BC or Alaska, are there?

The nail in the coffin

Michael Moore has decided to share his wisdom with us on our election here.

He says that Harper is, at best, qualified to run for the governor of Utah.

No word on his views regarding the theft of $250 million under the guise of national unity, organized kickback schemes or cultures of entitlement.

I think this pretty much seals the deal for the Tories, as an endorsement from this guy is the kiss of death. Just ask Wesley Clark, Howard Dean or John Kerry.

Friday morning meanderings

Last night, I said that I am leaning toward spoiling my ballot as a protest vote against the Tories' Liberal-lite brand of status quo, big-government "conservatism". If Harper would speak more like this, and follow through, it would result in this, the benefits of which cannot be denied, and I would be 100% on board. However, there is another issue that needs to be addressed, and that is how to punish the Liberals.

Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of affection for certain Liberals, who I know love Canada, work hard for their constituents, and are in Parliament for all the right reasons. However, the way this campaign has been run lead me to draw three conclusions:

1. The Liberal party apparatus takes voters for granted. They also think voters are stupid. I don't. They think that all you have to do is wrap yourself up in the Charter and all of the scandals and gaffes will be forgiven. Finally, with the new ads they're putting forward which have a contrite Paul Martin obviously reading off cue cards but admitting that the government has not been perfect, they're realizing that the path to power is not to insult the intelligence of the Canadian electorate. I think it's too late, though.

2. They think that Canada could not possibly continue to exist without the Liberal party in office. Some Liberals truly believe that children would be dying in emergency rooms, that women who decide to terminate their pregnancy would be made criminals, or that those who are not native-born Canadians would be considered second-class if anyone other than their party would be in power. Nonsense. Canada will continue to be a great country because of the people who inhabit it, not because of the bloated and inefficient state apparatus. The co-opting of Canadian symbols like the flag by the Liberal party is offensive in the extreme. What's more is that they treat anyone who dares disagree with their orthodoxy as a social leper. Read Charlie Cook for his take on this. It applies fully to Canada. (I certainly am guilty of cranking up the rhetoric myself, but I'm not exactly Susan Murray.)

3. The duplicitousness of what they do. Martin treats the Charter as sacrosanct and paints anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage, for example, as a shill for the US far right. However, remember: The Parliamentary Secretaries to the three biggest portfolios in government - Finance, Foreign Affairs and Public Safety - all voted against same-sex. Moreover, every single Scarborough MP voted against same sex as well. The dishonesty is appalling.

All together, what the Liberal party apparatus does to hold on to power has a massively corrosive effect on the political culture of our country. By lowering the standard of debate, it turns people off. That is completely unhealthy for Canada's future. If we stay on this track, the only people who will be attracted to political participation and activism, then, will be the loud, shrill and excessively partisan, and not those who really want to participate just because they think it's an honourable calling.

This is not to exonerate any other party. However, in my view, it is the Liberal brand above the others which is losing more and more integrity each and every day. I think it's time to put them on the opposition benches so that those good Liberals can take their party back from those who have allowed it to slide down into a black hole of sleaze.

They should be punished.

Eight in a row, baby

Now, I know the playoffs don't happen in January, but I'm just sayin'.

Three for one

Tonight I'm going to do a post that will contain two book reviews and my recommendation for Monday's election, all in one.

Book Review #1: Rescuing Canada's Right: A Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution by Tasha Kheiriddin and Adam Daifallah (2005)


By now, everyone who has been following Canadian politics closely will have heard about this book, released last fall just before the government fell. Written by two activists, it details the history of the small-c conservative movement in Canada, looks at its successes and failures, and makes a number of prescriptions for building a solid foundation for what the authors call "anti-statist" public policy in Canada.

Where to begin? This book is a tour de force of the challenges that smaller government types face. In fact, I'd put it on the scale of William Gairdner's "The Trouble with Canada". While more practical than intellectual, it is just as much a call to arms as Gairdner's work was in the early 90s. Where they differ is that "Rescuing Canada's Right" focuses more on the strategic side of the equation while Gairdner's was more about policy.

Basically what it all boils down to for the authors is this: for conservative ideas to dominate in Canada, an infrastructure needs to be built - in law, academia, and the media through stronger corporate backing, establishing more think tanks, and bringing a libertarian message to French Canadians and an inclusive, opportunistic one to immigrants. On the issues, it says that conservatives need to do a better job developing and marketing positions on the environment, social policy, health care and federalism. The authors make the case that it is possible to jettison the apologetic, hand-wringing Red Toryism of Joe Clark and win elections, if conservatives have the courage of their convictions.

This book is extremely well-written, digestible and informative. The arguments are tight and realistic in their scope. I think everyone who is interested in public policy, whether you are right, left, or centrist, would benefit from reading it if only to better grasp where some, but certainly not all, elements of the Tory party would have Canada go.

Overall rating: 9/10

Book Review #2: "Why I Am a Reagan Conservative", edited by Michael K. Deaver (2005)



Former White House staffer Michael Deaver edits this collection of brief momentos from American conservatives on the occasion of the death of the man the Economist magazine says "ended the Cold War", Ronald Reagan. Included are comments from current and former members of Congress, journalists and intellectuals within the movement. (Conspicuous by their absence are entries from McCain, Kemp, Gingrich, Armey or anyone with the last name Bush.)

Two things struck me here: one, the influence of Biblical teachings on US conservatives, and two, the pride with which people display their principles.

Almost one-third of the contributors mention God in their entries. This is because in the American political discourse, the right to freedom and liberty comes from the Creator. Former RNC executive Jack Oliver:

I am a firm believer that God blesses each of us with many talents. America is the greatest nation on earth today because individuals are free to maximize those talents and create opportunities for success. And we have the liberty in America to define success for ourselves. For some, success is defined as being the best. For others, success is what they help others do, like a teacher who helps students achieve their dreams.

Conservatism, to me, is the passionate defense of this American ideal. The ability to make the most of the rich blessings God has bestowed on us requires the complete freedom to make choices for ourselves and to shoulder the personal responsibility of those choices. It is only in this environment that success, however you define it, can be created from the simple spark of an idea, the pursuit of a dream, or the desire for a better life.

And that's mild compared to what some of the others say. Canada's conservatives who invoke the name of God do so not in the parlance of natural rights but with the desire to impose some form of morality. Naturally, this lack of tradition puts those who come to conservative politics through faith at a disadvantage.

Secondly, American conservatives are unabashedly proud of what they stand for. Optimism. Hard work. Family. Doing what you say you are going to do. Responsibility. Persistence. Patriotism. Here, those values are not invoked by our conservative politicians. Why not? I don't know. Look at the values of liberalism (hat tip to film critic Michael Medved). Conformity. Competitive victimization. Dependence on government. Emphasis on group identity over individuality. Justification of criminality. Militant secularism. Utopian pacifism. These, to varying degrees, are not an opposing view like they are in the States but are a fundamental part of our Canadian political culture. It's no wonder that when Harper says that he's on the side of "people who play by the rules, work hard and pay their taxes" he just leaves it at that. The narrowness of the debate in Canada puts small-government Tories at a disadvantage in this sphere as well.

While we are made to feel ashamed of being conservative in Canada, there is one area in which we can take pride, as Medved points out in his chapter. This was a watershed moment for me as I realized the truth of what Medved says here:

My wife, an author and distinguished clincial psychologist, makes the point that most successful people in the United States choose to live conservative values in their private lives, regardless of their political orientation. Even University of California professors who define their conservative opponents as fearful and warped will rarely commit themselves on a personal basis to the radical notions they espouse in their work. From their elegant mansions in the Berkeley hills, these prominent academics may rant about the need for redistributing wealth or breaking down the tyranny of patriarchal marriage. But when it comes to redistributing their own luxury cars and fancy computers, or assigning their daughters to communal living arrangements that dispense with traditional marital and middle-class values, these advocates of brave new worlds will seldom live up to the logic of their public pronouncements.

Like most Americans who have achieved any mesure of success, liberal opinion leaders reached their positions of influence through toil and competition and self-discipline, not through self-pity, complaint, indulgence, or placing ethnic identification above individual achievements.

In other words, even if you are a liberal, to succeed in life you must espouse conservative values.

Clearly, the US conservative movement is deeper, more confident, and rooted in something bigger than just stock market returns. This is one of the many reasons why it's more healthy than ours.

Overall review: 7.5/10

***********

And that brings me to Harper.

This campaign has been a vexing one, for a number of reasons.

Obviously the man has talent. Obviously the man has conviction. But let's look at where he's applying that talent and conviction:

1. To clean up government.

Harper had to spell out exactly what he would do to prevent Adscam from ever happening again. In the cynical environment we live in, he couldn't just stand up there and say "trust me". Fair enough. But a lot of what he is proposing is inside the Beltway stuff, which makes even MY eyes glaze over.

2. To establish a cut in the GST.

Like Milton Friedman said, I believe taxes should be cut whenever and wherever they can. However, as I've pointed out, I'll have to spend $100 to save $1 and then wait five years to save a second $1. Is this real, fundamental, broad-based tax relief?

As for the other cuts, I don't ride the bus, go to university or college or have a kid in sports. Instead, I'm just one of those guys who works hard, pays my taxes and plays by the rules. I suppose that under Harper, that won't change ... much.

3. To create new day care spaces and give parents $1,200 a year to spend for each child under 6.

Great ... choice in child care ... but why are they even proposing and legitimizing the state being in the business of babysitting? Conservatives should be fervently against anything that resembles unionized, government-run kiddy farms, and by proposing to create spaces, they're doing just that. Besides, if the demand was there, the market would take care of it.

4. To establish a patient wait-times guarantee.

One question: How is this going to allow me to get the health care I need for my family without breaking the bank of the public purse?

5. To reform the criminal justice system.

OK, here is the first real conservative priority they have. I cannot argue here.

One of five, though, doesn't cut it for me and I think the authors of "Rescuing Canada's Right" have to be disappointed as well. On the big issues that affect Canadians where it counts - their pocketbook - he is a tad less pink than the Liberals, but this platform is only semantically different from theirs. Harper has shown no interest whatsoever in reversing the growth of the state, which now stands at 40% of the Canadian economy. Instead, he wants to maintain that growth at current rates.

Other issues where the Tories haven't demonstrated true conservative values include the following:

- Immigration: No word on reforms to the family class of immigrants. This is vastly needed, as 4/5 of those who come to Canada are just family members of the economic class. Shouldn't we be attracting more economic class immigrants?

- Farm subsidies: I understand that Western Canada is the Tory base. However, handouts to unprofitable enterprises are not what conservatives believe in.

- Regional development: See above.

- Aboriginal affairs: This department, as well as Defence, is going to see increases in spending. Some rumblings about introducing property rights to the reserve system of governance, but let's hear about it. Kasechewan showed us how badly changes are needed. Let's not fail Aboriginal Canadians again by perpetuating dependence on the government teat.

These are only a few issues where the Tory position is marginally different, if at all, from the Liberals. More importantly, the positions are the same as those that led to the decline of conservatism as an electable option throughout the 90s, as the movement split. I don't think that spending more on the military or being nicer to the States is going to make up for stagnation on the critical issues I've listed above.

I know some of you will say that it's unrealistic to expect that Harper can be as blue as I want him to be. Others will say that "good" shouldn't be sacrificed because it's not "perfect". However, there's nothing wrong with having the liberals in the Liberal camp and staking Conservative ground for conservatives. And I'm not even asking him to discuss hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage or bilingualism.

So, where does this leave me on Monday? At this point, I am leaning towards spoiling my ballot, effectively declaring "none of the above" rather than voting for a party that seems to want power but doesn't really know why, what with a platform that could have been written by your average suburban Toronto Liberal MP. I know this sounds like sour grapes but the path to success is clear, and it doesn't lie in hiding what you think is right or trying to out-Liberal your opponents. And as for those of you who are hoping for a more conservative second term? Good luck to you. Remember Mulroney's second term? The deficit was out of control. He proposed a constitutional package that had a social Charter, for God's sakes. Remember the Eves years in Ontario, where the provincial PCs totally lost their nerve? And what is W doing now one year after being re-elected to a second term? No further tax cuts, no social security reform, but rather, just managing things through to '08 and focusing on terrorism. Which isn't bad, I suppose.

Harper may come to regret casting his lot in with the Red Tories. The man doesn't have the personal style of a Mulroney, who despite his considerable charm, couldn't keep his party together. There will be restlessness on the Harper backbench and within the party membership at large if the future PMO is too beholden to the influence of Segal, LeBreton and Mackay. For those reasons, my hopes are not high for the development of a truly conservative federal government in Canada, either in the short, medium or long term. What good is winning if you're just going to keep the seat warm for the next liberal leader (and yes, the small-l was deliberate)?

A Reaganite he's not. Nor is he what Daifallah and Kheiriddin hoped for. However, I can still hope that Harper will open his first newser with the phrase, "I have political capital, and I intend to spend it" just to piss people off!!!