I’ve heard it said that politicians are like shit. I.e. – a small minority of people are fascinated by them, but the vast majority would like to flush them down the toilet and never see them again.
When it comes to senators, I’m with the majority.
I don’t want to see those hacks, I don’t want to hear them, and most of all, I don’t want them popping up – Mr Hankey like – and saying ‘hiddey-ho’.
Case in point:
The new personalized Tory ads staring ‘The Old Duff’ (Senator Mike Duffy) are so totally creepy and cringe inducing. First off, isn’t the party suppossed to be embarassed by the appointed senators? As part of the disaffected base, I know I don’t like to be reminded that these people exist. Second, the Romper Room antics of personalized messages is c-r-e-e-p-y. Don’t you remember how all those Jewish people got freaked out when the PM sent them personalized Hannukkah cards? Finally, ‘the Old Duff’? Are you sh*tting me? The Old Duff? What were you* thinking?
As I’ve said before, death is too good for the Tory tech team. Their lame pooping penguins, their yabbering senators and their embarassing party homepage. You people suck so much.
Part Two – Stephen Harper defines Conservative as “Faith, Family, Freedom”
I, like many people I’ve met, signed up for the Tories, and did countless hours of work for them because I believed in their published principles – the very Libertarian principles which you can see here on their website.
If I wanted ‘faith’ I’d join the Green Party.
Look again at the bit of Harper’s speech on the three ‘F’s:
Freedom must be tempered by faith – or more broadly, what faith in all its forms teaches … it teaches us that freedom is not an end in itself. That how freedom is exercised, matters as much as freedom. Freedom must be used well, and freedom can only be sustained if it is used well … the libertarian says let individuals exercise full freedom and take full responsibility for their actions … Conservatism cannot just be about freedom, it must be about policies which ensure freedom will lead to good choices, to responsible choices … with wider benefits to all of us.
It makes sense. Or rather, it makes Harper’s actions over the last 6 months make sense. If faith means anything, it means ’sacrifice’ – sacrifice of our free speech, our hopes for a democratic senate, sacrifice of western producers to eastern corporate welfare queens …
I’m inclined to get really pissed off and say that if I as an atheist am not welcome in the party, fine, I’ll go through my lot in with the Libertarians.
But then there’s another part of me that says ’screw Harper’, he can read the party principles the same as any of us, he definitely heard the party militants speak at the last convention – libertarian Tories and all their cash and effort were well represented.
The problem is not the libertarians or the neo-liberals in the party membership – the problem is the leader.
Today the BQ threw down the gauntlet – sort of. The Bloc Quebecois have issued 5 ‘non-negotiable’ demands that the Tories must meet in order to get BQ support.
1. the elimination of all federal spending powers in provincial jurisdictions
2. the Tory government to respect the Kyoto Protocol
3. the continuation of supply management in the agricultural sector.
4. promises to help Quebec’s forest industry
5. a clear commitment that Canadian soldiers will pull out of Afghanistan when the current mission ends in February 2009.
It looks bad. But I think it’s just looks [others disagree].
I suspect that four of those demands are window dressing for the big one – and that’s the restriction on federal spending power. If Duceppe puts that on the table as a non-negotiable pre-requisite for supporting the throne speech then he positions himself to take credit for it and to run on it when it passes.
The big Tory criticism of the Bloc in the last election was that they didn’t get anything done. This bluster of Duceppe is seemingly his attempt to pre-empt that claim in the next election.
What Duceppe saw in the recent provincial election was the failure of left-wing politics to win votes outside of Montreal. In the countryside and in the smaller cities, Tory ideas or rather ADQ ideas were ascendant. He may have thought it was a fluke, but the by-election had to have confirmed this to him.
Quebecois care about the environment and the war, but that won’t sway their vote. What gets votes are Tory promises like the ‘nation’ resolution and like the commitment to restrict the federal spending power. While this is a desperate move on Duceppe’s part, it’s not brinkmanship it’s positioning.
***
One final note – I love the French language sometimes, it’s so clear. Here’s the title of the BQ demand that the Tories ‘end the mission’ in Afghanistan – in the original French : “Afghanistan : retrait en 2009″
Last year two Canadian bureaucrats from the Social Sciences and humanities Research Council (SSHRC) expressed doubts about evolution. Responding to a funding proposal, they wrote:
“Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct.” [source]
The latest Skeptical Inquirer had an article about a Canadian skeptic named Bruce Pendergast who contacted all 306 federal MPs demanding their action on this. Here was the response he got:
Much to my delight, I have received sixteen replies, including a personal response from the Minister of Industry himself, the Honourable Maxime Bernier. Apparently, many of those 306 MPs simply passed my letter on to his desk, since it is his portfolio that oversees the SSHRC…Bernier, a very well respected member of the Cabinet, also sent me a copy of the unofficial minutes of SSHRC, in which it is stated, “SSHRC issued a public statement on April 11, 2006, stating that the theory of evolution is not in doubt.”
Keep in mind this is what the federal Conservative Party believes and the federal Tories are not related to the provincial Tories which may or may not be run by complete idiots who say things like: “It’s still called the theory of evolution” and advocate teaching creationism in state-funded Madrasas.
Meanwhile, in The Nation Within, voters in Repentigny have rewarded the Conservatives for their historic gesture of reconciliation and respect with … 18.7% of the vote. Mind you, that’s up from 18.1% in the general election.
Andrew Coyne after the 2007 By-election [Tory Victory]
As for the Tories, yes, they have some reason to crow…What does that mean, concretely? The Conservatives will shortly try to consolidate their gains in Quebec with further sops to nationalist opinion: the Throne Speech will reportedly promise to legislate formal restrictions on the federal spending power.
On the off chance that bad karma causes us to lose a Calgary riding next time around, I won’t gloat too much, just 2 things:
1. Cherniak on the vote: “Not happy about Outremont. Obviously.”
2. This guy. The fellow on the left is Justin Tetreault – a classy Liberal from Northern Ontario who helped out in Outremont by tearing down NDP signs. Not enough apparently – you lost. Who’s the Natural Governing Party now, hmm?
So, just like the polls showed, NDP in Outremont, Bloc in Saint Hyacinthe, Tories in Roberval:Here’s the latest from Elections Canada [8pm pacific]:
Roberval
Green Party Jean-Luc Boily 489 1.7%
Liberal Louise Boulanger 2,728 9.5%
NDP-New Democratic Party Éric Dubois 664 2.3%
Bloc Québécois Céline Houde 7,693 26.9% Conservative Denis Lebel 17,051 59.6%
Total number of valid votes: 28,625
Saint Hyacinthe
Conservative Bernard Barré 10,599 37.3%
Liberal Jean Caumartin 2,037 7.2%
NDP-New Democratic Party Brigitte Sansoucy 2,283 8.0%
Green Party Jacques Tétreault 1,052 3.7% Bloc Québécois Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac 11,998 42.3%
Total number of valid votes: 28,388
OutremontLiberal
Jocelyn Coulon 5,631 28.2%
Conservative Gilles Duguay 1,661 8.3%
Bloc Québécois Jean-Paul Gilson 2,039 10.2% NDP-New Democratic Party Thomas Mulcair 9,870 49.4%
Green Party François Pilon 420 2.1 2.1%
Total number of valid votes: 19,998
Check out Liblogs.ca for some more of the response, a report of media bias in favour of the NDP (I kind of believe that), and dirty Tory and NDP grubbing for so-called “Bloc” votes.
Ideally this is just another sign of the realignment of the party system in Canada towards a Left-Right, Tory-NDP system. For more on that, check out this interview with NDP strategist, Jamey Heath. He comes right out and calls the Liberals in illegitimate force in Canada.
Parting thought – You’re a federalist in Saint Hyacinthe – 5% gives the seat to the Tories over the Bloc. Neither the Liberals or the NDP can win the riding – who do you vote for?
Canada Day. Going on a road trip to the most beautiful part of Canada – Howe Sound. If you’ve seen it, you’ll know what I mean. Going to Britannia Beach and then on to Squamish. If all’s going well we may continue on to either the Sunshine Coast or Whistler.
So as it is our beloved land’s birthday, I thought I should say something nice about this country. First off, I have undivided loyalties to this country so there are a lot of things I take for granted. If I travel around greater Vancouver I find street after street named after my family members, I see mountains that are part of family legends 5,000 years old. I see my ancestral burial ground dating back to the advent of Christendom in these parts. I don’t think many people can say that and I can’t think of anything that would diminish that.
So my Canada isn’t my phone company, my beer or my health insurance provider. My country is the place where people make sense. Just that. There’s nothing wrong with foreign countries (per se) but they are odd. My country is not odd. People here behave as people should, they speak as people should speak and no matter the colour, they share a particular look. My country is the place where I don’t need to explain things but where I share enough points of reference that I can have an intelligible conversation with anyone. My country is the only country that always gets the benefit of the doubt. No matter what evil I hear of in the world, I automatically assume that it wasn’t done by a Canadian.
I think it was George Orwell that criticized patriotism (though he himself was a patriot) by saying that it didn’t mean being nicer to your countrymen, but being meaner to foreigners. He has a point there. A lot of Canadians think that to be Canadian, you have to be different and ‘unAmerican’. That doesn’t make you Canadian, it makes you a Democrat.
To be Canadian, this has to be your one and only home and the one and only place where people make sense.
I could go one, but my ride’s here soon – if you don’t know Howe Sound – check below.
I am conflicted on Ron Paul. He has a lot of ideas that I am in complete agreement with. For example:
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
But he also has a lot of supporters who – to put it mildly – are bat-shit insane. For example:
So where do you draw the line between judging the man by his ideas alone [some of which are ... unpleasant] or judging him on the company he keeps?
The fact that the president or vice president meets with certain people in a closed meeting does not suggest that they agree with those people’s views — in fact, there may be sharp arguments between them. But the public is entitled to know who the president and vice president hear from personally.
There’s something good in there – it’s possible that Ron Paul disagrees with his supporters – with the ‘truthers’. But doesn’t he have the obligation then to distance himself from them? Has he?
Actually far from it. He’s gone out of his way to embrace them. Look at this exchange between Paul and a supporter:
CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
So where does that leave us? Should libertarians give support to Ron Paul – in spite of his connection with the truthers – because he has ‘good ideas’? No, in fact they should oppose him precisely because he has good ideas. He’s a leper, everything he touches is going to get infected by his supporters’ lunacy. Until such time as he comes out against the 9-11 truthers, he is doing nothing but harm to the ideas of US sovereignty, libertarianism, the Constitution and the division of powers. Imagine what happens to the candidate 4 years from now when he espouses a view championed by Ron Paul in this cycle. He’ll be tarred with the name of Ron Paul – if he advocates for a strong US border, the media will invoke the name of Ron Paul and his truther hordes.
It seems incumbent on all libertarians and free thinkers to run away from Ron Paul as fast as possible. He’s not a saviour, he’s a wrecking ball.
I found this while arguing with someone on-line about Afghanistan. It’s from the government of Canada:
The Afghanistan deployment is not, nor has it ever been, a traditional peacekeeping mission. There are no cease-fire arrangements to enforce and no negotiated peace settlement to respect. Negotiation is not an option with insurgent groups who are not interested in the kind of peace that the Afghan people seek.
3 hours of Christopher Hitchens and Hugh Hewitt going head to head. Maybe that’s a tad overblown because I don’t think it’ll be the least bit antagonistic. Hugh Hewitt is one of the fairest interviewers on radio, he listens to people and lets them have their say. Hitchens is a regular guest on Hewitt’s show (as are Lileks, Steyn, and Yoni Tidi which are three more reasons to listen to it).
Hewitt for the uninitiated is a “God Blogger”, an author of a detailed bio on Mitt Romney, and a professor of constitutional law. He worked in the Reagan administration and built the Nixon presidential library. He’s right on the war, and wrong on God and the source of morality.
You can download Hewitt on iTunes, but you’ll need to register at Townhall.com . You can listen to the show streamed over the internet here. I’ll be putting up a downloadable .MP3 of the show on Wednesday. Until then, here is a sample of Hitchens on Hewitt’s show:
“The Great God Debate” is Tuesday, June 5. The entire show will be given over to a debate between Christopher Hitchens, author most recently of god Is Not Great, and Dr. Mark Roberts, theologian, professor, pastor, New Testament scholar and author of many books including the just published Can We Trust The Gospels?
Dean Barnett sits in for me as I travel tomorrow and prepare for the conversation. A show has 15 segments, and the first four of each hour will be given over to a proposition which I will put on the table and to which Hitchens and Roberts can respond and then cross comment or pose each other questions. If you would like to suggest one of the propositions –there will be twelve in all, as I will give the last segment of each hour which is short for brief statements by both participants– you can send it to me at hugh@hughhewitt.com.
My favourite podcast is out. It’s fab, except for this one Israeli commenter who is just awful. Israelly Cool had a good blog, speaks English just saying…
