Lakes and deserts

Related to my last post, I received this this in my inbox yesterday:

Media Advisory
March 28, 2013

Council of Canadians plans on-site protest at the Experimental Lakes Area this weekend

The Council of Canadians will stage a protest this weekend at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) in a last-ditch effort to save the institution.

Mark Calzavara, the Council of Canadians’ Ontario organizer, will be on-site at the protest and available for interviews via satellite phone.

“Canada needs the ELA’s scientific research to develop sound and long term policies on water, climate and public safety,” says Emma Lui, Council of Canadians water campaigner. “Despite the Harper government’s reckless water policies, we’re not giving up yet.”

The ELA – a world-renowned water research facility – costs as little as $400,000 per year to keep open.

If a protest takes place in a forest and nobody is there to film it, are people still angry?

I hope that the media does turn out because I think it's an issue worth attention. Given the remoteness of the location and the Easter weekend timing I'm not sure how it will work out. In any case, I wish them well and hope people take notice.

 *****

Something else that came out recently -- the Canadian Government's decision to back out of the UN droughts and deserts convention -- is not unlike their move to cut the ELA.

The move was ostensibly to save money. "It’s not an effective way to spend taxpayers’ money" says PM Stephen Harper, but the amount of money being saved is negligible. The government has spent $283,000 over the past two years on this program according to the Maclean's article, although our commitment is for $350,000.

Harper claims that only 18% of the funds are being spent on anything useful. My question is: how is this different than any other UN program? In fact, with 18% of the funds surviving the UN bureaucracy and getting applied in a productive way, I would consider this astonishingly successful.

The point, of course, is not the money. The real story here is how this reflects the priorities of the current administration, the optics that a move like this generates among the public, and the impression it leaves on the other 193 countries (every other country in the UN, in case you're wondering) that are signatories to the convention.

The damage done to Canada's goodwill among other nations as a result of not being a team player on this matter, whatever that damage may be, must certainly exceed the $350k that we're saving, if one were able to quantify it.

I also find it bizarre that a government that spends $21 million per year on Economic Action Plan advertising would risk the negative publicity that a move like this generates to save a paltry $350k.

*****

The government might argue that these small and supposedly wasteful expenses add up to a significant amount, and at a time when the government is struggling to return to a balanced budget every expense needs to be carefully vetted (except Action Plan advertising apparently).

I agree that small things add up. Small polarizing decisions such as the two mentioned above, as well as others like the Conservative's reluctance to stop the importation of shark fins, combine to create a growing distaste of the government and it's intransigent approach to the environment and social issues.

This may be a miscalculation on the part of Harper. The negative impressions that these actions leave could accumulate to the point where they threaten to overcome people's fear of what Justin Trudeau might do to the country, and could spell the end of the conservative majority next election.

Experimental Lakes Area Travesty

In spite of my somewhat conservative leanings, I gotta say that I've been disappointed with a great many things that Stephen Harper and the Federal Conservative government has done. There have been a whole slew of things from wasting money on misguided "stimulus" programs to their embarrassing response to Palestine's promotion to non-member observer state at the UN.

Some things are big. Some things are small. The closure of the Experimental Lakes Area in western Ontario near Kenora could be considered small. A below-the-radar operation that survived on a budget of less than a million dollars for most of it's existence, the ELA is a modest operation but has had a tremendous impact.

Some people will cite research done at the ELA as being a fundamental part of the effort to reduce acid rain in the 1980's. (Interestingly, this effort was led by another conservative PM, Brian Mulroney, proving that being environmentally friendly and right-of-center are not mutually exclusive concepts.) This is a notable example, but at any given time dozens of research projects might be on the go, impacting many industries or aspects of life in some small way.

Source: http://www.experimentallakesarea.ca

The closure of the ELA strikes me as a particularly harsh move, simply because it costs so little and it does so much. Of all the things that the government spends money on, this operation must be near the top in terms of bang for the buck.

Money is not wasted at the ELA. That, at least, is my experience. As a summer student one year I spent some time there assisting with experiments and collecting lake-dwelling bugs for further study back at the lab. There was a communal eating area, small buildings with bunk beds, a sand volleyball court on the compound, and not a whole lot more. Our showers in the morning were limited to 5 minutes. There was a schedule, so if your shower lasted much longer than 5 minutes you risked having a naked biologist walking in on you.

The place was nerd central. Scientists from all over the place, dressed in cargo pants, would gather and chat about their respective projects over dinner, go to bed early, and wake up at ungodly hours to continue their research.

Most governments brag about supporting research. Besides directly providing science and technology-related jobs, research often leads to development and the additional jobs that go with that. Some research also leads to a better understanding of the world we live in, which in turn can lead to policy enhancements.

This is the primary objective of the ELA: a better understanding of how human activity impacts our environment, and this is why some people think the Conservative government has pulled the center's funding. They portray this as a "war on science":

“The Harper government is gutting all and any tools, rules, and science projects that stand in the way of corporate abuse of our freshwater heritage,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “No ELA means that the damage done to water from extractive industries will forever be hidden.”

The language I would use would be less inflamatory, but it's hard to argue against the notion that this is an ideological move by the government, because there are few other plausible explanations. The government's purported reason, saving money, doesn't wash when you consider how little money is being saved in relation to the value of the research being done and the uniqueness of the operation. At the very least, this speaks to how little the government values environmental research.

The ELA may live on. The government is not locking the doors and throwing away the key -- they are just locking the doors. There is a chance that the Ontario government (yeah, they have money to spend ...) or some other party may take over the funding of the facility, but until that happens there is to be no research done there ... even if the federal funding agreement is still in effect and research grants are in place.

This may not seem like an tremendously important issue for many people, but to me the closure of the ELA and the government's handling of it has a spiteful tone. This is not an isolated thing either: the end of the mandatory long form census is another similar issue. As somebody who had to merge longitudinal data sets for quantitative studies in university, I can appreciate the value of having consistent information, and the census change will cause more problems than you might imagine.

While individually these issues may be small and you may not care a great deal about them, they reflect poorly on the character of the government, and you should at least care about that.

*****
Fun fact: if you fry these guys in pure acetic acid they become transparent.

Source: http://www.aquamerik.com/

Another fun fact: frying chironomus larvae in acetic acid does not smell good.


*** UPDATE ***

Also published in Winnipeg Free Press: Sorry, Harper, it just doesn't wash Blog of the week: Anybody Want a Peanut?

Another interesting link: As dismantling begins, shuttering of research station called a 'travesty'

"The doors of the old sleeping cabins at the 45-year-old Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) are being ripped off, the appliances are being taken away, and the personal belongings of researchers are being removed.
...
this brings into serious doubt the government’s sincerity to actually transfer the facility over to another operator."

Harpers new cabinet

Today, PM Stephen Harper appointed his new majority cabinet, with 39 MPs. People are calling it "bloated" and other derogatory things, simply because it's bigger than any other country's cabinet. For example, it is almost twice the size of the UK's cabinet, even though they have 650 MPs, 362 of which are part of the ruling coalition.

Well, to those of you who are all outraged by this symbolic example of government excess: have you ever considered that perhaps our cabinet is just the right size, and that every other country's is too small? Out of the UK's ruling Conservative/Lib Dem reckless coalition's 362 MPs, only 23 have been awarded full cabinet posts. In other words, only 6% of them are doing anything useful. The rest are probably just sitting there, collecting fat paychecks and charging their moat-cleaning bill to the tax payers.

By contrast, out of Harper's 167 Conservative MPs, 39 of them, or 23%, have cabinet posts. That's productive! Why not mobilize all the soldiers you can to take advantage of this historic opportunity to right all of the wrongs created by 5 years of minority rule and a decade of destructive Liberal negligence? You would be irresponsible not to.

With an inept minority opposition mostly composed of NDP newbies who need a GPS to find Parliament Hill, the government should have no trouble implementing the real conservative agenda that they have been yearning for all these years. With all these guys at work, I expect that within 1 year we'll have an elected senate with term limits, a balanced budget, and reduced crime. They will also unlock the shackles of the Canada Health Act, allowing provinces like Not Manitoba to experiment with health care reforms that could improve service delivery and lower costs.

2 Years, max. After that, they have to start thinking about getting re-elected, so they have to act quickly. But what's stopping them? Nothing! So mobilize those soldiers and go get 'em, Steevo!

Election 2011: Anybody Want A Peanut? endorses:

Maybe not "endorses". Everybody sucks. We can't endorse any of them. However, I got together with my advisors and the Anybody Want A Peanut? editorial board to decide who I should vote for.

Here's the thing: An NDP government would be a disaster for the nation. They are a well-intentioned bunch, but the misguided economic policies, spending increases and economic interventionism would be bad news. Fortunately, I don't believe the NDP will win the election. They may be surging, but I think there will be some pull-back today at the voting booth. Just like the first time you go sky diving: when the moment of truth comes, you look out the door of the air plane and say to yourself "what the hell am I doing? This is crazy!" Plus, if the announcement of Osama Bin Laden's death will have any any impact of the Canadian election, it will be to detriment of Jack Layton. It brings an issue to the forefront that Jack is in the minority on, plus it brings new hope that the war in Afghanistan is not futile. In fact, it may be more winnable now than ever before, making an immediate pull-out of troops irresponsible.

Likewise it is clear that the Liberals will not win the election. This is a good thing, because Ignatieff, who could have chosen a fiscally conservative platform, instead chose to veer left into NDP territory. Not quite as far off into the socialist bramble, mind you, but too far for my liking.

I happen to live in a riding that is a battleground between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Between incumbent Conservative Shelley Glover, and former MP Raymond Simard. Those are my only two meaningful choices. Andrew Coyne puts the decision this way: "would the Liberals do more harm to the economy than the Conservatives would do to democracy?" That is a tough question to answer, however, since the Liberals will not win, I don't have to answer it. Instead, the question becomes: do the Conservatives deserve (or need) a majority government?

I have argued before that Harper would be on a path to an easy majority if he was only less of a dweeb. He is his own worst enemy. Every time he gained in the polls, he pulled some aggressive or mean-spirited move that turned off marginal voters and knocked his rating back down. I do not like his style of leadership. I do not agree with many of the things that he has done, and I think his current campaign that primary revolves around coalition fear-mongering is absolutely terrible. I think the Conservatives would do much better under a different leader, and I think the Canada would benefit from that change as well. As a result, I am inclined to say that Harper does not deserve the majority that he is looking for. To give him a majority is to give approval of his horrendous campaign and his systematic destruction of parliamentary process in Ottawa. When this election is over, I want the Conservative advisors to sit down and say to themselves: "Okay, that didn't work. What can we do differently?". Politics in Ottawa is sickening, and it's largely because of Harper.

If there was a chance that any other party would win, I would probably vote Conservative, because the alternatives are even worse. For various reasons I don't believe there will be a Liberal/NDP coalition government if Harper gets a minority, and if there is, I don't think it will last long. Therefore, my decision is based on giving a vote of disapproval to Harper and the Conservatives by voting for Liberal Raymond Simard.

At least that's the decision that my advisors and I came to. I might get a sky-diving flashback and change my mind in the voting booth.

*****

Hey look! A couple of bloggers have awoken from their comas to post special election-edition commentaries!

Hacks and Wonks

Prairie Topiary

Good to see your blogs come alive again.

*****

My election predictions, as tweeted on Friday:
CPC 140, NDP 85, LPC 61, BQ: 21, GPC: 0, Ind: 1

Debate: quick impressions

Layton looked good. Some pre-debate face airbrushing going on there. Didn't think he made much of an impact though. NDP supporters will think he did great -- and he didn't do bad -- but most of what he said was just swatted aside like a bug.

I couldn't figure out what Duceppe was talking about half the time, but he made me laugh a couple times. "If you shoot a duck, you have to register the duck. If you blow away a dog, the dog is registered. The only thing not registered is the gun." He's good for entertainment value if nothing else.

Iggy was at his best when he got passionate about an issue. My favourite moment in the whole debate was during his one on one with Layton when he was defending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. He was off script, came across as being a genuine and intelligent person, and stomped all over Layton in the process. He had some other good moments too, but he appeared off balance at times and he returned back to his talking points too often, repeating the same things several times over. It was repeating that Liberal party script that lost me.

Harper never lost his cool. He answered everything with ease, and he denied every charge against him. A deal with the Bloc and the NDP? Denied. Corporate tax cuts? Denied. Didn't give cost data to parliament? Denied. And done with the same cool demeanor the whole time. His opponents were getting frustrated with him.

If I have to award a ribbon, it goes to Harper for his cool as a cucumber performance.

Notes:

1. The one-on-one format was awkward, and the one-on-ones between Layton/Duceppe and Iggy/Duceppe were especially lame. It was of interest to nobody and like a coffee break for Harper. Get rid of it.

2. Two national debates give Duceppe more air time than he deserves. He should be booted from the English language debate and replaced with Lizzy May, or with an empty seat.

A weird thing happened reading the paper today

Reading a Francis Russell column usually results in me slamming my face against the computer keyboard multiple times in exasperated frustration that such biased ideological drivel could ever be published in a newspaper. This time was different though.

My finger hesitated over the mouse button for a second as I debated whether I dare open what would surely be another vitriolic rant about PM Harper's neo-con tactics; however much to my surprise she didn't use the term "neo-con" once, nor did she compare Harper to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Satan, or a baby-eating gorgon. That could be because she spends most of the space quoting Frank Graves from Ekos Research, but nevertheless it is a refreshing change of pace from what I am used to.

Much more worryingly, I actually agree with much of what she (or rather Frank) has to say. In fact, much of it echos what I wrote about back here . I don't doubt for a minute that Harper could have a majority if he wasn't such a nimrod. Every time he builds political capital he promptly squanders it by doing something stupid and divisive. That's his MO, and it's why he is doomed to be a minority PM until the Liberals find somebody with an ounce of Charisma (bonjour, Justin) and boot him out of office.

I have seen a similar analysis in Maclean's magazine as well, but the fact that I agree with Francis Russell about something is scary as hell. I don't know if she is coming around or if I'm turning into a bat-shit crazy lefty, but something is wrong in the universe. Wait a minute ... didn't that exact same cat walk by here a moment ago? What happened to my window ... It's a brick wall now!! ACK!

***

Oh, one other thing before the agents get me: One of you guys at the Free Press should let Francis know that Stephen Harper is speaking in Winnipeg tomorrow evening at Canad Inn Polo Park, and it's completely free! You have to register ASAP though. Sorry for the short notice.

I won't be there. If anything, I'll go catch the Sam and Judy debacle at the Hydro building tomorrow.

Harper is afraid of a majority / Friday video

I've been thinking. Wait ... there's more! I've been thinking about the prorogation of parliament by Stephen Harper. Not so much the reason for it, but rather the strategy.

I have noticed that Harper has a tendency to take one step forward and one step back, and not very gracefully either. For example, Harper built goodwill in Quebec by introducing a motion to recognize them as a distinct nation with Canada, and later built good will among the First Nations by offering a long overdue apology for abuses in the residential school system, then he sabotaged himself late in 2008 when he moved to pull the lifeline away from the other parties. This reminded people of what a cold, calculating political machine Harper is, and the opposition parties, backed into a corner, almost took the government away from him.

This past year, Harper erased that image of him as a cold, calculating machine when he did his little piano singy-thingy with Yo-Yo Ma. A brilliant move, if it was in fact a move and not just a happy accident, that helped to bring him perilously close to majority territory in the polls. So what does he do? He reminds people again of what a controlling jackass he can be by suspending parliament and killing all of the legislation that was on the table for what appears to be reasons of convenience. And not even being polite about it -- he phoned the damn thing in. Literally.

My sources were able to obtain a tape of the call to the Governor General, which I shall transcribe for you, my readers:

SH: Hi, uh, Michale? Stevo here. Look, I need you to be a dear and prorogue parliament for me. Can you do that? Great. Thanks. Hey, it's been great talking to you. Bye.

MJ: Wait, aren't we going to talk about this? Why don't you come down and we'll discuss ..

SH: Look, just sign the damn papers, you seal-heart-eating bitch. Who the hell do you think you are anyhow?

MJ:

SH: Thanks. Hey, it's been great talking to you. Bye. *click*

There was some audio interference on the tape so I'm not sure if I got the quote exactly right, but I'm sure it's pretty close. Look, the point is, for somebody who is supposed to be a master political strategist Harper has made some big miscalculations. This latest one has allowed Mikhail Ignatiev to not only stop his free fall, but to pull himself into a tie with Harper in the polls.

Against the advice of the AWAP political analysts I'm going to go on record as saying that PM Stephen Harper will never get a majority government. If he played his cards right, he certainly could get a majority. In fact he might have one by now, and perhaps should have one, having been given the gift of two lame Liberal leaders in a row and a legacy of Liberal corruption. but either due to his cut-throat competitive instincts or bad judgment or something, he has not, and probably will not.

Perhaps behind that metallic exterior there beats a conscience that will not allow him to get a majority. A little subconscious switch that forces him to sabotage himself when he starts to become popular, because it knows that if Stephen Harper gets complete control of the government he will turn the country into cruel dictatorship where babies are stolen from Liberal parents and sacrificed before a giant stone statue of himself. That's the only reasonable explanation that I can think of.

***

One of the DJs on the Q94 morning show yesterday joked about John Fogerty opening for Lady Gaga on her new tour. As silly as that combination sounds, I would much rather see that tandem than Gaga and Boy George. Yes, that Boy George. Gaaack. That has to be the worst choice for an opening act since Slipknot called on Stephen Harper to open for them on their 2005 Harvest My Organs tour.

As punishment for Gaga, I will not feature her video this week. Instead, I will feature John Fogerty:

Proroguey Maker

I know that I said I would get Stephen Harper a portable video player for Christmas, but Best Buy was sold out by the time I got there, so instead I went on eBay and bought him a Hunky Bill's Proroguey Maker. Now he can prorogue parliament anytime he wants! Afghanistan torture hearings got you down? Prorogue parliament! Don't like the make up of the senate committees? Prorogue! Jack Layton complaining too much? Fuck him! Prorogue! Can't stand the pedestrian chatter and juvenile name-calling in the House of Commons? Fuck them all! Prorogue!!! It's fun and it's easy, and it only takes minutes to prorogue your way to happiness.

I think Stephen Harper is really happy with his gift.

My apologies to any of you who value democracy.

Monday night doodles

A little editorial cartoon of Iggy and Harper:


My original version had Harper speaking in binary, but I changed it at the last minute. Done with pencil-on-paper and 'inked in' on the computer. I might do a full-colour version.

*update* I cleaned 'er up a little bit more and added some colour:


Better? Did I make Iggy's eye brows big enough? Because I can make them bigger ... just say the word.

We are (almost) all Keynesians now.

The Economic Policy Division of Anybody-Want-A-Peanut? has been doing a lot of thinking recently about the current global economic crisis. Well, they should have been at least, but those slackers spent most of their time playing Rock Band and looking at nude photos on deviantArt. However we do have some thoughts on the matter:

Richard Nixon once said "we are all Keynesians now". That is particularly true during a recession. We can generally rely on monetary policy to keep the economy on course by maintaining price stability, but when the economy veers off into the crapper like it is now, there is a temptation to use the turbo boost of a good old fashioned Keynesian demand shock to try to bump it back on course.

As far as I know, the jury is still out regarding how effective it is. For example, some economists has suggested that it could require tens of billions of dollars to make even a modest impact on the Canadian economy. Nevertheless, elected officials don't want to be seen as bystanders as people lose their jobs, so they "take action" by opening up the bank account and spending money to try to recreate those jobs.

Everybody is doing it: Britain is doing it; Obama has indicated that he's willing to pile on to the massive pile of debt in the US in the name of Keynesian fiscal stimulus; back home in Manitoba, spendaholic Gary Doer is practically drooling over the prospect of throwing around more money. He's like a kid at Christmas with a brand new excuse to spend, and new balanced budget legislation waiting to cover him in case he (oops!) happens to spend a little too much. Even here in Winnipeg there are big plans to spend more money.

The only leader not hopping aboard the Keynesian Express is Mr. Harper. The recent economic update included no fiscal stimulus, just a couple tweaks to cut spending and increase investment. What does The Peanut think about this? Well, the AWAP EPD couldn't give me a straight answer (I really am paying those guys too much) but the opposition certainly don't think riding out the storm is a good idea and they may topple the government to prove it. Can you imagine? A party with no leader trying to form a coalition to replace an elected government a month after the election? Ottawa is so damn disfunctional.

While I personally feel that Keynesian-type fiscal manipulation is generally overrated, Harper may have miscalculated on this one, because what I think doesn't matter. The thing is, most people are Keynesians whether they know it or not. They want to see their government doing something when the economy is falling apart, and ultimately that could be the downfall of Mr. Harper. I think the Liberals may back down now that the Conservatives have backed off their plan to cut funding to the parties, but boy .. it could get interesting if they stick to their guns.

wiki: John Maynard Keynes

Carbon Tax, Part 1

I had the idea to draw this cartoon about two months ago, shortly after Stephan Dion announced that he was hitching his wagon to the carbon tax, but I didn't get around to actually drawing it until now. The point at the time was to show that, while it is very admirable of Dion to commit to something that is very likely to be unpopular because he presumably believes it is the right thing to do, I thought it would sink his hopes of ever being PM. I saw it as being a hail Mary pass -- one last long bomb with the green football to see if he could pull out a miracle victory after letting the opponent run all over him for the first 59 minutes of the game.

That's not really how it's turning out. Dion and the Liberals are hanging right in there in the polls, and the "green shift" is not getting the negative reaction that I'm sure the Conservatives would love to see. Why? I think it's because Harper doesn't know how to fight it. Harper has ripped a page from the Hugh McFadyen campaign playbook by insulting the intelligence of the electorate with talking oil spots, and radio ads featuring a fake call-in show with bad actors. Harper is at his best when he approaches a subject in a cerebral and logical manner. Saying that the tax will "screw everybody across the country" falls far short of that. Unless he can find a way to explain the flaws of the carbon tax to average voters (without using the word "screwed"), or better yet - explain why his program is better, then this election battle will be a tough one for him.

I'll write a post a bit later (if I have time) about the carbon tax itself. À la prochaine ...

update: I may have spoken a little too quickly: Support for the Liberals' Green Shift dropping: poll

Missing the mark on car theft

It was a bad day for Harper in the pages of the Free Press today.

First, there was the Candian Press front page headline story RCMP raid Tory headquarters in election probe, which, if you read the story, is somewhat misleading. There was the thing about Bernier calling for the resignation of the governor of Kandahar. There was a poll that people want the GST increased again. General Hiller is retiring, and now Grapes on Kenaston is closing before Harper had a chance to eat there.

Then there was "PM told anti-theft promise a miss". Right off the bat, I gotta say that it was a big mistake for Harper to make this announcement in Winnipeg. I can only assume that some advisor told him that Winnipeg is the "car theft capital of Canada" so it might be appropriate. But seriously, that was dumb. Organized chop shops are the least of out problems.

The Free Press jumped all over it, telling us that Harper "disappointed" a "victim". Was he a victim of organized crime? NO. How can you "miss" something that you're not aiming for? The story is followed up with a web poll Do you think proposed federal 'chop shop' legislation will make the streets safer? where, surprisingly, 14% of people voted "Yes".

Next time Harper comes to town, he better have a new Youth Criminal Justice Act in his hands. I am sure one of the two local papers will still roast him, but at least he would be a more difficult target.


Still on the topic of car theft, this time of the "punk" variety ... I generally like Dan Lett's stuff but I think he's off the mark today. He argues that longer sentences aren't the answer:

Supporters of harsher penalties will argue that they are just one part of an effective campaign, meant to work in concert with enhanced social programs and anti-theft initiatives. The reality is that tougher laws with longer sentences tend to eclipse those other initiatives.

Longer sentences mean more people in remand, on trial and in jail, which means significant increases in the costs of administering the courts and of incarceration. That leaves less money for social programs that divert potential auto thieves to more wholesome activities.

Most of our car thefts are performed by a small handful of level IV offenders. Is chasing them down, arresting them, booking them, processing them in court, and letting them go and repeating the cycle the next week cheaper than just keeping them in jail? Does it increase public safety?

On January 31, Nicholas Lilke, a Level IV offender, was arrested and charged with:

Failing to Comply with a Probation Order X 2, Mischief Under $5000.00, Forcible Confinement, Break and Enter to Commit an Indictable Offence, Obstruct, Resist a Police Officer, Trafficking in Firearms, Trafficking in Ammunition, Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm and Possess Prohibited Firearm or Ammunition.

On February 4, less then a week later, the same dude stole an SUV and slammed into a Police cruiser, injuring the officers.

Ask a police officer if longer sentences would make a difference with scum like this.

How far can we push it?

Ok. Now we know...

Stephane Dion & Co. are finding out the hard way how much crap Harper is willing to put up with. My guess is, the over-zealous Liberals will be much more careful about what they say outside of the libel-protected walls of the House of Commons.

Interestingly, the Liberal mastermind himself Warren Kinsella thinks that Harper is standing on solid ground ...

in fact - I'd hazard a guess that this isn't the action of someone who fears a full airing of the facts.

***
I forgot to add ... Warren has this interesting tid-bit on his blog as well:

Rick Dearden at Gowlings is acting for the Prime Minister. I articled under Rick when the firm was doing a lot of work for virtually every major media organization in the country. In the past twenty years or so, I can't recall a single libel case he has lost. FYI.

That would be pretty embarrassing -- for the lead of the opposition to be forced to compensate the PM. Ouch.

Jim wants to get in on the action too, apparently ...

Harper's billion dollar present gets fast tracked

Back here I surmised that Harper may have miscalculated with his bundling of the billion dollar industry aid package into the next budget. Harper obviously values my opinion, because he changed his mind and put it to a vote today, passing without any debate.

"I'm about to say something which I rarely say: I congratulate Prime Minister Harper," Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday. (cbc)

If I'm counting properly, that's twice this year that the parties came together to make something happen. I'm getting all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it! It's so nice to see the leaders getting along and .. uh .. well almost getting along:

Although the bill passed without debate, MPs launched into a heated discussion about its merits soon after the vote ended. As House Speaker Peter Milliken repeatedly called for order, opposition parties argued the bill offered too little.

Oh well. A step in the right direction at least. What's up next? Afghanistan? Oh shit...

Fire the Good Doctor

There has been some talk in the press recently about the Liberal Party of Manitoba and their leadership situation. Apparently some people in the party are "beginning to quietly muse" about replacing Jon Gerrard as leader.(*) Excuse me while I give the Liberals a virtual slap upside the head ... Fire the Doctor already!!! It does not matter if he is a nice guy, or a smart cookie, or able to prescribe Cialis. I think he's a nice guy too, but he's not getting the job done. Period.

What some of these people don't realize is that smart doesn't win elections. Charisma does, and the good doctor has none of it. Stuart Murray (a.k.a. Mr. Invisible) also had a chronic charisma deficiency and was rightly booted from the helm of the PC party.

Now, I know that you're thinking. You're thinking "but how do you explain Stephen Harper's success? That man has the charisma of a frying pan, and not one of those nice Jamie Oliver ones either." Well, yes, but Harper had good timing -- he established himself and pulled his party together when the sponsorship scandal and general sickness of the Federal Liberals was ripe. However, his lack of charisma and the fact that women think he's creepy seriously limits his potential upside in an election.

Anyhow, as I was trying to say, unless Dr. Gerrard can prescribe himself a personality-enhancing steroid, I'm afraid the party is going nowhere under his leadership. That is the unfortunate reality. I believe that people will vote on the issues if they big are clearly defined, but Gerrard was unable to differentiate the Liberals from the NDP in this way. The most commonly heard phrase last election was "they're all the same", and when that happens, the guy with the perma-grin will win every time.

h/t PF

A neo-columnist goes all "supply-side" on Harper's ass

I made the mistake of reading the Francis Russell column "A toxic jewel in the neo- conservative crown" in the Free Press today. I have to remember not to do that anymore, because everytime I do I get frustrated that she's allowed to expose the public to her ignorant bile. Anyhoo ... since I did, I feel compelled to respond, at least to my modest little web audience.

The basis for Ms. Russell's column is a paper from the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, written by a Mr. Marc Lee, who does not have PhD, nor any peer-reviewed journal articles that I could find. He has an MA in Economics (as do I, btw. It's not hard to get). Perhaps she should balance her views with some research from an organization who's senior economists are actually PhDs? I may email that suggestion to her. Anyhow, despite the author being a quasi-economist with an agenda, she gives the impression that it is the product of a "team of economists from across Canada". Whatever. Let's look at what she's actually telling us:

She starts by citing the CCPA paper's claim that we are at risk entering a deficit situation because we've tax-cutted our economic buffer away. Mr Lee's aim is to steer economic policy away from tax cuts and towards social spending. Francis Russell, however, is more creative...

She tells us that Jim Flaherty is advancing a "supply-side" tax cut argument (her words), which allows her to get into this:

David Stockman called the Reagan administration's Kemp-Roth tax cut "a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle-down,'" Stockman continued. "So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle-down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

Keep in mind that Regan's tax cut dropped the rate for the top income bracket by 20% -- not comparable at all to Harper's tax cuts. But that doesn't slow Francis down:

Supply-side economics is neo-conservatism's jewel in the crown. Neo-conservatism rails against debt and deficits produced by government spending, but falls strangely silent when they are caused by tax cuts. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," Vice-President Dick Cheney famously said.

Are you following along? The government's modest tax cuts (which the Liberals started) are no different than the dramatic high-income tax cuts that Regan implemented, therefore Harper is a "staunch supply-sider" (again, her words), therefore he is a neo-conservative, a la Dick Cheney. What's next? Does this mean we're invading Iraq? No, better than that ... we're going to cause another Great Depression:

Inequality in the U.S. is at its highest level in 80 years. ... While total income increased almost nine per cent, incomes for the bottom 90 per cent fell. But the top one per cent saw their incomes rise by an average of 14 per cent.

The top 10 per cent of Americans now command a share of national income not seen since 1928 -- the year before the 1929 Wall Street crash that ushered in the Great Depression.

Reality is much more boring:

"We will be extremely cautious in the year to come," Harper said on New Year's Eve as his government's latest GST cut was about to go into effect. "We're not going to undertake any long-run spending or tax reduction initiatives unless we believe they are affordable on a long-term basis."-cbc-

Harper's billion dollar present

We found out today that Stephen Harper is handing out $1b to the provinces to help industries that have been hurt by the high dollar. That is ... if the budget passes. Harper may have miscalculated on this one, as he is quickly being criticized for tying this to the budget. Charest said "I don't think the forestry workers of Quebec deserve to be a part of an election campaign" and I might agree with him, actually. It does seem a little manipulative.

One notable person who had no problem with it, of course, is our thirsty Premier Gary Doer. Not one to ever complain about getting more money from the Feds, Doer said (and I quote) : "Gimmie. Gimmie. Gimmie. Money! Money! Money!" ... or something like that.