monday was brought to you by one. asking ezra levant about the conservative party fortunes is akin to asking George W Bush how the war in Iraq is going: canned answers. two. particularly notable is WHERE Ms. Trudeau spoke to this issue. Guelph leads Canada in ground water extraction. three. michael geist on google's privacy fight. four. i like how intense and bad the colors insinuate vis-a-vis worst and best case scenarios. five. quite an interesting person. six. hm. seven and eight. the israeli settlers are like democrats in america: patriotic talk abounds, but they are deeply and profoundly self-interested and will abandon community causes for their own self-aggrandization.

today's attitude problem is brought to you by... one. just wait - harper's approach to taxation and fiscal matters will gut canada, leaving a carcass of our just society. two. dated, but hilarious. also, the quotations are reason #22823 that the reform party is going to destroy Canada. three. also quite funny. four. an amazing story on internal dissent in the Bush II White House. I never understood why folks aren't willing to say "i have respect for my colleagues, but i disagree." or why acknowledging that an internal debate occurs on public policy matters is "weak." or is it a demonstration of sincere and profound insecurity over this President's approach to governance? on thursday, he said "I like the competition of ideas." perhaps he ought to look in his own backyard first. and maybe he doesn't have time to run a democracy like a democracy. five and six. two articles, same story; no? seven. or collapse Izzedine al-Qassam into the palestinian security infrasctructure? only if they can get along with Fatah...

here we go... one. helen thomas is hot. two. say it ain't so? i suppose no one notices that Israel is has abandoned peace, and is cutting the palestinians loose by unilaterally declaring borders... three. state of the union... not that different from a throne speech? four. many folks know how many US troops have died, but this figure is consistently left out of media reports. why? that's all folks.

didn't mention this yet, but it's really getting to me. Conservatives across Canada are pouring out of the woodwork and gushing over Stephen Harper. Mr. Harper, a 46-yr old member of The Calgary School, will be our next Prime Minister. He's won the election (what happened to that majority again?) and the Tories are out of the wilderness, etc etc. If ANY of them were paying attention, the Conservatives ran a great campaign in 06. The Liberals ran a horrendous campaign. why did they only gain 25 seats nationwide? this was a teeny political shift, not a revolutionized landscape. Canadians did not abandon the Liberals, or flock to any of the other parties. Since Confederation, the Liberal Party has been in power some 80% of the time. We've barely been a two-party state and we shan't ever see an era of conservatism that Harper would need to transform the country. His agenda didn't get him elected, nor did his well-cultivated "charisma." He appeared average, which his resume demonstrates he is most certainly not, and that allowed him to eke through as the choice of Canadians. he's got plenty of work to do, and the Liberals will elect a new leader who will come to the political stage with her (or his) own aspirations and agenda. and then it'll be politics as usual. Stephen Harper has barely demonstrated the political shrewdness that has so long been the domain of the Liberal party. Under the best of circumstances for the Reform Party, they will serve two terms before getting turfed. The heritage of both of these major parties is patronage and corruption. think Mulroney, think even John A, and of course, Adscam, Income Trusts. Remember Jane Stewart? so, why is the rural/urban, or big cities/rest of canada split getting play, when the real issue was that Ottawa G-Men have lost the support of the few folks that still vote, and Stephen Harper is clearly not one of them. Unless the NDP can replace the Liberals as a solidly left of centre party, the Liberal party will return and likely form future governments.

some links to start. warning: bottom heavy post ahead! one. is it really that harper has no biz friends, or that business has moved out west and bay street is not the heart it once thought itself as? two. a potential counterweight to the legacy of bulte and frulla? three. please add me to the DRAFT DION movement. it's the only way for the liberals. but if i want to see them vanquished and encourage the growth of the NDP, i guess i'm not so into it. four. read this article, or the rest of my post won't make sense, since it's largely a response to this article. i want to point out a few things right off the bat. i've noticed a trend among American liberals of glorifying Canadian political culture and policy. let me be clear: CANADA IS NOT A LEFTIST WET DREAM. there's plenty more work to do. PLENTY. it speaks more to ignorance and cursory knowledge than to any genuine interest in applying policy lessons as political interdiction. in the article linked above, John Buell, writes "Outsourcing and the loss of good manufacturing jobs is as great an issue in Canada as in the US. " I'd like to also address this before continuing. This is a point that is patently untrue. Canada has never been the manufacturing hotbed that the United States was, and thus the loss is not nearly as big of a deal. Consider, for instance, Ford's monday cuts of 30k jobs: 2000 are slated for Canada. Canadians take more advantage of the outsourcing phenomenon than they are threatened by it. A more troubling issue for Canada’s international trade is the increased value of her currency. and now, my basic fragmented response to the article. i felt that compelled.... The turnout in this election was actually 63.5% - while the 2004 was 60%. These figures are actually not historically, that low. Further, considering this was a winter election – tremendously rare – turnout is considered by many to be impressive. There are some 30 million plus people in Canada, with 22.7 million registered voters. This 63.5% figure, relates to the number of votes cast to the number of registered voters; but, a voter need not register in order to cast a ballot, and therefore the number of eligible electors is likely higher than this 22.7 million figure. That being said, voter turnout is low; but by all, and not just Canadian, standards. In an election that featured as its primary issue a disenchantment with government, the turnout is notable, not for the low numbers. Interestingly, the “ammunition” provided to the sovereignty movement did not translate to much success there, and they lost 3 seats. Further, it is widely recognized in Canada that the “deficit slaying” policies of the mid-nineties wherein cuts to social programs were widespread and deep was a necessary step for Canada to improve its debt rating and get her basic fiscal outlook in order. Health Care funding in Canada has largely been restored and expanded, and this was the first election in a long time where Health Care was not the issue with the most play. Also, the assertion that Canada’s health care system is/was more efficient that the American model is without merit. The combination of a single-payer system with public delivery of services has led to certain inconsistencies nationwide, as well as a lack of clarity as to what exactly constitutes “public health care.” It’s true the NDP has crept to the centre under Jack Layton’s leadership. However, electoral realities in the prairies demonstrate the only time when the NDP forms governments is when the Liberal Party has been vanquished, and voters choose between Conservatives and New Democrats. The NDP’s federalist stance is in fact no different than the Liberal party’s approach under Jean Chretien, where support for Quebec nationalism was at all time lows. Further, the Conservative party has indeed offered a more conciliatory tone towards Quebec, but really their approach is rooted in a view that the Federal Spending Power – long the balancing feature of the federation – ought to be transferred to the provinces; they’ve called it the “fiscal imbalance.” This is likely to be Harper’s legacy, one way or another. Anti-americanism in Canadian politics is always around. Consider that Canada and America are largely the same, save for the deeply political choices made by Canadians to not join the Revolution against the Crown in 1776. Add to this political identity the fact that American cultural hegemony has become the most powerful globally, and it is natural that Canada’s political climate will demand certain posturing relative to the American body politic. This time ‘round, George W. Bush’s rookie ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, decided to mention it in public, and thus garnered plenty of attention on both sides of the border. This is less of a reflection of Canadian anti-Americanism (which is an underlying feature of the entire political history of the national identity) than it is a reflection of Bush’s choices and his rather obtuse approach to Foreign Relations. Perhaps the media’s obsession with the reared head of anti-American rhetoric is a reflection of this general insecurity in being critiqued by “furriners.” Indeed, the response from some critics like Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter has been to hurl childish, both in their substance and ignorance, insults to an entire nation. Reminds me of Jean Chretien’s former communications director who called Bush a moron, and highlighted the insecurity over Bush as a leader. While it’s true that the fiscal and regulatory steps are actively undermining the “welfare state” (a phrase that is not used in Canada); anti-Americanism is not a stand-in for the reexamination that ought to occur. It is, as mentioned above, Canada’s political heritage and the historical relationship to the Great Powers of Great Britain and then the United States that leads to this. Political rhetoric is rarely a policy discussion; in Canada, multi-national business is certainly a powerful force to reckon with, and how anti-American rhetoric somehow replaces the critical discussion that evaluates how Canada’s business savvy is often at odds with the public’s foreign policy aspirations. Canada already faces the questions of her relationship to the United States, the changing global marketplace, the "National Question," and a "Democratic Deficit." Despite all this, Mr. Buell’s overall point that the progressive communities ought to collaborate in a more educated and effective manner clearly resonates with the political needs of the Left.

a few interesting things here. i've been busy reading plenty today. here are the few webpages that remained open when i largely concluded my browsing. enjoy. one. two. three. four.

here are the links that i followed today. one. two. three. four. five. six.

is Iran insinuating that CNN is skewing the news? that would never happen. after all, Iraq had WMD, Hussein's Republican Guard murdered babies in incubators, George W. Bush won both elections without election fraud, and the economy is tanking not because of outrageous deregulated mega-corporations hording cash and "cutting costs," but because of outsourcing and those "other people." you might have noticed, i've stopped harping about intellectual rights and property as often. not because i'm less worried, but because more capable people are handling it. that being said, watch out stephen harper doesn't win a majority gov't and drop property rights into the constitution with the support of conservative premiers like klein, lord, hamm, binns, charest, campbell, and even mcguinty. i doubt if calvert or doer would accept this, but they might if they were properly bought off with a massive transfer of tax points and redistribution of power in this country. and it's a new season in tennis! overshadowed in this country by NFL football, the aussie open has started with a terrific bang! newbies abound on the women's circuity, while the boys are generally in fine shape, so far.

A CBC reporter covering Stephen Harper's campaign says this in a recent Toronto Sun article:

Susan Lunn, a national reporter for CBC Radio who has been with the campaign since the start, said the mood has been consistently upbeat. There was no gloom and doom on the days with a glitch, and no public high-fives on those that went well.

"That's the difference for me from the last campaign, when there was this open hostility by the third to fourth week between the media and the staff," Lunn said. "It just isn't there."

Could it be that Harper's lead is all due to the new positive spin the media are giving the Conservatives? Was it december's lazy reporting and regurgitated press releases as articles that could have swung the tide for the Reform Party? Certainly, Paul Martin's performance in maximizing the effect of the Sponsorship scandal allowed the media to get tired of putting his face on the front page. Not to mention Stephen Harper's success, and Paul Matin's failure, at keeping members (and some enemies) on message and supportive. Another lesson from Paul Martin's experience with the media: the love affair won't last. Remember how excited the media was when Martinites burned Chretien in effigy, and the former Prime Minister announced his planned retirement? And the rejuvenated and visionary Canada we were supposed to get? What were those Conservatives promising us again?

after reading a lot on the election, and the platforms it looks like a few things are clear: 1. the libs are cooked - blame no one but paul martin. 2. the conservatives' platform will radically change the way canada operates, particularly in the tax structure and the distribution of wealth among the governments. this could seriously change national unity. 3. the republicans could learn a lesson from the conservatives: keep your loudmouths out of the spotlight!

of course stephen harper's tax plan is big on capital gains. who makes capital gains? not poor folks...

A recent editorial, by Peter Worthington, in the Toronto Sun called “Martin’s Fatal Gaffe,” suggests in alarmist terms that re-opening Canada’s constitution would plunge Canadians into a crisis, “again.” This line of thinking denies in any way that Canada is actually in the process of a drawn out crisis. All other deep-seated and unresolved constitutional discord in the world eventually manifests itself violently, if left unresolved. While even federalist governments in Quebec have refused to sign the constitution, too many in English Canada are prepared to leave the Quebec question to neglect and allow the discord to foment. Chretien and Mulroney responded vigorously, and very differently, to the challenge of the Unity Question. It’s no wonder the Bloc and the sovereignty movement has exploded under Paul Martin’s tutelage; he has largely adopted accomodationist policies in order to minimize and mute Quebec’s concerns, such as the recent side deal on the health accord. Re-opening the constitution to get rid of the notwithstanding clause is probably the first bold thing Martin has suggested; but I’m certain that he will be unable to handle the Unity Debate he has just invited. It’s about time we resolved our ongoing civil discord with Quebec and bring them into the constitution; to deny them otherwise would be tantamount to occupation and only breed further discontent - the very same kind that led to the October Crisis.

some more. one. two. three. four. five. six. seven. eight.

The phrase “from the internet” in use in such phrases of “using instructions s/he downloaded from the Internet,” is dangerously misrepresentative and serves a deep seated mistrust in the knowledge housed therein. It is unlikely that the disdain found in this widely used phrase also applies to a similar phrase: “…using instructions s/he found in a library.” Few would actually use this phrase, because they could simply reference the book itself. And such is entirely possible with information in Internet articles; indeed, varying style guides, including the Modern Language Association, regulates citation methods. Naturally, much of the information found on the Internet is published anonymously or under pseudonyms (screen names), as was the case with the pamphleteering phenomena which has largely evaporated in the face of the democratizing power of the Internet.

stuff i've been reading on the internet today. no commentary provided, sorry. be aventurous! especially four.

one.

two.

three.

four.

five.

six.

seven.

not much interesting going on. the weather here in the district is nice. ariel sharon's illness has certainly elicited many wishes for his recovery. indeed, the chorus is so loud that when we consider the reaction to arafat's illness, the discrepancy speaks volumes about the future of the peace process and the global relationship with the palestinians.other tidbits, as usual.

one. between him and andre boisclair, quebec is looking gone.

two. i dare agree with richard mahoney.

three. interesting piece on sharon's legacy. also interesting that the "future" immediately becomes discussable in these circumstances. a man in dying, and we would prefer to talk about politics.

four. tragic.

five. wild. i would love to use this for work. anyone want to send me to the CES in vegas?

six. how can the science of global warming and/or climate change be under debate?

back from vacation. i reccomend you all take a vacation too. to-day i found a round trip ticket to florida for $123 dollars. sounds like i'm going to florida...