The Equivocator

This Blog Has Moved!

2010-02-03T18:49:00.005-05:00

I decided to move my blog to wordpress and purchase www.equivocator.ca. So from now on I will be posting on http://uranowski.wordpress.com/ or equivocator.ca and pretending like nothing has changed. You can also find me on twitter at www.twitter.com/uranowski.

I will hopefully be moving this blog on the various aggregators that publish "The Equivocator" for everyone's convenience.

The Stigma of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

2009-12-11T01:53:00.002-05:00

A few weeks ago during a conversation on the awesomeness that was the 1990s one interlocutor described their habit of frequently switching radio channels while driving as "just like ADD."

Yesterday a friend sent me a link to a website that sells shirts that bear this picture:

Today a separate friend sent me the following webcomic (click to enlarge):

Right after I read this comic I was reading Macleans Magazine's "Newsmaker of the Year '09" article on German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Here Attention-deficit Disorder (ADD) is used again:

"Her re-election to another four-year-term in September barely registered in North America, which tends to think of Europe’s most populous country and largest economy in terms of BMW, not CDU. Far more ink is spilled on beleaguered male EU leaders: Britain’s Gordon Brown, whose Labour Party is slowly committing hara-kiri; French President Nicolas Sarkozy, with his decorous wife and ADD flitting from issue to issue; and Italy’s scandal-prone PM, Silvio Berlusconi."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is now common for ADD/ADHD to be used as a pejorative adjective. Globally the prevalence of ADHD is estimated at 3-5% of people under the age of 19. It is estimated that 5% of the the global population has Adult Attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (Adult ADHD.) 50% of children diagnosed with ADD/ADHD continue to demonstrate symptoms into adolescence and young adulthood. In a 2004 US study it was estimated that the yearly income discrepancy for adults with ADHD was $10,791 less per year than high school graduate counterparts and $4,334 lower for college graduate counterparts.

In the 1980s and the 1990s many teachers polled believed that there was an overdiagnosis of ADD/ADHD. The stereotype of teachers handing out ritalin has been featured throughout pop culture mediums.

People with ADD/ADHD have to cope with impulsiveness and avoidance. This is compounded upon by a society that tells them repeatedly, emphatically and flippantly that their condition is some sort of trifling joke. Adults who want to seek diagnosis and treatment have to fight against their own brain. Society has now become as large an obstacle as the symptoms of ADD/ADHD to anyone with Adult ADHD getting the help they may need.

ADD/ADHD doesn't make a person helpless. It doesn't make a person less than or inferior. It is serious and should be treated that way.

To defederate, or not to defederate

2009-12-03T23:20:00.005-05:00

Here is an article the I wrote in collaboration with Semra Eylul Sevi for the last issue of the Varsity for this semester. (http://thevarsity.ca/articles/23663) This is my first ever article in the Varsity. When Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae attended the University of Toronto they wrote for the Varsity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniella Kyei, VP Equity for the University of Toronto Students’ Union, told The Newspaper in an article published in November, “It isn’t completely realistic for any single body to represent all 41,000 undergraduates.” This is a glaring contradiction to the “Welcome Statement” on UTSU’s website, which declares, “UTSU is your students’ union.” There’s a conspicuous gap between UTSU’s claim to represent all U of T undergrads, and the reality that on a campus as diverse as St. George, one group cannot represent all, leaving many feeling powerless and unrepresented.

At St. George, the sense of being disenfranchised has grown to such a degree that there is widespread talk of defederation around campus. Leaders from many of the colleges and the professional faculties have expressed a desire to separate from UTSU. Jimmy Lu, president of the Engineering Society, told us, “Engineers have always had a UTSU separation committee. UTSU campaigns do not provide any benefits to engineering students...” Francesca Imbrogno, president of the St. Michael’s College Student Union, told The Varsity that defederation is a possibility, remarking, “opinions around SMC are pretty serious because no one sees the cons of defederating.” SMCSU will even be holding a town hall on defederation in January. Finally, Daniel Tsekhman, president of the University College Literary and Athletic Association said, “The UC Lit aims to be driven by the opinion of the UC community. If students want to leave, then we will start an open discussion to see if it’s the best option.”

The size of our university community is a big factor in the increasing divide between UTSU and U of T, as students generally feel like a number within the larger university community. The colleges and faculties, on the other hand, promote a sense of identity. They tend to have focused, medium-sized student governments where it’s easier to feel connected to local representatives.

Barring a road-to-Damascus-conversion, UTSU will continue to operate with little transparency and accountability. The colleges and professional faculties already have the infrastructure to provide the services that UTSU provides, such as the health/dental plan and the TTC metro-passes. Catherine Brown, president of Victoria College Students’ Union told us, “At the end of the day, before VUSAC defederates from UTSU we need to make sure that any services we lose from defederating we could provide ourselves.” The colleges and professional faculties could work together to provide these services, while being connected more directly to the students they represent.

If students want a mechanism with which to exit or enter the University of Toronto Students’ Union, the UTSU executive must provide one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Foreign Policy Magazine Puts Michael Ignatieff On Their Top 100 Global Thinkers List

2009-11-30T03:11:00.008-05:00

64. Michael Ignatieff

for showing that not all academics are irrelevant.

Poised to become Canadian prime minister next year, only five years after leaving Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Ignatieff is out to prove the relevance of academia -- and big ideas -- in politics. Ignatieff's writing on the sometime necessity of "violence … coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights" to fight terrorism has made him a singular voice among Canadian liberals. His 2004 book, The Lesser Evil, made the case that targeted violence was necessary to prevent the possibility of falling victim to greater violence, but stressed that democratic states should not employ torture or be motivated by national pride or revenge. In 2006 he was elected to Canada's House of Commons and in 2008 became leader of the Liberal Party. As a politician, he's renewed his party's focus on human rights, the war in Afghanistan, and more recently, global climate change, which he defines in characteristically utilitarian fashion as "redistributing risk to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world."

Not on the List: Stephen Harper

As a student of Political Science I was aware of Michael Ignatieff and his work before he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party in 2006. "Blood and Belonging" and "The Rights Revolution" are both amazing reads (they asked Mr. Ignatieff to do the Massey Lectures, you cannot get more Canadian-intellectual than that!) Globalization has made the power structure of the world more diffuse and given Canada (a country with massive stores of water, uranium and other natural resources) the opportunity to becomes more prosperous and become a power player in the international arena. Unfortunately for the past four years Canada has had a parochial and narrow-minded Prime Minister, Stephen Harper (a man who hadn't left the continent or even the country before becoming Prime Minister.) For four years the Canadian government ignored China and India and based its foreign policy upon pandering to ethnic enclaves withing swing-ridings.

Michael Ignatieff is the pragmatic and intelligent leader Canada needs. His approaches are always nuanced but Canadians are intelligent enough to elect a leader who will treat them like adults. The Equivocator would like to congratulate Michael Ignatieff on being selected by "Foreign Policy Magazine."

"It is time for the world to be at the centre of our national conversation, not the margins. It is time that we embraced a view of the world worthy of the country we love, the country I remember from my father’s time, the country we can yet be again." - Michael Ignatieff

The full list can be found at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Canada's Question for Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Will you kiss me?

2009-11-29T11:16:00.003-05:00

Here is the opening from the most recent episode of Saturday Night Live. This is an excellent example of political satire:

Here is a clip from a recent episode of This House Has 22 Minutes. This is an example of the heavy-handed satire that now characterizes a once-great show:

A lot of people are talking about Mary Walsh's ambush of Sarah Palin but The Equivocator found this a really weak performance from Mrs. Walsh. She could have waited in line and spent more time with Palin. The more Palin talks the worse she falls apart, this was funny but overrated 22 Minutes sketch. Tricking former half-term Governor Palin isn't really that much of a challenge either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Lady Gaga Performing "Bad Romance" on The Ellen DeGeneres Show

2009-11-29T10:56:00.003-05:00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Prime Minister Harper Wins The 2009 G.E. Followship Award!

2009-11-26T21:11:00.005-05:00

After repeatedly asserting, over the past weeks and months, that he would not be attending the Copenhagen Climate Conference Prime Minister Stephen Harper said today that he has changed his mind and he will now be attending the summit next month. This comes the day after President Barack Obama confirmed that he will be attending Copenhagen.

On November 26th 2009 it was announced that Stephen Harper will be the recipient of the 2009 G.E. Followship Award; for being the World Leader who "Best exemplifies a follower." The award will be presented to PM Harper by General Electric's Vice President of East Coast Television Programming, Jack Donaghy.

It comes with a $10 000 cheque:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Paul Krugman on Cap-and-Trade

2009-11-25T14:42:00.001-05:00

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

President Obama will attend climate talks in Copenhagen. Where will Stephen Harper be?

2009-11-25T12:23:00.013-05:00

The White House Website confirms that President Obama will in fact be attending the Climate Conference in Copenhagen next month. This gives the talks a boost of legitimacy the same way spinach gives Popeye a boost of strength. Now the Copenhagen Conference has the most powerful leader in the world at the table.

Conversely, Prime Minister Harper will not be attending the Climate conference. The Harper government has repeatedly embarrassed Canada on the international stage by actively working to subvert transnational efforts to combat climate change.*

My question(s) for you**:

How many cheesy partisan photo-ops with Prime Minister Harper take part in instead of going to the most important climate conference of our time?

and

What will the Prime Minister being doing at these Potemkin Press Conferences?

*This happens when Conservative Cabinet Ministers aren't accidentally starting rumors that the former PM of the U.K. is dead.
** Please feel free to comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

The Echo Chamber: A Tiny Play about a Big Fallacy

2009-11-24T17:15:00.003-05:00

By Joseph Uranowski
Written 2009 A.D.

Dramatis Personae
---------------------------
PRAEFECTA, the consul
INTERNA, a tribune
EXTERNUS, a tribune
AEQUITAS, a tribune
CAPITULUS, a tribune

Scene
--------
Consul Praefecta and four tribunes have exited a meeting with the people of the Academy of Utoria slamming the large wooden door behind them. They converse while walking swiftly towards their fortress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internus: How do we feel that meeting transpire, oh transparent and twice elected Praefecus?
[All five stop walking]

Externa mumbles affirmatively.

Capitulus folds arms.

Aequitas remains silent.

Praefecta: I know not why these students were being so obstinate to our plans. Do we not represent the whole of Utoria? They relinquished their voices and right to speak by exercising their right to vote. An echo is always stronger, louder and purer than its source--

Capitulus: Quite true.

Internus: Most correct.

Praefecta: -- and this undiluted fact should quench the thirst of the zealous crowd not inflame them.

[The continue walking at a lax pace]

Capitulus: May I recount an incident that may explain why students at this academy are blind to the fact that we serve their best interests?

Praefecta: We are listening.

Capitulus: One day Internus and I were walking through the college we all detest, SMC --

[All five spit on the ground]

--We heard two students discussing their views on us, the UTSA. Afraid of being recognized we ducked behind a shrub. Internus had to then find a rock to conceal himself, as the brier couldn’t hide us both. You know that old saying: “One bush cannot conceal two –”

Praefecta: (interrupting) Yes, yes we all know that cliché.

Capitulus: The two students differed on their opinion of our council. One supported solidarity and argued the truth. The other was a traitor to the university. The more agreeable of the two argued that our ability to invoke solely the weaker arguments and yet triumph is an art worth more than a hundred thousand dollars, which is almost equal to our salaries. The other disagreed, saying that the main grievance of SMC is that our attempts to marginalize that college are too transparent and that we do not represent the majority.

Praefecta: Aequitas, how do you defend your college?

Aequitas remains silent.

Internus: That’s preposterous! The very notion that we are not the majority is absurd!

Externa mumbles affirmatively.

Capitulus: We do speak for all the students, right? Now that I think –

Praefecta: Of course we do, I’ll prove it.

[All gather around Praefecta]

Picture a crowd of forty-one-thousand. All gathered in one place. No one there to lead them. What do you notice?

Internus: They are quite noisy. A crowd like that would be very rambunctious.

Praefecta: Exactly. Now, instead of imagining, just remember our last meeting. Were we not equally riotous as the crowd in your imagination?

Capitulus: We were even louder. I can recall many instances where our orations shook the very boardroom table we encircled.

Praefecta: Then it logically flows that we posses the voices of all forty-one-thousand students who attend this academy. We are indistinguishable from a multitude and that is because we represent the masses in everything we say and do.

Internus: What a righteous and natural argument you make.

Externa mumbles affirmatively.

Aequitas remains silent.

Capitulus: That is a most self-evident truth.

Praefecta: I agree. So self-evident that we shall never discuss this topic again.

[They arrive at their fortress where a large bowl of water sits on a table beside a cup of red powder and a cup of sugar. Praefecta mixes the powder, the sugar, and the water and all five drink.]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Wicked Problems

2009-11-24T12:48:00.003-05:00

Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber have isolated 10 characters of
a "Wicked Problem" :

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).

Wicked Problems are social planning problems. The trouble is that a WP are hard to identify, they exist in an area of "Primary Uncertainty" and the worst ones happen over a long period of time. Primary uncertainty is when you are not sure of anything. It is as if someone said: "Pick 5 numbers." You don't know if they mean Roman Numberals or Arabic Numberals, and you don't know if the continuum contains negative integers and when it ends (25? 1595382843749?)

It almost looks like there can be no practical application for this concept but you can use this as a lens to view the problem of human-exacerbated climate change. Thankfully, there isn't primary uncertainty in this situation but as it is people who make policies and humans are not always rational there is still a form of uncertainty. The problem of Global Warms is apparent but there are so many factors that complicate estimates to the exact size of the problem and the exact size of the negative consequences of inaction or certain types of action. Though there are complicating factors we know the problem ranges from huge - very huge and the consequences rage from severe to very severe. These ranges should be enough to incentivize action. People who deny climate change try to frame the issue as a Wicked Problem. It is tempting to do so. When it comes to geoengineering, the potential negative consequences (ones that wont be felt for a long time) are typical of a wicked problem.

Solutions to WPs:

Authoritative: Putting the responsibility for solving the problem in the hands of a very small group. This makes the issue less complicated which is an advantage.

Competitive: The different sides are divided and each puts forth their solution. Then the solutions are compared. The adversarial approach has all the advantages and disadvantages of any adversarial system.

Collaborative: Bringing those who are affected by the problem into planning possible solutions. This is a time-consuming process but involving many opinions can give much needed perspective and information
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Jack Layton made agree with John Baird

2009-11-18T23:45:00.006-05:00

During question period today Jack Layton reminded us all that the NDP are a bunch of reactionary-Luddites when it comes to nuclear power. Here is the exchange:

>> The Speaker: The honourable member for toronto-danforth.

>> Hon. Jack Layton: In 2009, remains a very dangerous PERIOD OF TIME, Mr. SPEAKER.

( Voice of Translator ): THERE Are a lot of problems choosing -- with choosing nuclear technology. Exporting it is not a good idea. The possibility of environmental damages are high, and there is no solution for nuclear waste. Without talking about the risk for it represents to people. Is that where the government is? It's at a point where it's abandoning canadian principles like sustainable development, and nuclear non-proliferation, simply to make money. Is that where we're at?

>> ( Voice of Translator ): The honourable minister of transport.

( End of translation )

>> Hon. John Baird: -- like-minded democracy, and respects democracy, and human rights, and shares our values with respect to the environment and one of the benefits of nuclear is produces electricity in a non-emitting form, and something better than dirty coal which is proliferating greatly in that part of the world, and we commited to working our friends in india, and commited with working the responsible and respected international government in India, and committed to getting the job done.**

The Globe and Mail picked out the most important exchange between the two:

NDP Leader Jack Layton, sounding a little hoarse after missing two days because of a cold, pointed out that the last time the Canadian government sold nuclear technology to India, which was in the 1970s, “India took the opportunity to build a bomb.”

Transport Minister John Baird told Mr. Layton to get real: “We have great faith in our Indian friends and partners. We are not living in the 1970s. We are living in 2009.”

The Problem with the NDP***

Jack Layton and the NDP are content to exists as a party without any coherent foreign policy. The NDP are against free-trade and anti-war but when you examine the rest of their foreigh policy they offer no new ideas. On almost every issue the NDP remains in the past and that is especially true in regards to nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe, clean, efficient and reliable. Nuclear power will create jobs and help the environment. The NDP act as if more than 40 years of technological advancement didn't happen. Canada should be ecstatic that India wants to work with us and not France. We should also be encouraging countries developing as rapidly as India to invest in nuclear power instead of other forms emissions producing power sources that are cheap, like coal. Prime Minister Harper should have started engaging China and India 4 years ago but his recent trip was still a good idea.

The Bigger Problem

Jack Layton was so tremendously wrong that he made John Baird look reasonable. When I was watching Question Period I thought "Hell Ya" when Minister Baird finished speaking. I sided with John Baird, that thundering oaf! This is one of the most nefarious acts committed by the NDP, getting me to support Mr. Baird, I don't think I can forgive the leader of the NDP.

Update (Nov 19):

The Equivocator would like to clarify that his agreement with Minister Baird has very narrow perimeters. Mr. Baird is correct when he asserts that India wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It should be noted that India has many homophobic/anti-homosexual laws and practices (these words don't go far enough to illustrate the horrible treatment of gays in India.) India is also behind in the rights of workers and the tolerance that is the cornerstone of Western Liberalism. India is a developing country with many problems both economical and social. As a firm believer in Development theory the Equivocator believes that Canada can help India create jobs (especially with this nuclear energy deal) but we can also show India how the Canadian model of multiculturalism and tolerance helps create a stable and prosperous society.

*John Baird is a frightening man so to avoid scaring the children and so that no one can accuse me of purposefully posting a terrible picture of Minister Baird the Equivocator has decided to imitate one of his favourite bloggers and post this adorable picture.
** I would like to thank my colleague Liberal Arts and Minds for providing me with the hansard. This was a huge help.
*** I should have put: "One of the many problems with the NDP."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Advice for the LPC: Descend Into the Crevasse

2009-11-16T23:53:00.008-05:00

“Sometimes the way back up is down. Let me tell you a story: It’s 1994. I went ice climbing and I fell into a crevasse. I hurt my leg and I couldn’t climb back up. So fighting every natural instinct, doing the thing that seemed most awful to me, I climbed down into the darkness and that’s how I go out.” - Jack Donaghy. Vice President of East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming at GE

"Don't you get it? It's a gift that they're irreversibly convinced that he's arrogant 'cause now he can be. If your guy's seen that way, you might as well knock some bodies down with it." - Sam Seaborn. Deputy White House Communications Director during the first term of the Bartlet Administration.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Liberal Party of Canada has been doing poorly in the polls for the last few weeks It is now past the point where we can deny that there is a problem. The Economist has gone as far as saying that Stephen Harper is so confident that the opposition doesn't have its act together that he decided now was the time to visit India and China (after four years of neglect.) Michael Ignatieff has done a lot to fix his slump, including bringing in Peter Donolo but there is still a lot of work to be done. A plurality of Canadians believe that Stephen Harper is a good leader.

This time of bad poll numbers does provide a lot of anxiety but it also provides a great opportunity. If the LPC has fallen they need to descend into the crevasse because sometimes the way back up is down.

What does the Equivocator mean by this?

The easiest time to take a principled stand is when you are backed into a corner (seen here.) Michael Ignatieff should pick issues that the Conservative Party uses to divide Canadians and go with the correct (and almost certainty unpopular) position. Mr. Ignatieff backed off on the Long-Gun Registry when he should have embraced that issue. Gun control is a Liberal issue and banning guns is the right policy prescription. Michael Ignatieff has been given the opportunity by the other parties to behave as a wonky arrogant intellectual which would allow all of his attacks to be more potent. Canadians love a leader who speaks his mind and they have got four years of the Ministry of Information ensuring everyone in the government is on script 24/7. Michael Ignatieff should start acting candidly, talking about issues that are supposedly political radioactive and doing what seems most awful.

Some suggestions:

Talk about spending cuts: Stephen Harper's Conservative government has created the largest deficit in the history of Canada. Eventually some spending will have to be cut, this is reality. The Liberal argument should be that we are serious and competent while the government created this mess and we have a plan. It should also be stressed that Michael Ignatieff knows that cutting government spending is difficult but that is much better than Stephen Harper who would gleefully cut important services if given a majority. This would not win you many friends but look at the polls now, grit your teeth and do it Mr. Ignatieff and this will pay dividends later.

Talk about taxes: Taxes will have to be raised to get out of the multi-billion dollar Stephen Harper deficit. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar/Prime Minister. If Michael Ignatieff outlined where taxes would be raised and where they would be cut he would show off how the Liberal Party has always been the fically prudent party. This would also draw the CPC and NDP out into making attack ads which would backfire considering opinion polling on attack ads.

Commit to spending: Considering the previous two this sounds counterintuitive but that is the theme of this post. The Liberal Party should announce they will build high speed rail connection some of Canada's major cities, that they will build X number of nuclear facilities and upgrade Canada's energy grit to be cleaner and more efficient. Michael Ignatieff is responsible for forcing Stephen Harper to put forth a budget with stimulus in it. Since the Conservative Party is so willing to govern with no ideas having Michael Ignatieff put forth tangible projects tells voters the Liberal Party is serious and ready to govern. These projects should be large enough to give Canada a sense of purpose and moving forward after such a regressive government.

Attack Stephen Harper on foreign policy: Michael Ignatieff lived outside of Canada, this is a huge asset. Stephen Harper has ignored the two largest countries in the world for four years and has the most ad hoc foreign policy of any PM. Take two weeks and attack, attack, attack on just foreign policy (Bob Rae is a genius so the LPC has the bite to match its bark.) Politics is local but Canada is a country of immigrants so foreign is local.

Attack the NDP/Bloc : Take two weeks each and go after the other opposition parties. Ignoring the PM sounds crazy but elections aren't a two way fight. Right now Stephen Harper is out of the country, this would be a great time to attack him when he isn't around. When he returns it will be tempting to focus on him. The trip itself has earned a lot of free media. If the LPC pivots and starts attacking the NDP then some attention will be drawn away from the Stephen Harper stiff/choreographed press conferences as the media loves a fight. Michael Ignatieff has given Jack Layton a free ride and the gloves need to come off.

Bore everyone: Michael Ignatieff is a professor, it's time he started acting like one. Mr. Ignatieff should start giving wonky speeches that are double the length of his normal speeches. Canadians are smart and have dealt with sound-bite politics for years. If Mr Ignatieff started talking to Canadians like adults and giving detailed speeches (which he has in the passed though they were ignored) this would earn a lot of respect.

One don't: It is tempting to recommend running an attack ad against Stephen Harper (as it would be so easy with the PM's high level of incompetence) and it would be very effective with the sheer "Oh no he didn't!"/"WTF?" factor. Unfortunately, this blog is very much opposed to personalized attack ads and ads outside of an election automatically become personal.

Conclusion:
You cannot jump out of a basement window. Although things aren't Jim Campbell bad, Liberals have been relying on their inherent optimism for the last few weeks to not lose hope. Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada mustn't fear the darkness they must go towards it. This shouldn't be confused with the dark side which Stephen Harper and Anakin Skywalker embraced long ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

PM Harper threatens the Supreme Court of Canada then flees the country

2009-11-12T10:31:00.004-05:00

"The Harper government is warning the Supreme Court of Canada against becoming the first court in the western world to declare that a government has a legal duty to protect its citizens detained abroad." - The National Post.

Apparently Stephen Harper isn't a big fan of the separation of powers.

"Canadian courts should not be used to lobby the government to exercise its discretion in a particular way," says the Justice Department's legal brief. This is a perfect example of the Harper government "do as I say not as I do" logic.

All of this happened before Stephen Harper got on a plane and flew to Asia. Today the Supreme Court of Canada will rule on the Omar Khadr case, if they side with Khadr the Harper government will be forced to do the right thing and start defending Canadians being held abroad. Stephen Harper has spent millions of tax dollars keeping Mr. Khadr, a Canadian, in Guantanamo Bay, an American prison where they torture suspects.

Since the Supreme Court's decision could be "embarrassing" for the Harper government so the Prime Minister decided to go to Asia for the first time in his four years in office.

It is excellent news that the PM has finally decided to pay a visit to India and Singapore (though he isn't going to China but who really cares about a fast growing economy of over a billion consumers) but it should not be forgotten that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is only doing the right thing because he is a coward.

The question(s) of the day:

How will the supreme court rule?

Will Stephen Harper mess up the nuclear energy deal with India like he messed up Canada's economy?

How will the media cover all of this and will the Khadr ruling supercede the Prime Minister's carefully choreographed Asia trip?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

"Slide to a Tory majority" - The National Post puts forth the perfect image

2009-11-10T18:56:00.002-05:00

John Ivison's article in the National Post on yesterday's byelections is the standard post-byelection article positing that the 4 elections yesterday should be seen as foreshadowing Michael Ignatieff's eventually electoral demise.

This is quite perposterous but the title itself really summarizes my thoughts on the results out of Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley, Hochelaga Montmagny–L'Islet–Kamouraska–Rivière-du-Loup and New Westminster–Coquitlam. The only way Stephen Harper will slither into majority government is if the country slowly lowers its standards and voters slink into ignorance.

The only real lesson we can get from these byelections is that the Conservative Party of Canada succeeds when nobody votes.

Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley: 35.7%

Hochelaga: 22.3%

Montmagny–L'Islet–Kamouraska–Rivière-du-Loup: 36.6%

New Westminster–Coquitlam: 29.9%

In each of these ridings the voter turnout was dismal. On top of this is the disparity between pre-byelection Conservative spin and the results. The CPC lost in British Columbia by 13.8%, in Quebec a 1425 vote win when less than 40% of voters show up does not a revolution make. On the NDP side there results in MLKR that their 5% advantage over the Liberals in Hochelaga hardly signify that the NDP are now the "federalist alternative" in Quebec. In Nova Scotia the NDP placed second coming in 4.4% over the Liberal candidate, thanks to Darrell Dexter.

This blog does not assert that the Liberals did well yesterday. The Liberal Party of Canada underperformed in all 4 ridings. The problem with most of the post-byelection spin is that no one expected the Liberals to win. These 4 ridings are ones where the LPC has historically preformed poorly.

In the 2008 Canadian election voter turnout was down 982,865 nationally, the Conservative vote dropped by 167,494 people yet they gained 16 seats.

Stephen Harper wins when good people don't vote.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

What Would John A Macdonald Do? Build Trains!

2009-11-10T18:21:00.004-05:00

Traffic congestion in the Toronto region costs Canada $3.3-billion a year in lost productivity the Globe and Mail reports. An Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development report found:

- Federal spending on transportation in Canada as a share of total government spending was the smallest compared to other OECD countries in 2005 and has marginally improved in recent years.

- The Toronto region ranks 43rd out of 46 major cities for the amount of railway track it has per kilometre, one indicator of transit investment.

- A regional approach to public transit, possibly led by the provincial agency Metrolinx, is required to integrate and make better use of the 11 separately governed agencies in the GTA and Hamilton area.

- Despite renowned universities and research institutions, the region lags on innovation indicators such as patents, citations, high-tech employment and entrepreneurship. Universities and industry need to collaborate more effectively. Governments should invest in more initiatives like Toronto's MaRS Discovery District.

- More should be done to capitalize on immigrants' international networks in order to expand Canada's global trade. Cities outside Toronto need to increase investment in affordable and rental housing that serves newcomers.

The Equivocators Thoughts on urban sprawl and the opportunity costs of it all:

I find it bizarre that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has decided to model his government after John A. Macdonald's in terms of corruption and divisiveness while ignoring John A. Macdonald's love of trains.* Stephen Harper, and Conservatives in general, hate trains for some reason. They mock Liberals for wanting to put money into infrastructure saying we are stuck in the past.

The reality is that high-speed rail, which is already popular/beloved in Europe is good for the economy, the environment, promoting unity and would be perfect for Canada.

Canada's population is growing while the world's is stabilizing. We need to update our infrastructure or we will end up behind in the world economy. The growing Canadian population must be able to move around this country to ensure that Canadian jobs are held by the best and the brightest Canadians. Bullet-trains are one way to connect this vast country while having less of an impact on the environment than current modes of transportation. One great advantage of building high-speed trains is that the jobs created from the construction would go to Bombardier, a Canadian company.

Canada must invest in public transportation or it will lose out in the new globalized economy of the world. This means putting more money public transportation within cities (electric buses, subways and trains) and transportation of goods and people between provinces. Some people say that the price of public transportation is too high and that delayed gratification is not worth it.

If the price of not investing in Toronto is $3.3-billion a year, imagine the cost for all of Canada.

WWJAMD?

* He also loved alcohol but that doesn't help me make my point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

SMC Declaration of Independence

2009-11-10T18:17:00.001-05:00

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which Laws of God and of Nature entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The motto of the University of St. Michael’s College is “Teach me goodness, discipline and knowledge.” St. Michael’s College Students’ Union operates as a service-based body that seeks to unite the students of SMC and enrich their university experience while adhering to high standards of transparency, accountability, inclusivity, prudence, and openness. SMCSU derives its authority from the consent of the 4500 undergraduate students at St. Michael’s College. St. Michael’s College and its students’ union have worked with and are willing to work with an expanded students’ union representing all students at the University of Toronto as long as the aforementioned principles are abided by and St. Michael’s College is treated with respect and consideration. University-wide students’ unions, long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is SMC’s right, it is their duty, to separate from an all-encompassing students’ union and aggregate its power to the SMCSU. The history of the present University of Toronto Students’ Union is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over St. Michael’s College. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They did deny St. Michael’s College a polling station during the 2009 spring election even after repeated protest and offers to pay for such a polling station by the SMCSU.

They disqualified a rightfully elected candidate without publicly posting notification of that candidate’s demerits as stipulated in Article VI Section J of the Elections Procedural Code of the University of Toronto Students’ Union.

They have resisted requests by a substantial number of University of Toronto students to post their meeting minutes online in a timely fashion.

They have regularly squandered students’ money on divisive and unnecessary political campaigning.

They have embarked on building a superfluous students’ centre in an area too far from SMC, Victoria College and Trinity College to be of convenienence. They decided to continue on this venture with only eight percent of the student population having voted in a referendum on the matter, resulting in only a slim majority who supported this measure.

Current President Sandy Hudson has publicly compared those who oppose abortion to “white supremacists” and has voted work towards denying students and groups with this opinion space on campus.

They have repeatedly disrespected the office of the President of University of Toronto and held protests that lowered the level of civil discourse that one rightfully expects to exist at a university of the University of Toronto’s caliber.

They have held events on the same day or at the same time as those by SMC and the SMCSU with the malicious intention of undermining attendance in the SMC/SMCSU events.

In the Spring Election of 2009, the candidates on the “Access” slate who now make up the executive of the UTSU repeatedly claimed, falsely, that the Government of Ontario was planning to raise tuition by more than twenty percent with the expressed intention of frightening the students of the University of Toronto and causing them to behave irrationally and vote for the aforesaid slate.

They have consistently failed to plan and execute events and services designed to improve the university experience of the students they extract fees from. Instead, they advertise heavily for the failed Drop Fees event that has occurred five years in a row with no accomplishment.

The UTSU has received complaints about these grievances on many occasions but has failed to acknowledge their own failures and continues to act in a manner unrepresentative of students’ interests.

St. Michael’s College exists happily in the federated system of the University of Toronto. We have thrived academically, artistically, socially and spiritually with our brothers and sisters in the other colleges and faculties. Unfortunately, the UTSU has chosen, year after year, to use the resources given freely by students from St. Michael’s College and the rest of the University of Toronto in a divisive and wasteful manner. It is therefore necessary that St. Michael’s College separate itself and the financial resources of its students from the University of Toronto Students’ Union as long as they intend on continuing to operate in the manner they have for the last four years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

All eyes on Michael Ignatieff after byelection results?

2009-11-09T15:55:00.006-05:00

A few days ago the Globe and Mail ran an article with a CPC talking points title (here.) The article posited that the 4 bi-elections being held today were a test of Michael Ignatieff's leadership. This is how the Conservative Party of Canada/Stephen Harper want to frame the byelection results.

Susan Delacourt points out in her blog that history is not on the Liberal Party's side:

"In Cumberland-Colchester-Mosquodoboit Valley, Liberals came in third with 3,344 votes.

In Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, Liberals came in third with 6,835 votes.

In Hochelaga, Liberals were second with 9,442 votes.

In New Westminster-Coquitlam, Liberals placed third with 5,615 votes.

All totalled, that's a little over 25,000 votes. So perhaps that's a benchmark for tonight; though turnout for by-elections is notoriously smaller than it is for general elections."

I am constantly being reminded that, as a Liberal, I have messiah complex/sense of entitlement/believe that we are the "natural governing party." Since 2006 when Stephen Harper became Prime Minister the media/conservatives have spent more time criticizing/scrutinizing the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada than they have holding the Prime Minister accountable for the multi-billion dollar deficit he created, the complete lack of environmental legislation from Stephen Harper's government, the preventable isotope crisis his minister called "sexy," the list goes on, and on.

How can the Globe and the Canadian Media publish articles over and over again that treat Michael Ignatieff as if he is Prime Minister and then act contemptuously when he or any Liberal talks of one day, in the future, muses about that becoming a reality?

The Equivocator's Thoughts on the 4 byelections:

All four of the races are actually going to yield interesting results. I do cede that the Liberals should be preforming better as they are the official opposition but these races should be viewed as local races that do reflect, in a tiny way, what Canadians think of Stephen Harper's government.

Nova Scotia - Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley:
This race is to replace Independent Bill Casey. It will be interesting to see how the many disaffected Conservatives in this riding vote. Most sources are calling this for the Conservatives. If they win I will say: "This was a Conservative riding for a long time, no surprise."
If the NDP win I will say: "This was a referendum of Senator Mike Duffy and he lost."

Quebec - Hochelaga:
The race for 2nd place is between the NDP and the Liberals.

Quebec - Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup
These people vote once every few months. There have been so many elections/bi-elections here over the last five years that voter fatigue is supposed to me high. The lower the voter turnout the some crazy/awesome the results. The grain of salt here is that everyone said the same thing in the Ontartio Provincial bi-election in St. Paul and the Liberals still won.

British Columbia - New Westminister-Coquitlam
Ken Lee, the Liberal candidate is actually the most qualified in this race but of course that doesn't really matter. This was an NDP seat (they took 41.8% in the last election) but the 2008 race was a close NDP versus Conservative competition. The Liberals recieved 11.3% of the vote last time 'round.

University of Toronto political scientist Nelson Wiseman has called the four contests "unrepresentative" of the rest of the country and said Canadians should not read too much into today's results. As an Ivory-tower Toronto-Liberal-Elitist I put a lot of stock in what a U of T professor says.

For better commentary/analysis check out:
Impolitical (here)
Threehundredeight (here)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

A last alliance of Liberals, Dippers and Greens against the Dark Lord Harper?

2009-11-08T18:35:00.002-05:00

An article in the Toronto Star (here) suggested that the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP should agree to a temporary ceasefire for the next election. The specifics of this non-aggression pact envisioned by the Star are:

- In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one.

- No effort would be made to coordinate platforms, though the absence of debilitating head-to-head races between Liberals and New Democrats would direct both parties' attention onto the Conservatives.

- Anyone who uses the word “Coalition” from either party would be immediately killed.

- The only post-election condition in the agreement should be an unqualified public commitment to holding a national referendum on proportional representation within the first year.

- The ceasefire agreement, once struck, could be expanded to include the Green party, which has always sought proportional representation and would benefit substantially from it.

I have written about my opposition to PR (here) and the continuing existence of the Green Party (here) in the past but the idea of some soft of non-Conservative alliance has been tempting.

The NDP are fond of accusing the Liberals of hating them more than we hate Conservatives. Personally, I don't hate members of the CPC, NDP or BQ but I do disagree with many of their positions and many of their tactics.

What I find agreeable about the Star's alliance proposal:

The Liberals and the NDP are too competitive over issues we agree upon. When it comes to the environment, social welfare, immigration, the arts and crime we should really be working together. The division between the Liberal Party/NDP/Bloc on these issues has allowed Stephen Harper to get away with his narrow minded agenda.

The fighting between the Liberal Party and the NDP has also split the vote in many ridings allowing Conservative candidates to win, this is how Prime Minister Harper has been able to stay in government for four years.

The fact that the alliance would end immediately after the election would be helpful as it would calm some of the fears the CPC would try and stir up among Canadians.

What I find disagreeable about the Star alliance proposal:

Proportional representation is not the answer and it is also not Liberal policy. Proportional representation weakens democracy by putting all its emphasis on the political parties, putting unelected party members in parliament (as some are chosen off a "list) and creating huge ridings that are disconnected from the voters.

Basing an alliance on a concession to the NDP would make the Liberal Party look weak.

Many voters would be turned off by what they would see as a subversion of democracy. In my riding Olivia Chow is the MP and if the Liberal Party didn't run a candidate I would consider protest voting.

The Liberal Party needs all the money it can get and not running candidates in ridings means not getting the subsidy.

You can't just expect voters to vote the Liberal/NDP in their riding automatically. Voter turnout could go down (which means another Con victory) or those voters could vote Conservative.

The Equivocator's Solution:

What I would actually like to see is the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party pick 3 issues and sign a "Joint Policy Declaration." This would entail each of these parties negotiating a compromise solution on three or so big issues that we almost agree upon. The parties/leaders have months to hammer out the details. This would let the parties change the debate on 3 issues, it would generate positive free media and make the Liberals/NDP look bipartisan. All of the effects take positive attention away from Stephen Harper while ensuring that the public debate is not in his favour on the issues he is so wrong on while highlighting how the Prime Minister has been a partisan boor for four long years.

The issues I would select would be: crime, the environment and health care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Catholics for Cannabis?

2009-11-08T15:02:00.003-05:00

Mt 5:1-12a

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain,
and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him.
He began to teach them, saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you
and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me.
Rejoice and be glad,
for your reward will be great in heaven.”

Drop UTSU Fees

2009-11-06T13:30:00.004-05:00

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

November 5th was the 5th Annual Drop Fees Day of Action.* Nothing says University-level argument and civil discourse like a mob of people yelling in megaphones at no one in particular. For a critique of the "movement" there is an article from Carleton University's** newspaper (here), from my associate Alex (here), from The Varsity (here) and the Strand (here). Adam Awad, the University of Toronto Students' Union's VP University Affairs, wrote an article for the Varsity (here) where he defends the Drop Fees Campaign. The problem I have with Mr. Awad's article is that he provides no real evidence to counter the claim that 5 years of shouting has been entirely ineffective. The VP University Affairs offers only a fallacious Post hoc ergo propter hoc statement that because Premier Dalton Mcguinty put more money into education after the campaign started it was the DFP (Drop Fees People) who made the government act that way, not the Liberal Platform from the previous election or anything like that. ***

The problem with the premise of the Drop Fees Campaign aside there is also the question of the UTSU's hypocrisy (which I have written about before here.) As a student and liberal I believe that education, especially post-secondary, is important to the economy and should be funded to the fullest. Unfortunately, there is a discrepancy between idealism and reality. The money that funds our excellent University doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you got 100% of your information from the DFP you would conclude that the Government of Ontario has billions of dollars just lying around and they are refusing to put that money into education so they can maintain their gold filled pool. Ontario is in a recession with a multi-billion dollar deficit. They can increase funding to education but that would require the Provincial Government raise taxes. Since many university students get help paying for their education from their parents then what is the point?

ROSI tells me that year after year I pay around $70 a year in fees to the University of Toronto Students' Union. This is not including the money I pay for the dental/health plans I don't use (though it is a good thing that they exist as international students use them.)

Of this $70 dollars a portion goes to the Canadian Federation of Students. Another chunk goes to pay the University of Toronto Students' Union's Executive's exorbitant salaries. They spend another slice of that pie on the Drop Fees Campaign. The tiny sliver left over is split between funding events like the Israeli Apartheid week, a menagerie of other protests and pet causes and the various "services" that the UTSU is supposed to provide. You may argue that the UTSU does provide the TTC Metro Passes but that implies that they distribute them with a large discount and take he loss. In reality the UTSU makes money from the Metro Pass sales.

The UTSU protests high fees while wasting our money. On top of this, a few years back they had a referendum on building a $20 million Students' Centre**** which raised our fees and produced nothing in 2 years. In the referendum 8% of students voted and a fraction of a percentage over 50% of that voted "yes." If you saw the Drop Fees Parade this year (and every year before) you may have noticed fewer people in attendance. The UTSU is becoming like the Republican Party in the United States, smaller in number and more extreme.

When I talk to people about the UTSU they usually ask "What is the UTSU?" Which answers the obvious question: "Are we getting our moneys worth?"

The fundamental problem with the University of Toronto Students' Union is that they are an activist group, not a service-based student union like SMCSU or VUSAC. The article defending the Drop Fees Campaign that I mentioned above was written by Adam Awad. His job on the UTSU is University Affairs. The UTSU VP External is Hadia Akhtar, her job should be lobbying the government. Unfortunately 100% of the executive dedicates 95% of their time to protesting.

Conclusions:

The college system at the University of Toronto is good as each college elects their own student union to provide certain services and having a smaller, more efficient bureaucracy is good. The UTSU should focus on providing certain services really well, uniting the student body and lobbying the Government and University Administration in a rational and intelligent manner. Instead, the UTSU puts all of its efforts into divisive wedge issues, disrespecting the Premier and President Naylor, while ignoring what students actually want.

It should be mentioned that the UTSU has completely ignored the fact that the TTC is going to raise fares. They also have done nothing to lobby the government to legalize Cannabis. Both of these issues affect students to a great degree.

If the UTSU really wanted us to pay less for our education they would:

Drop UTSU Fees!

* Also known as: the CFS' Drop Fees- Fight global warming-End the War in Afghanistan- Free Palestine-End Poverty- Stop Racism- Vote NDP- Reform Copyright-End the Monarchy-Ban the Seal Hunt- Lose Weight With Acai Berries- Extravaganza!
** Carleton is current in the procession of defederating from the Canadian Federation of Students.
*** I would like to personally thank the Drop Fees Protesters for: Electing President Barack Obama. The campaign started before Mr. Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004 so crusaders like UTSU President Sandy Hudson can be seen as responsible for his Senate Election, his Primary victories and his 2008 triumph over John McCain.
**** A second Hart House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Opposition MPs who voted to abolish the Gun Registry

2009-11-05T01:13:00.005-05:00

NDP Malcom Allen (Welland)
Lib Scott Andrews (Avalon)
NDP Charlie Angus (Timmons-James Bay)
IND Andre Arthur (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier)
NDP Niki Ashton (Churchill)
Lib Larry Bagnell (Yukon)
NDP Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic)
NDP Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Lib Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche)
Lib Wayne Easter (Malpeque)
NDP Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt)
NDP Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing)
NDP Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North)
NDP Mark Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona)
Lib Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
NDP John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River)
Lib Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming)
Lib Todd Russel (Labrador)
Lib Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
NDP Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore)
NDP Glen Thibeault (Sudbury)

Keith Martin, Liberal MP who wants to decriminalize pot, I used to think you were cool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Successes of Reaching Higher (A re-post)

2009-11-04T19:08:00.001-05:00

This is a note my friend Alex wrote on the facebook:

Let the numbers talk:

In 2009/10 the McGuinty Government has committed to providing approximately $780 million in capital funding for Ontario colleges and universities. The government is also providing $35 million over three years in capital investment to support the creation of 100 additional medical school spaces.

Let’s look at the Reaching Higher program:
-100,000 more students in colleges and universities by 2007-08, an increase of 25 per cent over 2002-03
-Creating almost 10,000 more graduate spaces by 2007-08 over 2002-03 levels to ensure that students can go on to pursue meaningful higher education and be leaders in the workforce. In February 2009, the government announced funding for an additional 3,300 graduate spaces over the next three years
-160 more spots in Ontario medical schools between 2005 and 2008
-The Northern Ontario School of Medicine is expected to graduate its first class in the spring of 2009
-Operating grants for universities and colleges increased by more than 40 per cent between 2003-04 and 2008-09, supporting the hiring of new faculty, increasing student-faculty interaction and improving student services and libraries.

Access to Education?
-Over 51,000 more students are qualifying for OSAP than in 2004-05, an increase of 30 per cent
-About 168,000 students per year are benefiting from the OSAP enhancements introduced since 2004-05
-Assisting 80,000 students in 2007-08 through Ontario Student Opportunity Grants by limiting student debt to $7,000 per year of completed study
-$55 million by 2009-10 to increase access to postsecondary education for traditionally under-represented groups, including Aboriginal students, students with disabilities and first-generation students, and to increase access to French-language education for francophone students
-Invested $1.4 billion through ReNew Ontario for postsecondary campus renewal and strategic capital projects.

If the McGuinty Liberals are making access to education so difficult, then why are enrolment numbers up? Why are there more people enrolled in post-secondary education? Why are more students qualifying for OSAP? Why are so many students benefiting from grants?

Is this a bad thing? Is it bad that more people are getting educated? Is it bad that our work force is becoming more skilled? Is it bad that the McGuinty Government is helping so many Ontarians?

I guess some people think so.............

Get the facts before the megaphones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Don't drop students to drop fees (A re-post)

2009-11-04T19:03:00.003-05:00

From: The Charlatan. Carleton University's Newspaper.

Nobody enjoys paying tuition fees.

No kidding.

But the Drop Fees campaign, led each year by the Ontario wing of the Canadian Federation of Students, insists that there is an alternative.

With the list of 29 items that campaigners are asking the Ontario government to satisfy, they’ve set out to make university life less financially devastating to students. But looking through the campaign’s list of demands, it’s hard not to ask: “Will you please show your work?”

The campaign fails to explain where money would come from in the event that tuition fees are lowered. The only answer we’ve heard is: “The government should pay it.”

Does this mean that taxes would have to increase? Would wages be cut for staff and faculty?

This point should be the crux of the campaign and the fact that it isn’t certainly raises questions as to what the repercussions of this program’s success may be.

If the burden falls onto taxpayers, then hard-working students’ mommies and daddies could end up paying even more for their children’s education.

And would families living in poverty, the very people the campaign supposedly intends to help, have to pay higher taxes to pay for lower tuition fees, too?

Another hole in the Drop Fees initiative is created by the call to increase the number of faculty per student. This serious issue, which many students relate to with frustration, comes into conflict with the first campaign objective.

Again, where would the funding come from to support the added staff?

In order to recruit faculty in the first place, universities have to make attractive financial or research resource offers.

The unfriendly truth is that faculty costs money and this part of the initiative would only add to the financial strain.

Perhaps the most frustrating repercussion of this entire campaign is that not all students would benefit from it, and some could actually be harmed by it.

Many professional and graduate programs have historically had more flexibility to charge higher tuition fees. With this system in place, policies proposed by Drop Fees might not benefit professional programs like nursing, engineering and medicine, for example.

In addition, the Drop Fees initiative plans to eliminate the Ontario textbook and technology grant available to all students who qualify for loans under the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP). The campaign recommends putting this money, instead, towards an overall drop in tuition fees.

Considering this grant is only $150 per student to begin with, when spread out over all post-secondary students, this is not going to go far.

Under this plan, students in technical and professional programs not only stand to miss out on the lowered fees that form the basis of the campaign, they will also lose this grant. What technical student in his or her right mind would ever want to support this?

Most disturbingly, the Drop Fees campaign is not upfront about these facts.

The campaign does propose to support these programs by making OSAP available to professional, graduate and part time students.

That would be a noble goal, if OSAP hadn’t already done so long ago.

OSAP is already available to these groups, who seem marginalized by the rest of the campaign.

Professional and technical students, along with Ontario’s taxpayers, are the ones who stand to lose based on the list of Drop Fees recommendations.

This whole endeavour could be far more constructive if the campaign presented the government with a solid plan of action that spoke, not just for a few student groups, but for everyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Stephen Harper has spent $1,335,342.37 of your money to keep Omar Khadr out of Canada

2009-10-31T21:53:00.006-04:00

Stephen Harper's Conservative Government has spent over $1 Million of tax-payer money to keep a Canadian who was arrested at the age of 15 in Guantanamo Bay.

The Toronto Star reported on October 28th that pictures from 2002 of Khadr that appear to exonerate him of the charges that he killed an American solider.They were submitted as part of an 18-page submission presented earlier this year by Khadr's former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.

"U.S. Special Forces shot Khadr twice in the back during his capture, and he was brought to the American-operated prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, in critical condition. During the three months before his transfer to Guantanamo, he was interrogated more than 40 times for up to eight hours a day. His chief interrogator, Joshua Claus, was later court-martialled in connection with the death of an Afghan taxi driver at Bagram. Khadr claims that during his questioning he was threatened with dogs, hung by his wrists or put in stress positions, despite his injuries. He also alleges he had a hood placed over his head and then soaked with water until he began to suffocate, and had LED lights shone into his eyes, injured by shrapnel."

Omar Khadr was born in Toronto, he is Canadian. He was arrested when he was 15 years old and tortured. Stephen Harper has spent over $1 Million to bar him from our country. Advocates for Omar Khadr don't want to bring him here in first class and let him go without punishment, we just want him to face justice away from a prison infamous for the inhuman acts that occurred there.

There are currently 2.8 million Canadians living abroad. What message does it send them that Prime Minister Harper is willing to spend $1,335,342.37 fighting against their right to return home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Michael Ignatieff Supports Doubling Arts Funding

2009-10-31T20:22:00.004-04:00

A Liberal government would double the current $180 million parliamentary funding to the Canada Council for the Arts as part of an increased commitment to support culture, says party leader Michael Ignatieff. Mr. Ignatieff has also pledged to provide more stable funding to the CBC (which needs it after purchasing all of those new monitors, especially since Peter Mansbridge's attempt to use the "Home Renovation Tax Credit" to pay for the new set was rejected) and more travel grants to artist.

The Arts are a great example of a public good, they are non-excludable and non-rivalrous, consumption wise. When the government funds the Arts all Canadians can benefit, especially when Canadian artists are given the chance to spread Canadian culture abroad.

For some reasons Conservatives hate funding the Arts. Prime Minister Harper has moved Arts funding into sports, on top of other arts and culture cuts. I do not believe that Arts and Sports should compete against each other in a mercantilist-like system, both should be well funded as they contribute greatly to the whole of Canadian society. Unfortunately, Stephen Harper and his Conservative Government believe that Arts funding shouldn't be a priority. In 2008 Prime Minister Harper said:

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those subsidies have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people."

The Prime Minister has said that it is a minority of "Ivory-tower Liberal" who care about the Arts, not "real Canadian."* It is refreshing to see Michael Ignatieff stand up for good policies that have been Liberal Party mainstays like supporting Canadian culture, progressive environmental policy and a national day care plan.

PM Harper can play as many Beatles songs as he wants but he can't change the fact that you'd have to be a fool on the hill looking through a glass onion to ignore the fact that the Harper government doesn't support the Arts in Canada. Thankfully the Liberal Party and Michael Ignatieff does.

* The Prime Minister seems to be channeling former half-term Governor Sarah Palin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Pope Benedict Makes It Easier For Anglicans To “Swim The Tiber”

2009-10-31T19:02:00.001-04:00

Here is my article from the most recent issue of The Mike:

On October 20th, Pope Benedict XVI made an astonishing announcement that will usher in a new era within the Holy Roman Catholic Church and will have far reaching implications throughout the whole Christian world. During a Vatican briefing, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, announced that Pope Benedict has approved, within the Apostolic Constitution, a canonical structure that provides for Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of distinctive Anglican spiritual patrimony. This decision will also allow Anglicans who want to return to the Catholic Church to do so while retaining the Anglo-Christian traditions such as their liturgical style. The Vatican also made concessions for married Anglican priests to convert and remain married (though bishops still have to be celibate) and, in the future, on a case-by-case basis, married laymen will be considered for ordination. The phrase that the English Press has been using and that the Vatican has been avoiding is “Church within a church.” Returning to the Catholic Church does require that Anglican converts recognize the authority of the Pope and acceptance of Catholic doctrine. There is still a lot of work to be done by the Vatican, as the announcement signals the Holy See’s intention of amending canon law so the details still need to be fleshed out.
Since the announcement is so open-ended, there has been a lot of speculation as to the size and scope of the Apostolic Constitution’s effects. Some have estimated that several thousand priests along with up to 400 000 laypeople will “Swim the Tiber.” However, conversion is very much a two-way street and though there are Anglican conversions to Catholicism every year there are still a percentage of Catholics who leave the Church for the Church of England, especially in Africa and the United States. The idea of a “Church within a Church” is not that the Catholic Church has been reunited with 22-Eastern Rites (members of the Byzantine Orthodox that returned to Rome) for many years.
Thankfully, the television show “The Tudors” has filled us all in on the history of the English Reformation. In the 16th Century, King Henry VIII of England split with the Catholic Church because he wanted to get a divorce from his wife who would not bear him an heir. The Pope, however, would not grant him the divorce. Unlike other Protestant churches, the Anglican Church remained very similar in practice to the RCC in terms of the liturgy and some doctrine. However, modern day Anglicanism is very diverse and ranges from extremely liberal to more conservative with pockets that are very close to Catholicism in all but recognition of the Pope’s authority.
Today, the Anglican Church has 80 million members all over the world, including 2.2 million in the United States. Like the RCC, the Church of England is a big-tent but without the centrality of the Papacy (the C of E is lead by the Archbishop of Canterbury, currently Dr. Rowan Williams, but he is known as “first among equals” and not a supreme authority). Anglicans lack unity. In 2003, a large group of so-called “Conservative/Traditionalist” Anglican Bishops met in Texas to discuss the ordination of a Homosexual Episcopalian (American-Anglican) Bishop. The C of E also ordains women into the priesthood which, along with many other issues, has lead to different factions emerging within the Church of England.
This announcement was only made possible by over 40 years of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Church of England, which was itself enabled by the Second Vatican Council held from 1962- 1965. It has also been revealed by the British Newspaper The Sunday Telegraph that the Vatican has been in secret talks with senior Anglican Bishops since 2006, without the head of the Church of England being aware. Dr. Williams was present on October 20th when the announcement was made but he was not briefed beforehand. The Archbishop of Canterbury stated publicly that he does not believe that Pope Benedict/the Vatican is “fishing” for converts, although he did send an e-mail to his bishops clarifying and apologizing for the fact he was taken by surprise. Other reactions have varied from within the Church of England. While the Rt Rev John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester, has announced he is considering becoming a Roman Catholic, others have said that this will disrupt ecumenical dialogue between the two churches. The Roman Catholic Church’s position on ecumenism is impeachable. It is understandable that one observing from the outside would not be able to reconcile the Holy See’s decision to open its doors to disaffected Anglicans while still engaging the Church of England as an equal.
Every day, millions of Anglicans and Catholics Recite the same words as part of our Creed: “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” Pope Benedict’s announcement is a leap of faith with this utopian vision of a world united in Christ as its goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Invictus: The movie that was designed to win Oscars

2009-10-30T11:23:00.003-04:00

On December 11th 2009 the movie "Invictus" will arrive in threatres. The trailer has won me over but I have notice that this movie hits all of the stereotypical "Oscar-Winning Movie" tropes.* Here is a list:

1. "Invictus"is partially a bio-pic (as Morgan Freeman is playing Nelson Mandela.)

2. Morgan Freeman is starring.

3. Matt Damon is staring.

4. One of the plots is a sports team triumphing over adversity.

5. One of the plots is about triumphing over racism.

6. Clint Eastwood is directing and he was totally robbed on Gran Torino.

7. South African accents.

8. Many of the other roles are played by South African indi-actors.

This movie could only be nominated for more Academy Awards if it included:
- A gay subplot.
- A woman succeeding in an occupation dominated by men where she faces sexism.
- Randy Newman/James Taylor/John Williams did the score.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Endorsement: Jessica Walsh for St. Michael’s College’s UTSU Rep.

2009-10-27T12:56:00.004-04:00

One of the SMC positions on the University of Toronto Student’s Union is vacant and therefore after a whirlwind campaign of two days voting will take place on October 28th and 29th at Alumni Hall and Sid Smith. Whoever wins this bi-election will represent St. Michael’s College on the UTSU but there is a lot more to the position than that. The SMC UTSU Representative must attend UTSU meetings and SMCSU meetings, they are a full member of both councils. The representative must put St. Mike’s first in everything they do. As a member of SMCSU they will help with events, and work towards making St. Mike’s more than just a university. At UTSU meetings the representative must stand up for St. Michael’s College’s interests and work to bridge the disconnect between the University of Toronto Student’s Union and SMC.

If you know me, you know that I love SMC and the University of Toronto and that I follow student politics closely.

As I have been writing for the Mike I was going to stay out of the electoral fray this time around but certain circumstances (the brevity of the campaign period and the esoteric location of the polling stations which will certainly lead to a low voter turnout) have made it necessary for me to endorse a candidate.

Jessica Walsh is one of two fine candidates for the position and on Wednesday, my birthday, I will be voting for her. I met her last year when I was deciding to spend one more year at university while planning an event for my SMCSU Commission and imagining my next year of school, one where I would not be on SMCSU. Jessica is refreshingly approachable and has gone out of her way to make St. Mike's a better place. Meeting her reminded me that no matter what, year after year, there will be fantastic students who step up to the challenge of running events, making SMC more inclusive and keeping St. Michael's College an environment where everyone can come to work, learn and (occasionally) play. Jessica has being doing this without holding an elected office and while commuting to campus every day, which is impressive to me.

Over the summer Ms. Walsh was SMCSU's Speaker. This means she chaired the St. Michael's College Student's Union's meetings for several months. She has contributed to the college in many ways but her experience as speaker is vital as Jessica will be able to hit the ground running without a period of acclimatization to how SMCSU functions.

Jessica Walsh is intelligent and sincere and I know she will do a great job representing St. Mike's on UTSU. Having talked to Ms. Walsh about why she is running, my faith in her abilities was confirmed. SMCSU is very much an apolitical, service-based student's union. Jessica is committed to improving the services the University of Toronto Student's Union offers while ensuring that St. Mike's is not ignored.

I do not seek to take away any SMC student's agency. I do not believe my endorsement will/should decide your vote for you. With only two days to campaign it will be hard for Jessica to meet all of the students she wants to represent. What I want to do by endorsing Jessica Walsh is make students aware of the election on Wednesday/Thursday and encourage everyone to meet Jessica. I respect Jessica Walsh's intelligence and sincerity and believe that if you meet her you will also choose her as your St. Michael's College University of Toronto Student's Union representative.

Vote Jessica Walsh for SMC's UTSU Rep.

Voting Locations: Alumni Hall and Sidney Smith.
Wednesday October 28th and Thursday October 29th

Note: I haven't talked to Jessica about me recommending her as a candidate nor did she ask me to write this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

DIGG The Equivocator!

2009-10-25T12:24:00.002-04:00

If you are a regular reader of this blog (and there has to be at least one, the law of large numbers and all) then please feel free to add me as a friend on Digg.com. My profile is:
http://digg.com/users/theequivocator
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

The NDP Oppose a Free-Trade Agreement with Colombia to the detriment of both nations

2009-10-24T23:26:00.003-04:00

The NDP are proud protectionists. Though Mercantilism has long been out of style no party holds on to failed policies tighter than the NDP.* Recently the NDP (36 nobodies elected by a portion of the population) have been attempting to filibuster a Free-Trade bill with Colombia. The reasons they give are false and foolishly idealistic. They claim that human rights concerns should prevent Canada from trading with Colombia. Though Colombia is far from perfect there are many reasons why the NDP are wrong to oppose this Free-Trade agreement.

Colombia does have problems with Left-wing guerrilla fighters and right wing Para-military troops terrorizing its citizens. It is also a terrible place to be a journalist. Thankfully, President Alvaro Uribe has taken a tough stance against left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries alike. Under his presidency, the murder rate and the incidence of kidnapping have fallen. Colombia was not adversely affected by the recession and it growing slowly and steadily. This resilience stems from continued foreign investment and President Uribe is keen for international mediation to continue mediating the violence in his country. Colombia is a staunch American ally and has not aligned itself with Hugo Chavez, largely because of President Uribe's leadership. Chavez has supported the FARCs in Colombia and has cut off trade with his neighbour and is trying to get other countries in the region to join him. Bilateral trade between Venezuela and Colombia totaled $7.2 billion last year, of which $6 billion consisted of Colombian exports, mainly of food, live animals, clothing and cars.

By signing a Free-Trade agreement with Colombia Canada will help create jobs in both countries. This will lift Colombians out of poverty which leads to better education and less violence. Bilateral agreements strengthen President Uribe which allows him to effectively combat the left/right wing terrorists in his country while Colombia's economy grows which combats the route of violence. The United States Congress has a similar Free-Trade bill in the works. Free-Trade helps strengthen democracy and give the impoverished opportunities.

The NDP's obstruction hurts the Canadian and Colombian economies and strengthens the guerrillas and paramilitary forces there. If the NDP really cared about human rights they would work to ensure the Free-Trade agreement with Colombia was passed, instead they do what the NDP do best: talk, talk talk.

* The CPC and Bloc are tied for second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Stephen Harper Doesn't Watch Canadian News

2009-10-24T21:49:00.004-04:00

Stephen Harper hasn't held a real job. He went from university to lobbyist to party leader to opposition leader to Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister has been in an echo chamber for his whole adult life. It comes as no surprise then that he recently admitted that he doesn't watch Canadian news.

Prime Minister Harper can't take criticism. He doesn't listen to other MPs, the Opposition or the Canadian people. Why are people shocked that Mr. Harper can't take criticism about his horrible mishandling of the economy or the isotope shortage he created coming from his television set? This does however explain why Prime Minister Harper barely does any interviews unless they are on FOX News, he wont watch them later so why bother?

Stephen Harper likes the United States of America, that is why he is emulating all of their 43rd President's policies.

If Michael Ignatieff said the same thing the CPC and the media would be all over it. There would be headlines questioning his patriotism and commitment to Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Ross Rebagliati should come out of the Cannabis Closet

2009-10-24T13:39:00.007-04:00

The fact that Mr. Rebagliati has announced his candidacy in a riding where it has been extremely difficult to recruit candidates with a pulse (see Whitby-Oshawa) is another example of Michael Ignatieff's success in the Liberal leadership. Taking on a cabinet minister is gutsy but Ross Rebagliati's decision is far less Quixotic than Elizabeth May's riding shopping has been. Stockwell Day may be the only Conservative I actually like. Minister Day is arguably the only competent member of Stephen Harper's government. Unfortunately, like Gilles Duceppe, Mr. Day is in the wrong party.

It is a popular assumption that incumbency, especially Cabinet-member incumbency, leads to automatic victory. That is not the case as the riding may vote for a candidate out of habit and if a fresh face runs for an opposing party and the government fails as badly as Stephen Harper's has, is and will continue to, then no one is safe. Mr. Day will also spend a portion of the next election out of the riding campaigning with Stephen Harper which gives the Liberal Olympian additional strength. I stand but my assertion that the LPC can learn a lot from David and Goliath.

Ross Rebagliati won a Gold Medal in Snowboarding in the 1998 Winter Olympics held in Nagano, Japan. Rebagliati had his medal taken away from him when trace amounts of THC were found in his system, then it was given back after his appeal and the Olympic Committee's declaration that marijuana was not a performance-enhancing drug. He maintains to this day that the THC came from second-hand cannabis smoke. When asked about the marijuana issue, Rebagliati said that he wants to get through the nomination process before he wades into any debates. He added: "I don't want to become the 'one issue' guy."

It is perfectly alright for Ross Rebagliati to avoid the issue of Cannabis Legalization until after securing the Liberal nomination but he cannot and should not refrain for discussing marijuana in the very near future. Ross Rebagliati won in the name of this awesome country; he is a hero. He also apparently has no problem with other people smoking cannabis. As a celebrity entering politics he has the perfect platform to advocate for legalization. The Conservative Party of Canada has made it shameful in this country to argue a perfectly reasonable policy position. Ross Rebagliati can make the issue mainstream. This would give the Liberals an advantage on the issue of crime as the Liberal Party's policies are sensible but the debate is dominated by lies and accepted truths.

Ross Rebagliati won a Goal Medal with all the world watching, he's now entering politics and taking on a politician with a record of electoral success in the riding, what does he have to fear?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

The War on Drugs: Like Squeezing A Balloon

2009-10-24T12:05:00.003-04:00

Article references: Dealing a Major Blow to Mexico's Masters of Meth

Meth is one of only a syringeful of drugs I don't think should be legalized. The United States has been moderately successful at combating Meth at home. This week the DEA led a campaign that saw the arrests of more than 300 alleged meth traffickers in the U.S., all allegedly tied to La Familia. Since the war on drugs is based on flawed premises and uses techniques that are counter-factual this progress is superficial. When the USA squeezed the meth producers within its borders Mexico picked up the slack. 'When the U.S. Congress enacted the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act four years ago, it created a lucrative trafficking niche for La Familia.' While some La Familia bosses were arrested in Mexico this week, most if not all those captured in the 15-state roundup in the U.S. were lower-level traffickers and enforcers (just like in Batman when Harvey Dent arrests all of the low-level criminals in Gotham City.)

The illegal drug problem is a transnational issue. The United States' solution has been the same since the Nixon administration and since President Nixon production and consumption of all most every variety of drugs has gone up year after year.

One solution to this problem is legalization of marijuana. You can roll your eyes but the Narcos in Mexico get a lot of their money from marijuana sales. If the United States, Canada and Mexico legalized cannabis all three of our governments would make billions off of sales taxes, the gangs wouldn't lose a majority of their funding, crime in Canada/the US would go down, the police would have extra resources to pursue real criminals and everyone would benefit.

A few weeks ago Mexico decriminalized many different drugs. This is a good first step but international problems need international solutions. Canada/Mexico/the US have been fighting the failed War on Drugs together for years. The problems of coordination and efficiency should be solved by the harmonization of policy between the countries. Unfortunately the very premise that drugs can be "fought" (one built upon the fallacious lies that cannabis is bad and imprisonment deters crime) has been proven false.

This small victory against those who make Meth will squeeze the balloon once again causing a bulge in another part of the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

The Star's Travers compares the CPC's Cheque Scandal(s) to the Quebec sponsorship scandal

2009-10-24T11:36:00.004-04:00

In the article "PM may be wise to force election" the author uses the image of a bomb with two fuses to illustrate how Prime Minister Harper's Government's incompetence and corruption in favouring Conservative held ridings with stimulus money and the PM's lying about his knowledge of torture in Afghanistan prisons will eventually topple the Conservative Government. James Travers' suggests that the Prime Minister should force an election now while the Canadian population is focused on the bad economy the Conservative Government created while the CPC's smoke and mirrors campaign is still distracting Canadians from the man behind the curtain. Implicit in the author's argument is the assumption that the Conservative Party would win a majority government. The fantastic website threehundredeight.blogspot.com sees Stephen Harper's Reform-Conservatives getting elected in 137 ridings, 18 seats less than the 155 needed for a majority and 6 fewer seats than they currently hold.

The author assumes that the next election will be more like the 2004 election than the 2006. In 2004 Paul Martin was fairly successful at ensuring the media's attention was focused on Stephen Harper's lack of policy/hidden agenda along with his own perceived corruption. Harper would want the election to be like this which is why his government works 24/7 to attack Michael Ignatieff.* The 2006 did the opposite of 2004, Canadians were playing attention, because that's what we do during elections, and the media ensured that it was sponsorship, sponsorship, sponsorship, all day all night. Currently not all Canadians are paying attention to political reality (which is why the Conservatives are in a medium-strength holding pattern in the polls.) I contend that an election would expose the fact that Stephen Harper's Conservative government has been a complete failure in every portfolio (environment, finance, energy, crime, transparency, reform, health-care, immigration) and this would quicken Prime Minister Harper's demise.

* 2004 Stephen Harper is not that similar to 2009 Ignatieff. With the release of the "Pink Book" Ignatieff/the Liberal Party has released to the public policy relating to women, the environment, the economy, energy, innovation, and foreign policy. Stephen Harper had no policy during the 2004 campaign, 2006 campaign, 2008 campaign and has governed for 4 years on a day-to-day hyper-partisan basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

St. Michael's College Student Union 2009 By-Election Results:

2009-10-22T13:23:00.003-04:00

Here are the results:

1. James Finlay 276 votes
2. Francesca Turco 254 votes
3. Amir Torabi 228 votes
4. Kavinda Senanayake 187 votes
5. Dylan Duvall ** 168 votes

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Saba Usmani 180 votes
7. Frank Fisico 131 votes
8. Alexander Zappone 106 votes
9. Christopher Sivry 105 votes
10. John Silva 102 votes

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOTING TOTALS:
RESIDENTS: 156
COMMUTERS: 198
UNIDENTIFIED: 94
TOTAL BALLOTS CAST: 448
SPOILED BALLOTS: 0

**Dylan Duvall gets elected as first-year representative as he has the most votes among the first-year students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Adorable Children > Yo-yo Ma

2009-10-21T09:42:00.003-04:00

As there is a West Wing quote for everything: "Let Ignatieff be Ignatieff."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Michael Ignatieff Now Has More Facebook Supporters Than Stephen Harper

2009-10-17T01:28:00.004-04:00

Michael Ignatieff: 28 820

Stephen Harper: 28 807
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may seem trivial (as Michael Ignatieff is only up by 13 supporters) but PM Harper has been owning Michael Ignatieff on facebook* for a long time. Stephen Harper has also been Prime Minister for 4 years and after his performance at an Elitist Art Gala there should logically be a facebook surge.

Recently, Michael Ignatieff engaged the grass roots on Clean-energy (ironically on the same day that the G77 countries walked out on Environment Minister Prentice when he spoke of gutting the new Copenhagen agreement) by posting the Liberal Party's Clean-energy platform on a Facebook note and asking for input. So far there are 79 responses. President Obama (another Harvard Professor turned Politician) had strong grass-roots support especially among young voters. The MSM has ignored speech, after speech, after speech, after speech, after speech, after speech, after speech, after speech (not to mention the plethora of speeches Michael Ignatieff delivered over the summer that got no coverage at all.) Hopefully social-media will allow Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal Party to deliver their message directly to Canadians instead of through the media who have been playing interference for the Stephen Harper/Conservatives for four long, failure filled years.

* Facebook = reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Marc Emery: Canada’s Marijuana Martyr (My article From The October 14th Edition of 'The Mike.')

2009-10-14T18:52:00.004-04:00

Marc Emery: Canada’s Marijuana Martyr

Marc Emery is the model Canadian citizen. He is a small business owner who has openly and transparently paid $580 000 in taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency from 1995-2005. Mr. Emery has contributed to numerous charities over the years and has even started a political party in British Columbia. The Canadian Medical Association has recommended Mr. Emery’s business to people all over Canada and he has sent his publications to every member of Canada’s Parliament. Marc Emery loves his job but it is his job that has got him into trouble. Marc Emery sells marijuana seeds over the internet. Or he did, until he was arrested on July 29, 2005 in Nova Scotia by the USA’s Drug Enforcement Administration officials.

The facts:

In 1985 Canada and the United States signed a treaty with the goal of coordinating American/Canadian crime fighting efforts. Canada also has “The Extradition Act” to governor if/how/why Canadians can be sent to the United States to stand trial. In Canada selling marijuana seeds is technically illegal. However the law hasn’t really been enforced since 1998 when Marc Emery was arrested for this “crime” and punished with a $2000 fine. When a law isn’t enforced for more than 10 years it stops being a law (the legal term is “Dead Letter”) for example Springfield had an old, never-enforced law requiring ducks to wear long pants on The Simpsons. This means that though selling marijuana seeds violates sections 841 and 846 of the United States Criminal code and American’s are regularly arrested under this law, what Marc Emery has been doing for years is no longer a crime in Canada. Emery who was arrested in Nova Scotia shipped a large portion of the seeds he sold over the internet to the United States. Though he has never been to Washington State, Emery plead guilty to the “crime” there in order to ensure two of his associates would have lenient sentences and that he would not face a 50-year prison sentence which the DEA would have sought if he plead not guilty. Emery plead guilty on September 21th, 2009 and now is waiting for the 30 day pre-extradition period to end.

The political motivations behind Marc Emery’s arrest:

Karen Tandy, the DEA administrator at the time of Emery’s arrest issued the following press release at the time of Mr. Emery’s 2005 arrest:

"Today's DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, and the founder of a marijuana legalization group -- is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement. His marijuana trade and propagandist marijuana magazine have generated nearly $5 million a year in profits that bolstered his trafficking efforts, but those have gone up in smoke today. Emery and his organization had been designated as one of the Attorney General's most wanted international drug trafficking organizational targets -- one of only 46 in the world and the only one from Canada. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on."

No one in Canada wanted Mr. Emery to be arrested and 55% of Canadians believe that marijuana should be legalized. It was not that Mr. Emery was breaking United States law that drove the DEA to arrest him but that Marc Emery has spent the vast majority of his seed-selling profits supporting anti-prohibition groups in Canada, the United Sates and around the world. The United States had to use a technicality to arrest Emery with no regard for Canadian sovereignty. The DEA arrested a Canadian citizen for political purposes and our government is doing nothing to stop this.

The Canadian Government can and should step in:

The Extradition Act requires “Dual Criminality” in both countries which, as mentioned, earlier doesn’t apply in Emery’s case, as this law is Dead Letter in Canada. If we decided to say the law is not dead letter it still doesn’t fulfill the dual criminality requirement, as the crime must be punishable by a minimum of two years incarceration, which it is not in Canada. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson could have stopped the extradition process at any time from 2005 to today. The Extradition Act has a huge loophole where the Canadian Justice Minister can refuse to extradite it “would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstance.” The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 9 protects against “arbitrary detainment or imprisonment.” As there are dozens of marijuana seed-sellers across Canada and the people arresting him admitted that it was politics not law that lead to his arrest, Marc Emery’s detainment and imprisonment seems the epitome of arbitrary.

Negative ramifications:

Marijuana is no worse for you than alcohol and the majority of Canadians realize this. The United States of America has decided that cutting off funds from anti-prohibition groups supercedes Canadian sovereignty. Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Government agree with the United States’ regressive drug policies so they have allowed Marc Emery to be sacrificed and Minister Nicholson is refusing to prevent the extradition. This sets a dangerous precedent: that the United States can enforce its laws in Canada without any governmental opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Rory Sutherland: Life lessons from an ad man

2009-10-14T11:11:00.001-04:00

South Africa and Other G77 Nations Walk Out On Jim Prentice

2009-10-13T19:54:00.003-04:00

The Conservative Government is continuing its Bush-era policy of trying to convince the world that Kyoto should be abandoned and that nothing should be done to combat/prevent Climate Change. Delegates from 180 nations met in Bangkok to shape a successor to Kyoto before its first phase expires in just over two years. The United Nations hopes to broker a draft deal in time for a meeting in Copenhagen this December. Jim Prentice came to this meeting representing Canada's government, in Thailand he repeatedly pushed for discarding important provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. After one such statement dozens of countries from the G77, lead by South Africa, walked out on Minister Prentice like he was an Iranian President speaking at the United Nations. With the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, Canada is now the only Western Country actively working to thwart effective International Climate Change Regimes. Canada has lost much of its prestige thanks to Stephen Harper and this walk out is embarrassing for the whole country, not just Prime Minister Harper and Jim Prentice.

The Toronto Star's article on the Walk-out was entitled: "Canada's Kyoto view triggers a walkout." This title is an unfortunate misnomer. Canadians want their government to take action on Climate Change and the Environment but the Conservative Government has done nothing. It is not "Canada's Kyoto view" it is Prime Minister Harper and his regressive Conservative/Reform Government's Anti-Kyoto views that have embarrassed Canada on the World Stage.

Today, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff gave a great address to the Vancouver Board of Trade where he mapped out the Liberal Party's vision of a Canadian Government that actually invests in Clean-Energy and the Environment. The juxtaposition between the Liberals and Stephen Harper on the environment was made quite clear today. Michael Ignatieff is the only Canadian political leader standing up for Canadian jobs while protecting the environment, Stephen Harper has walked out on jobless Canadians and has been out of the room for four years when everyone else was acting on the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

The Ottawa Sun Owns Prime Minister Harper/Justice Minister Rob Nicholson

2009-10-13T15:08:00.002-04:00

Stephen Harper knows that facts have a Liberal bias which is why he/his government has been ignoring them when formulating their crime policies over the last four years. Here is a great article by Greg Weston writing in the Ottawa Sun.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CSI: Parliament Hill

Ordinary folk listening to federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson railing at critics of the latest Conservative ad-ready crime legislation might be excused for thinking the country is being overrun by killers and crooks.

Once again, at the risk of letting facts get in the way of political propaganda, we offer a sample of common misperceptions of crime and punishment in Canada (as reflected in our daily mail), and some interesting statistics supplied by Nicholson's own government.

Claim: Something urgently needs to be done to deal with soaring rates of both violent and property crimes.

Fact: Something always needs to be done to thwart crime, but reality is our streets are safer today than 20 years ago. Violent crime has been generally dropping for years, and was lower in 2007 than at any time in two decades. Ditto for property crimes -- the recent rate is more than 40% below a peak in 1991.

Claim: The criminal population is made up of mainly of murderers, rapists and drug dealers.

Fact: While those groups of criminals are the ones most people naturally worry about, the most common charges of all -- about 24% of the criminal court traffic -- are for breach of court orders and probation conditions. Those are followed by impaired driving (8.9%); common assault (7.9%); and theft (7.5%). Charges for drug trafficking represented about 2.5% of the total last year; sex offences just over 1%; and homicide barely 0.04% of the total.

Claim: The majority of crimes is being committed by blacks, Asians and Muslims.

Fact: The vast majority of the federal prison population -- 67.5% -- is white Caucasian, and 60% are either Catholic or Protestant. Blacks represent about 6%, and Muslims half that number.

Claim: The streets are particularly unsafe for Canada's seniors who are being targeted by violent criminals.

Fact: One crime against a senior is too many. That said, almost 55% of all victims of violent crimes reported in 2007 were under the age of 30, an age group that represents just over a third of the Canadian population. By comparison, seniors over 65 account for about 14% of the population, but represented only 1.9% of all victims of violent crime.

Cesspools

Claim: Ontario and Quebec are the country's cesspools of crime.

Fact: Crime rates are highest in the West and the North. Ontario has the lowest, followed by Quebec. That trend has remained generally unchanged over many years.

Claim: Canada needs to throw more criminals in prison longer.

Fact: The rate of people being locked up in this country is higher than most European countries, and slightly below Australia and New Zealand. The U.S. is in a league of its own -- several times higher than Canada -- although its love of incarceration is not reflected in lower crime rates. It may also be worth mentioning that 11% of the entire federal prison population today were certified mental patients at the time they were tossed in the slammer.

Finally, here's a little something for Canadian taxpayers to chew on.

The average annual cost of keeping a federal inmate behind bars last year was $93,030.

There are currently 13,581 inmates costing more than $1 billion.

Of those, 130 are over the age of 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Wisdom

2009-10-12T12:21:00.000-04:00

Wis 7:7-11

I prayed, and prudence was given me;
I pleaded, and the spirit of wisdom came to me.
I preferred her to scepter and throne,
and deemed riches nothing in comparison with her,
nor did I liken any priceless gem to her;
because all gold, in view of her, is a little sand,
and before her, silver is to be accounted mire.
Beyond health and comeliness I loved her,
and I chose to have her rather than the light,
because the splendor of her never yields to sleep.
Yet all good things together came to me in her company,
and countless riches at her hands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

I LOVE THE ("LIBERAL DOMINATED") SENATE!

2009-10-09T18:11:00.000-04:00

"We have no alternative but to accept the checks; they're part of our system." - Stephen Harper 2006.

Bill C-15 is an abomination. That bill (and the Conservative Party of Canada with Stephen Harper as their leader) fails in its policy objectives while perpetuating a lie to the Canadian people. The premise of the bill is quite flawed. Not only is cannabis less harmful than alcohol but the Conservative Party of Canada have been acting for years as if Canada is in a state of anarchy and that all our "crime problems" could be solved by passing this bill and blaming the Liberal Party. Punishing young Canadians who have a couple of marijuana plants in their house doesn't solve the effects of hard-drugs like meth. Mandatory minimums do not deter, they just tie judges hands. The War on drugs has failed, Stephen Harper's policies help gangs while filling prisons. But I have said all this before (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Canada's Senate can and should pay close attention to the bills Parliament passes. The Senate should have members from every political party (including the NDP, Green Party and the Bloc) but it should also be above politics, working towards ensuring the legislation passed was not hasty, ill-advised or (in the case of C-15) a complete load of crap.

"Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, an expert in drug policy, warned Nicholson that the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee intends to put his bill — a centrepiece of the government's law-and-order agenda — through "rigorous" scrutiny."

Prime Minister Harper has been hyper-aware over the last 4 years that he does not head a majority government. 36.27% of the 13,834,294 Canadians who voted supported his party in 2008. The Prime Minister needs to stop complaining and accept that he does not have absolute power. Even if Stephen Harper did have a majority government the Senate would still have the right to and be obligated to reject or amend C-15. Not even a majority of 100% would make Mr. Harper's crime policy the right one for Canada, or any country for that matter.

Today I am quite thankful for Canada's Senate, that 51 of its 105 seats are held by Liberals and that Stephen Harper does not have a majority.

"I get high with a little help from my friends." - Stephen Harper 2009.

Conservatives Say "No" To Checks and Balances

2009-10-08T15:49:00.004-04:00

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has been publicly complaining that Liberal Senators have "gutted" one of the Conservative Government's stupid/regressive crime bill's in the Senate.

Cathy McLeod, MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, tweeted the following earlier today: "Unacceptable that un elected Liberal senators would gut Bill C-25 (end 2:1 ratio for time served in pre trial custody)."

Blogger "The Raging Tory" has said of the Senate: "This isn't an independent chamber. Its a bunch of appointed dictators.

Conservatives have apparently forgotten than in 2008 their party received 167,494 less votes than in 2006 and Prime Minister Harper has a minority government, not a majority. Stephen Harper has railed against the Senate and Judges when they are just doing their job. It is the Senate's job to review legislation just as the Conservatives have made it their job to pass regressive/unacceptable crime-bills. If the Liberals were in government the Conservatives would kill for a majority in the Senate or for judges to side with them (though, unfortunately for them justice does have a liberal bias.) The Governor General, the Senate and the courts are all checks on the Prime Ministers power (as is the opposition in a minority parliament setting.)

Unfortunately for Conservatives they can't take this message back. Conservative believe that whoever is PM should pass whatever legislation they want saying whatever they want. Remember their speeches, tweets and blogs when the Liberals are back in power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Marc Garneau vs. Stephen Harper's Conservative Government

2009-10-08T13:14:00.005-04:00

Marc Garneau was recently made the Liberal Party of Canada's "Representative" in Quebec. This comes after the 25th anniversary of Mr. Garneau becoming the first Canadian in Space. In honour of this, here is a 5 point comparison of the Westmount-Ville-Marie MP to the PM Harper's Conservative Government:

1. Money:
Stephen Harper/Conservative Gov't: Responsible for a structural deficit of over $50 billion.
Marc Garneau: Has seen Earth from orbit.
Winner: Mr. Garneau.

2. Environment:
Stephen Harper/Conservative Gov't: Has done absolutely nothing to help the environment/reduce CO2 emissions.
Marc Garneau: Has been in zero gravity.
Winner: Mr. Garneau.

3. Foreign policy:
Stephen Harper/Conservative Gov't: Has abandoned Canadians abroad, has no Afghanistan
strategy and skipped an important UN meeting.
Marc Garneau: Knows how to fly a spaceship.
Winner: Mr. Garneau.

4. Crime:
Stephen Harper/Conservative Gov't: Implements regressive policies that benefit gangs.
Marc Garneau: Can converse comfortable with William Shatner and Roberta Bondar.
Winner: Mr. Garneau.

5. Going into space:
Stephen Harper/Conservative Gov't: Nope.
Marc Garneau: You better believe it!
Winner: Mr. Garneau.

Overall Winner: Marc Garneau (5 to 0)

TTAG: Cheese

2009-10-06T22:22:00.004-04:00

Cheese

Cheese has so many forms, textures, smells and flavours that it is absolutely impossible to not like at least one kind of cheese. Cheese can be soft, gooey, pungent, crumbly, hard, subtle in flavour, creamy, it comes in many colours and can contain spices/herbs to give it a totally different flavour. Cheese is global and local at the same time. Rich people like cheese, poor people like cheese and even vegetarians eat it instead of delicious, delicious meat. The protean cheese provides is an excellent byproduct as you can eat cheese only for its taste as it is so scrumptious. What other food can be made from the coagulation of liquid produced by the cows, sheep, goats or buffalo? The cheese can stand completely alone and satisfy but it can also be melted, shredded, baked, sliced and stuffed into other foods to make them better. Cheese is as comforting as mother's love with only thrice the fat.

Cheese is GREAT!

Michael Ignatieff/The Liberals Must Get Smart On Crime Now!

2009-10-06T12:41:00.005-04:00

Note: BCer in Toronto and the National Post respond to the Conservative Party/Stephen Harper's "random Breathalyzer" policy better than the article below.

The Conservative Party of Canada favours regressive Crime policies. This is there thing. Stephen Harper wants to fill our prisons and teach 19 year-olds with one cannabis plant a "lesson.*" The mandatory minimums the Conservative Government supports are good for gangs and tough on civil liberties.

With Prime Minister Harper's past policies in mind his proposal for the police to "randomly" breathalyze Canadian citizens comes as no surprise. Though many NDP voters are against this, Jack Layton's embrace of the idea is also not surprising. Jack Layton picks policies based on what he believes will win votes, though more recently his policies reflect "what will stop the NDP from losing their seats." The CPC and the NDP don't care about the Character of Rights and Freedoms** and they don't have to. Stephen Harper/the Conservative Party have succeeded in framing the crime debate. After years of "tough-on-crime" slogans/lies repeated ad nauseum Canadians now believe what the Conservatives believe:

"Marijuana is a hard-drug."
"Criminals are deterred by harsh sentencing."
"Judges don't punish criminals."
"The War on drugs is a good thing."
"It is o.k. for the police to do whatever they want as it is in the best interest of Canadians."

All of this has non basis in facts/reality yet the Conservative Party of Canada have these beliefs steering their policies and voters take everything the Prime Minister says as a given.

Unfortunately, since 2004, instead of saying:

"The War on drugs is a waste of money."
"Marijuana is actually no worse than alcohol."
"Treatment is more effective in reducing drug-use than jail time."
"Police should not be able to arbitrarily use force."

The Liberals and the NDP went along with the Conservative Parties' lies and let them cement their false beliefs in the minds of Canadians.

What does this have to do with the Random Breathalyzer Tests?

Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party now have a chance to stand up to a bad policy and change the debate. The Liberals should be saying: "The police should be given the resources to enforce the laws that currently exist. Giving the police more power isn't a real solution, it is only posturing. If Canada has a problem with many Canadians drinking and driving you need to attack the source of the problem not just the symptom. The Canadian government should get smart on crime."

Michael Ignatieff showed us that he isn't afraid to give passionate, detailed and intelligent speeches with his economic and "No Confidence" speeches. Canadians are smart enough to listen to reasonable arguments and change their minds on an issue. The MSM has been putting forth the, false, idea that "all Canadian political parties are the same." Michael Ignatieff could change the Canadian crime debate, earn a lot of free press and woo NDP/Conservative/Bloc/Green voters who want the government to be progressive on crime if he gave a strong/coherent speech arguing against this measure. It's not only good politics, standing up for Canadians and their rights is good policy.***

*Presumably a different lesson than the one he wants to teach women, and both of these would be separate from the lesson he wants to teach judges.
** Prime Minister Harper has said that he hated Pierre Trudeau and everything he accomplished. Stephen Harper's contempt for the Charter flows from this.
*** WWTD: What Would Trudeau Do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

On Rudeness: My Article in "The Mike"

2009-10-05T21:49:00.004-04:00

Here is a piece I wrote for "The Mike" (St. Michael's College's Student Newspaper.) I did some editing here:

Serena Williams, Kanye West and Con. Joe Wilson are all synonymous with rudeness. For those of you in a cave on Mars from September 9th to September 13th Mrs. Williams told a lie judge she would shove a ball down his throat (explicative removed) at the US Open Final, Congressmen Wilson yelled “You Lie” at President Obama during his address to the US Congress on Health-Care and I will finish this list but Kanye West may just be the rudest person in the world for upstaging Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards. Three very uncivil incidents involving three famous people with three different occupations (Tennis player, Congressmen and whatever Kanye does) would hardly have been hardly worth noting but the short time lapse between the first and last of these occurrences (4 days) multiplied the public’s interest. People who don’t watch tennis, didn’t watch the VMAs and skipped President Obama’s speech (ex. Me) saw the video clips of all three events thanks to the interweb.

As Canadians it is tempting to say: “Look at those bad-mannered Americans acting like Americans.” Canadian politics is a place where the tactless rise to the top. This year, for the first time in Canadian history, a Canadian political party, the Conservative party of Canada, released an attack ad vilifying a rival Political Leader, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, even though there is no election. Infrastructure Minister John Baird is famous for yelling and being obnoxious during Parliamentary Question Period and this is seen as a good thing (he is often called an “Attack Dog.”)

Even more familiar, to those of us upper years, is the March 2008 “Simcoe Hall Sit In” where a group loudly protested and screamed at members of the U of T Administration with the pretence of protesting a fee increase at New College.

Yes, rudeness is a problem that transcends country, class and level of education. The unfortunate thing is that not enough people believe it is a problem. There any many times and places where acting rude has been deemed acceptable. This can be a good thing as everyone needs to vent some frustration (I empathize with Serena Williams and her tempter.) The trouble is that friendly rivalry at a sporting event, or yelling at a person driving through a red light or frustration at a politicians pliable relationship with the truth has been so compounded upon with the global economic recession that everyone needs to vent all the time and our Western Values that teach individuals/subjectivity have lead to Mrs. Williams receiving a small fine, Mr. West not getting punished at all and Congressmen Wilson has actually raised $1 million from his offensive outburst.

Famous people may lack accountability but rudeness with impunity was really displayed during Frosh Week 2009. Since my frosh week, 4 years ago, St. Mike’s has grown in many ways. That year we were a small college; we were put down by the other Colleges/Faculties with anti-Catholic insults that were as unfunny as they were outdated. In the last four years our college has gained prestige with a Student Union getting stronger each year, the Book and Media Studies is one of the fastest growing programs at U of T, the Concurrent Education Program is new and flashy and more and more students ask to join St. Mike’s. St. Michael’s College has always been awesome but now we have weight to throw around. As a detached observe I saw each colleges frosh week and one thing I noticed was a focus on negative cheers over positive ones. It is very easy to yell obscenities when you are in a large crowd and you belong to a great institution but that doesn’t make it a good thing. Frosh week is the week where rudeness is normalized at U of T. For some reason I really disliked students at other colleges during frosh (four years ago) then I realized I had classes with these people every day and that many of their women were comparable in attractiveness to St. Mike’s girls (also I realized that arbitrary anger is silly.)

Serena Williams, Kanye West and Con. Joe Wilson are all silly. They paid their price in match-up videos, late night tv jokes, references at the Emmys and many other sentences doled out by the Judges of the Court of Public Opinion. The week rudeness (Sept. 9 to 13) established the precedent that public rudeness is not o.k.

Unfortunately, jackass behaviour is still o.k if you are a Canadian politician or a student just about to start classes.

(Note: I realize that I am rude frequently and I acknowledge my hypocrisy. Also I don’t have anyone specific in mind when I consider Frosh.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Platty needs to "Walk the Walk"

2009-10-04T14:26:00.003-04:00

In the comment section of my last post the Conservative blogger "Plattytalk" wrote the following comment:

"Ruins a Beatles song

Thank you for showing us all just how petty the left can be.

You are truly pathetic..."

There were two others comments that called me curse-words but those were left by cowards who prefer to lower this civil discourse under the clock of "anonymous." This comment by Platty is itself quite petty but it is the improper uses of ellipsis that I find more offensive than the spam/comment itself. I took the liberty of reading every single one of Platty's blog posts and found out that Platty is unfortunately a huge hypocrite.

Until recently Mr. P has denounced spam comments, people he considers liars, hypocrisy, and negative comments on his own blog posts. He even has one post attacking those who don't "Practice what they preach." All of these posts, and this one, have a common theme. Platty believes that bloggers should work together to raise the level of civil discourse. It is a shame that he doesn't take his own advice.

Platty wrote a post in 2006 that summarizes how I feel:

Thursday, January 26, 2006
If the blogosphere is going to make a difference in the political landscape, we should look at how it is evolving. It seems to me that the attitude of everyone involved in this political process needs a tune up. Watching the blogs over the last few days the comments, both Tory and Liberal, ranged from angry to some that probably should have been blocked. This open forum is something that is needed and helps to grow ideas and opinions regarding the direction this country should be headed, however, if the comment sections are simply going to be used for " My dad can beat your dad", I can't see much in the way of productive dialogue getting through. I've heard the word progressive a lot in the last two weeks, maybe we should all try and be just that while we are expressing our viewpoints. There will always be the needle and jab when sparring with the opposition and that's great if there's a point at the end of it, if not, it's just chest thumping.

Conclusion:

Don't spam my blog in response to a tongue-and-cheek post about the PM after spending years telling others not too. Doing that would be...truly pathetic.

Stephen Harper Ruins A Beatles Song (Video)

2009-10-04T00:29:00.003-04:00

"I get high with a little help from my friends." - Stephen Harper.

Does this mean the Prime Minister has changed his position on cannabis prohibition?

Michael Ignatieff Rocks the House (of Commons)

2009-10-01T14:33:00.005-04:00

You can find the text of the speech: here.

Some Thoughts on Michael Ignatieff's speech:

- The Conservative party has normalized failure and hypocrisy. Michael Ignatieff is 100% correct when he shines light on the Conservative Party's "Starve the Beast" strategy.

-"This is a serious step and we owe an explanation both to this House and to the Canadian people of our grounds for doing so." It was surprising to me that Mr. Ignatieff was able to list the majority of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's failures in a mere 15 minutes. This speech was very important as the Conservative Government has failed on so many fronts and is not governing Canada properly.

A Partial List of Stephen Harper's Government's Failures:
- The Deficit (denial of, their incompetent job handling and inability to transparently account for.)
- The Government has claimed that 90% of the stimulus money is out the door when in reality barely any projects have been started.
- The money that is being spent on stimulus overwhelmingly famous Conservative ridings.
- The government has spent more on pro-government ads than educating Canadians about the H1N1 Virus.
- The Conservative Government has no plan to combat the H1N1 virus.
- The Conservatives fired the Nuclear watchdog and we now have a Nuclear Isotope shortage.
- Stephen Harper has not defended Canada's excellent health-care system in the United States where it is under attack.
- "The government has been in office for nearly four years and the litany of great Canadian companies that have gone under, been bought and traded away is getting longer and longer: Nortel, Inco, Falconbridge, Stelco, Alcan. There has been no attempt to defend Canadian jobs and Canadian technologies."
- Canada is falling behind in investing in innovation as our Government has done nothing for four years.
- There is a long list of Canadians abandoned abroad (with Mark Emery recently added to this list.)
- The Prime Minister didn't go to the Beijing Olympics, or the UN General Assembly, or to India...
- 4 Years of absence from the Conservative Government on Climate Change.

- "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian!" When Mr. Ignatieff said this I could hear the empathy in his voice. The Liberal Leader has experience the ignorant scorn the Conservative Party of Canada has for Canadian who have lived outside of Canada.

- Sunday September 27th's Gospel Reading:

Mk 9:38-43, 45, 47-48

At that time, John said to Jesus,
"Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,
and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him.
There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.
Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink
because you belong to Christ,
amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,
it would be better for him if a great millstone
were put around his neck
and he were thrown into the sea.
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.
It is better for you to enter into life maimed
than with two hands to go into Gehenna,
into the unquenchable fire.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut if off.
It is better for you to enter into life crippled
than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.
Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye
than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna,
where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' "

- The Canadian Media spent the summer ignoring Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party. If they were paying attention they would have seen that Mr. Ignatieff traveled the country listening to Canadians, giving speeches while the Prime Minister spent the summer in a sound-chamber becoming more partisan, snarling and ignorant. Michael Igantieff has given an economic speech and now this great speech critiquing the government. This is 100000 times more policy that Stephen Harper put forward when he was leading the Conservatives in the 2006 election.

- "The Prime Minister of Canada lives in an eternal present when he cannot remember what he promised to Canadians the day before and cannot remember what he will promise the day after. Income trusts, “I can't remember I ever made that promise”. Appointment of senators, “I can't remember I ever promised to reform the institution”, and no tax increases." Michael Ignatieff is even more handsome when he is angry. There is a lot to be angry about and it is refreshing to see the Opposition Leader logically and righteously critique a Government that has been a complete failure for four years straight.

- We live in an extremely fast-paced and impatient country/world. The reason Mr. Harper's government is so incompetent is that they govern for day to day bereft of any real vision.* The media has bought 100% of what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada has been selling. This has made every Canadian just as impatient and visionless. The Liberal Party needs to put in the work day after day. We cannot expect Canadians to wake up and realize the Government is terrible suddenly one day just as we cannot expect the polls to change rapidly. If you follow how badly the Conservative Party of Canada is failing as a government it is completely natural/sane to demand an election right now. Prime Minister Harper's only success was forcing so many elections that an illusion has been created that it is better to keep him in office then go to the polls. This speech is a great start. The media isn't challenging Stephen Harper's narrative, they are defending it. Therefore it is every Liberal's job to break the taboo that says "The Government is doing fine" or "Don't say anything bad about the government during a crisis." Politics effects all Canadians yet we don't talk about what is going on with our government on a daily basis (unless you're a blogger.)

Stephen Harper's Government has a long list of failures. Mr. Ignatieff has done a great job shining light on this.

* Also the Prime Minister is a petulant child, his cabinet is full of loud/angry people, they have no policies, they hate 70% of Canadians, and the PM never left Canada before becoming PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Stephen Harper Muzzels Gordon Landon; No One Is Surprised

2009-09-29T08:48:00.008-04:00

Stephen Harper is a micromanager. This would be an asset if he was competent and not so malevolent.

A few days back Gordon Landon, the Conservative candidate for Markham-Unionville, committed the most egregious sin a Conservative can make (in the eyes of other Conservatives) he told the truth. The Conservative Party of Canada is very much like the Soviet Politburo, party loyalty and staying on message are the highest of virtues while merit and ability to govern well just get in the way. When Mr. Landon announced what everyone in Canada already knew (that Stephen Harper's Conservative Government is giving stimulus money to Conservative ridings ahead of non-Conservative ones) no on was shocked. These are the people that called the Isotope Crisis they created that led to cancer patience waiting for treatment "sexy", these are the people who ran an attack ad on Michael Ignatieff when there wasn't even an election (a first for Canad), these are the people who denied the recession for the whole 2008 election and didn't have a platform until seven days before voting, of courses they corrupted the budgetary process! When I saw the clip of Gordon Landon confirming this scandalous behaviour I imagined an episode of 24 with the time counting until he was booted from the CPC.

The Conservative Party of Canada is like a hot tub. When you first go in it is surprisingly hot. Then you get used to the burn. Then you have a stroke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

No Apologies Please, They're Christian

2009-09-28T09:39:00.005-04:00

Bigotry is perfectly acceptable in our society, as long as it is directed towards Christians. Certain blogs refer to Catholics as "catlicks" and mock our Pro-Life stance as "fetus fetishism" which may not be offensive to you but Catholics can certainly recognize the specific use of language to undermine/mock/infantilize our religion (we can also recognize jokes that aren't funny.) As a Catholic living in Canada in 2009 though I am in the plurality I do, at times, feel that insulting Catholicism or profaning our beliefs has been somewhat deemed appropriate by the media/intellectual elite.

On last night's episode of Family Guy, Stewie and Brian were traveling to other universes (based on the theory that there are billions of universes with every decision we make creating a new one.) At one point the two travel to a universe that is extremely technologically advanced even though it is still the year 2009. Stewie explains that the world is so advanced because Christianity never existed.

I like edgy jokes and as a University Student I also like ones that are well educated/esoteric. This joke from Family Guy is offensive and not very intelligent. Seth MacFarlane (the shows creator) has always worn his political/personal agenda on his sleeve (in Family Guy's case it would be on Brian's sleeve, except dogs don't wear clothing; I digress) but ignores history in this episode. It was monks who preserved texts during the Early Middle Ages, Universities Started off because of the Catholic Church and many great scientists were religious (Copernicus for example.)

The trouble with Family Guy is not that it has been going down hill since it was un-canceled, that American Dad is a much better show, that South Park's critique of Family Guy was 100% correct or that Madlibs came out with a "Write an Episode of Family Guy" edition that actually makes better written episodes (though all of this is true.) Family Guy is making audiences tolerate/accept hatred of religion.*

Christianity is so huge with such a long and complicated history that the average person pays no attending when people say inappropriate things about it. What Family Guy did was unacceptable. Christianity might not be a very marginalized group but apparently MacFarlane wants to make it so.

* And tolerate/accept bad jokes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->

Chris Alexander Wants To Be Ignored

2009-09-26T19:00:00.004-04:00

Former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan Chris Alexander has returned to Canada and he says he wants to run for the Conservative Party of Canada in the riding of Ajax-Pickering.

Ajax-Pickering is represented by Mark Holland in Federal Parliament. Mr. Holland is an excellent MP and he is the Official Opposition's critic for Public Safety & National Security. Holland is more handsome than Mr. Alexander and 7 years younger (though the Globe still calls him a "Wiz-kid.") Mark Holland describes himself as a technophile on his website and is an avid facebook user (I highly recommend adding Mark Holland on the facebook as he writes great notes and responds quickly to people who write on his wall/postings.)

As a foreign policy junkie I was excited to hear of his return to Canada*/his ambition to become a member of parliament but Chris Alexander's choice of party caused me dismay. Prime Minister Harper didn't leave Canada until after he became Prime Minister (which explains his ignorant provincial mindset in the realm of foreign affairs) and he chose Foreign Ministers that were not competent. Prime Minister Harper micromanages every cabinet position and doesn't listen to any of his MPs.** Mr. Alexander is very intelligent and seems sincere but if he was elected his own achievement would be becoming the Conservative MP that Stephen Harper disregards with the best foreign policy resume.

The Liberal Party of Canada's position on Afghanistan is sensible. Mr. Ignatieff has made it clear that military action, while needed, shouldn't be handled by Canada. We need to focus on helping rebuild Afghanistan's infrastructure and humanitarian aid.

As Stephen Leacock says about his unforgettable character Mr. Smith in "Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town," if elected Chris Alexander wouldn't have to "talk for four years."

* Chris Alexander, just visiting?
** This is completely justified in the case of John Baird though it is impossible not to hear him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Stephen Harper, Masochist

2009-09-24T13:24:00.003-04:00

In his "Secret Speech" Prime Minister Harper declared he wanted to "teach" the other Canadian political parties "a lesson." Today we learn that Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Government want to create an "American-style Prison System" in Canada. The focus of this prison system would be keeping prisoners in jail longer with the belief that this will make Canada a "safer*" place and not just be a breeding ground for recidivism.

Prime Minister Harper has shown Canadians his masochistic side. Stephen Harper doesn't think the Canadian government should protect Canadian jobs. Stephen Harper doesn't think the Canadian government should defend Canadians being held abroad. Stephen Harper doesn't think the Canadian government should preserve the environment. Stephen Harper thinks the Canadian government should be punishing people. Prime Minister Harper wants to punish his opponents, wants to punish criminals harshly and will actively work towards brutally achieve retribution. PM Harper does this through legislation (see Bill C-15), through brinkmanship (see pre-coalition budget) and through inaction (see Omar Khadr.)

* The Harper Conservatives view Canada as a lawless, post apocalyptic wasteland where criminals are arrested then given dune-buggies as a reward for their crime(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

William Kamkwamba: How I harnessed the wind (video)

2009-09-23T10:58:00.001-04:00

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

The Globe and Mail Says Prime Minister Harper is taking a "Tough Approach" in Climate Change talks

2009-09-23T10:14:00.004-04:00

"Conservatives riding high in the polls after Michael Ignatieff’s recent antics, an election on climate change may not look that bad a proposition either. It would allow them to contrast their tough approach to international negotiations with the lamentable performance of the Liberals during the Kyoto process." - A Climate-change election?

The media seems to have certain wires switched in its collective brain. Not many wires, just the ones that make them say the Conservatives are taking a "principled stand" on (whatever issue) instead of saying the Conservative Party of Canada, under Prime Minister Harper, is "doing absolutely nothing on (whatever issue.)

Prime Minister Harper has ignored Kyoto, has invest less in Renewable Energy than Sarah Palin, has denied global warming in the past, skipped a important global environment-related meeting this week and let Canada fall way behind in Nuclear Technology.

No one is surprised when a blogger criticizes the Main-Stream Media. There are many writes and reporters doing a great job. Unfortunately it seems that for every member of the msm doing an unbiased job you have another acting as an apologist for Prime Minister Harper and his incompetent government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

In Defense of Good Television

2009-09-20T23:37:00.003-04:00

Each year the Emmy Awards are given out and each year fewer and fewer people watch the Emmy Awards ceremoni. The National Post quotes an American journalist to answer the question "Why is the Emmy Audience Shrinking?" :

As Chuck Barney wrote in The Seattle Times, the Emmys' ratings plunge can be blamed, in part, on the "major disconnect between Emmy voters and the masses. This year's nomination list is again riddled with TV's equivalent of little art-house films - niche shows that hardly anyone watches. To wit: AMC's Mad Men is a snazzy, handsomely crafted drama, but there are probably some travelling carnivals larger than its audience."

The National Post goes on to attack 'Man Men' and '30 Rock" arguing that shows with larger audiences, like 'Two And A Half Men' should be given Emmys so that more people watch the Emmy Awards on television.

This is a terrible terrible idea. 'Two and a Half Men" might have an audience of 15 million people but those 15 million people are probably the same 15 million who think Sarah Palin would be a good President, that Sun revolves around the Earth, and, if they were Canadian, they would think that Stephen Harper is a good Prime Minister. We ignore these people and their opinions because they are wrong!

The shows that win Emmys earn the awards they win. Mad Men, 30 Rock, Breaking Bad, Damages, The Office, and The Daily Show are all great programs that are entertaining, clever and well written. If their audiences are small that is the viewers fault for not knowing what is good. That sounds like I am joking but I am not. If people want to watch Fox News, or "More to Love" or "CSI" that is fine but the "Best Dramatic Series" award is given to a television show based on quality not quantity.

The Post and Mr. Barney seem to believe that 'popular' and 'good' are engaged in an epic struggle. The reality is that sometimes things of high-quality can be very popular (remember that Shakespeare's plays were works of pop culture in his time, not "high art.")

Am I just being pretentious?
Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that. Democracy works as the foundation of government. When democracy comes to television horrible results occur. It is not fair that during the rest of the year we allow experts to make many choices for us but we don't want to leave the Emmy Awards to the Television experts.

Have you actually seen 'Two And A Half Men?'
This is one of the worst show on television today. Don't believe me? Watch the following videos and see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2O19IRHNoI

http://www.youtube.com/user/CBS#play/search/8/KMtTT9dhguc

http://www.youtube.com/user/CBS#play/search/2/wZMEEj7GgbU

http://www.youtube.com/user/CBS#play/search/10/6KnFDB9yinA

Every second is agonizing, the laugh track button appears to be stuck and I'm fairly certain Charlie Sheen actually writes each episode.

Conclusions:
Winning an award helps reinforce the good behaviour of high-quality television shows and lets average people know what to watch. I started watching Breaking Bad at the end of the first season because I heard it was going to clean up come awards season. The Emmys can also ensure that a great show, like Pushing Daisies which the National Post derides, doesn't get canceled by a network that cares more about making money than producing high caliber programs. The Emmy Awards are going to great shows, if Grey's Anatomy has such a huge audience does it really need the awards?

Television Shows I watch:
Grey's Anatomy, The Daily Show, Merlin, Breaking Bad, The West Wing, Futurama, The Simpsons, American Dad, Numb3rs, Fringe, 30 Rock, The Office, Mad Men, Bored to Death, The Amazing Race, Beauty and the Geek, Kenny vs. Spenny, Flight of the Conchords, Firefly, Eureka, Damages, Boston Legal, Corner Gas, Glee, Dexter, Arrested Development, How I Met Your Mother, Big Bang Theory, The Conan O'Brien Show, Project Runway, The Sopranos, The Philanthropist, The IT Crowd, The Mentalist, Kings, Nurse Jackie, Pushing Daisies, Chuck, Better Off Ted, Bones, House, Parks and Recreation, Scrubs, Star Trek: TOS - Voyager, Battlestar Galactica, The West Wing, Frisky Dingo, LOST, Ally Mcbeal, The Ellen Degeneres Show, Top Chef, America's Next Top Model, The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, Survivor, Royal Pains, Robot Chicken, Castle, Being Erica, and The Rick Mercer Report to name a few.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Bicycle Safety Is Not A One Way Street

2009-09-20T21:40:00.003-04:00

I moved into a new place in Toronto a few weeks ago. The van we used to move my belonging wasn't too large but was bigger than your average car. After dropping stuff off my father and I drove to Etobicoke to get my bed/dresser from a relative. During our drive around Toronto I remember about 6 times where bicyclists who were ignoring traffic rules almost nicked our vehicle or one of the vehicles near us. I remember this number with specificity because on 680 news that day it was reported that there are 3 accidents involving bicyclists/motor vehicles a day in Toronto.

Last Thursday I passed the intersection of Baldwin/Beverley Street 4 times and I counted 27 different times where at this intersection bicyclists didn't obey the stop sign, made improper turns, didn't signal and went from the road to the sidewalk and back again. I happened to be counting that day but I see this happen every day all over Toronto.

Bicycle safety has been in the news a lot lately and the majority of the time people discussing the subject say that people driving cars/other vehicles need to pay more attention. I disagree with this view, partially. It is self-evident that those driving motor vehicles need to be careful but they should be doing so 100% of the time. You don't need a license to drive a bicycle and many bicyclists don't obey the same rules that cars do even though they share the same road.

It is great that so many people are riding their bikes instead of driving cars. I firmly believe that Toronto would be a more pleasant place if the city/province invested heavily in a bike sharing system and discouraged driving down-town. But for this to happen everyone needs to learn and follow the rules of the road/ the police need to start handing out more tickets to bicyclists who break the rules (as they do at Baldwin/Beverley.)

The onus is not on just bicyclists or just motorists to ensure that the people using Toronto's roads are safe, that responsibility is shared by everyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Rahim Jaffer and the Conservatives' Normalization of Hypocrisy

2009-09-20T11:13:00.007-04:00

Rahin Jaffer was not high on Cannabis on Sept. 11.

The Conservative Party of Canada's Drug and Crime policies are extremely regressive. In the 2008 election Mr. Jaffer ran an attack ad against the NDP with a drug theme:

"Jack Layton and the Ottawa NDP have publicly supported the legalization of marijuana. In fact when asked about marijuana Jack Layton called it a wonderful substance which Canadians should be free to smoke at home or in a cafe. Edmontonians understand how difficult it is to make sure our children make the right choices especially on serious issues like drug use. The Conservative Party supports drug free schools and getting tough with drug dealers who sell illegal drugs to children. Don't let our schools go up in smoke..on October 14th vote Conservative. Authorized by the official agent for Rahim Jaffer."

On September 11, 2009 Rahim Jaffer, former Edmonton MP and husband of a Conservative cabinet minister, was arrested then charged with impaired driving, possession of cocaine and speeding, before being released. Mr. Jaffer maintains that he is innocent and awaits trial.

Mr. Jaffer's hypocrisy comes as no surprise. The Conservatives are tough on crime, he was mouth-breathingly anti-drug in the last election. To be fair Mr. Jaffer was anti-cannabis not anti-cocaine so he isn't 100% a hypocrite. The common outline seems to be: State a position. Angrily attack the other parties for differing on that position. Do the opposite of what you have spent days/months/years telling others to do. Ignore the irony.

A few examples from the Conservative Party:

1. Campaign saying Stephane Dion will be bad for the economy/spend years as President of the National Citizens Coalition. Ignore the recession that is affecting the world. Cut taxes and mismanage the economy to the tune of a multi-billion dollar deficit. Ignore the irony and keep the failed finance minister in place. Create a budget with infrastructure spending when the Liberals force you. Repeat by attacking new Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

2. Claim that the Senate is corrupt and needs reform for 15 years. Attack Liberals for appointing Senators. Fill Senate with hacks/cronies. Claim you need to destroy the Senate to reform it.

3. Attack the Liberals/NDP/Bloc coalition as Unconstitutional even though it is very Constitutional. Run attack ads against the Liberals even after Michael Ignatieff has repeatedly told everyone who would listen he wouldn't form a coalition and still after he mentions that he could have agreed to a coalition already. Form a coalition with the "socialists and separatists" to avoid an election.

4. Demote nuclear energy watchdog for telling you to temporary close Chalk River to prevent long-term closing/massive world isotope crisis. Appoint incompetent minister to energy portfolio. Keep minister in her position even after she is revealed to be only driven by ambition and calls the crisis "sexy." Ignore irony.

Conclusions:

Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada have effectively normalized hypocrisy. Canadians do not find it odd when any member of the CPC does the exact opposite of what they have been criticizing others for doing for years. Canada has a government that is separated from reality and has no conception of accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Jack Layton: The Singing Prophet

2009-09-18T15:06:00.002-04:00

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Sue-Ann Levy = Sarah Palin

2009-09-16T11:30:00.001-04:00

Sue-Ann Levy is Jewish and a Lesbian. Some in the MSM are acting that this is all voters care about.

The Toronto Star has said:
The Tories see Levy, a staunch fiscal conservative and fierce critic of Mayor David Miller's stewardship, as "a dream candidate."
Jewish and gay – she came out on the Sun's front page to mark Pride Week in 2007 – Levy lives in the riding, which boasts a thriving Jewish community, with her new wife, Denise Alexander. She has an MBA from the University of Toronto.

The Globe and Mail has said:
In a political era where identity is scrutinized as closely as policy, Ms. Levy is everything the provincial Conservatives could dream of. For a party beset by a frumpy, rural image, she is the rarest of candidates: gay, Jewish, fiercely conservative and a resident of downtown Toronto, all in a feisty, combative package.

and in another column reiterated:
Councillor Case Ootes, (Ward 29, Toronto-Danforth), who is a city hall veteran, said that as a fiscally conservative, gay, Jewish woman, Ms. Levy will make a "very interesting" and "good" candidate.

All of this reminds me of the John McCain ad in the 2008 election that had a woman claiming to be a Clinton Voter now switching to vote for McCain/Palin. A huge overtone in the ad and in Senator McCain's bizarre pick of the first term governor was "She is a women, therefore women will vote for her." This is a very sexist assumption and also a stupid one.

The same philosophy seems to be behind the constant mentioning of Mrs. Levy's sexual orientation and religion. There is a different assumption behind Levy's candidacy that no one would accuse Gov. Palin being, that she is a moderate. Women didn't flock to McCain/Palin because they found out that both of them supported policies that would be detrimental to women (and they saw her tv news interview.) Sue-Anne Levy is very much a "Sarah Palin" in this respect. Mrs. Levy is running for a party that seeks to destroy the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, the very instrument Jews, women and gays would use to get justices if they are discriminated against. Tim Hudak, PCO Leader, believes, like McCain did, that voters will support his candidate because of her sex, religion and sexual orientation which is insulting to the people of St. Pauls and Ontario. Being a hapless pawn is not Mrs Levy's similarity to Sarah Palin. Just read her articles and you see how Mrs. Levy sees the world as "real Torontonians" versus the "elitists" in City Hall/Queen's Park. Like Palin, Levy is a gun-nut who hates the environment. As the PCO has no policy Levy has acted like Mrs. Palin and started making things up about her opponent in hopes that she can scare people into supporting her.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada may have nominated a candidate who is the polar opposite to how they are viewed (a group of tired old white guys) but this doesn't mean that they have earned the "Progressive" in their party name. Sue-Ann Levy is a demagogue picked to trick voters into ignoring the issues because Tim Hudak believes voters only care about their own gender, or religion, or sexual orientation and not the issues. Sue-Ann Levy is Sarah Palin, lets hope she quits journalism after losing this election.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Kelly McParland writes an article for the National Post so ignorant it may collapse in on itself like a dying star

2009-09-15T22:44:00.000-04:00

"The new, insufferable Ignatieff. Arrogance personified" is the catchy name of Mr. McParland's article.* This is one of the most repugnant things I have read over the past few weeks.*** There are so many misinterpretations and lies that the whole article warrants a point by point refutation:

1. "The essence of the flyer sent out under Fry’s name is that Canadians can no longer be proud of their country, because it is run by Conservatives. That message was reinforced again and again by a sneering, dismissive Ignatieff." If you read Michael Ignatieff's speech (in full below) you will find out that this is a filthy lie: "What we did in the world wasn’t about one party or one policy. Under both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, Canada led proudly on the world’s stage." Mr. Ignatieff later went on television and repeated his points about Mulroney/Diefenbaker doing a good job and that it is the current government failing so badly.

2. "“After the last four years, it’s hard to remember how much Canada once mattered,” Ignatieff claimed nonsensically, writing off the risks, sacrifices and achievements of Canada’s troops in Afghanistan as nothing. Canadians may care deeply about the men and women who have sacrificed their lives there -- they line the highway in honour every time another body comes home -- but to Ignatieff and his Liberals this is nothing to be proud of, not enough to make us “matter”." What Mr. Ignatieff is referencing is the fact that Canada has been absent on many issues (climate change, human rights, etc) and this only started under Prime Minister Harper's government. In the video previously mentioned Mr. Ignatieff takes time to honour those who have fallen fighting in Afghanistan.

3. "So the Conservatives’ principled stand against China based on its human rights abuses is dismissed as a cheap grab for votes. From who, the huge Canadian Taiwanese community? Ignatieff is far more upset that we’re not angling for more trade with Beijing, as the Chretien government did so vociferously, because human rights can always be ignored when money’s on the line. Harper’s strong line on the Middle East -- which Mr. Ignatieff happens to share, though he neglected to mention it -- is forgotten. Far better to pander to fashionable assaults on Israel by leftwing cranks who think the only democracy in the Middle East is the equivalent of apartheid." Prime Minister Harper and Canada's Conservative government ignored China for four years and the PM himself insulted the Chinese greatly by not attending the Beijing Olympics. This was NOT a principled stand. The Prime Minister did not give any big speeches calling for human rights in China, the PM did not visit China and demand human rights be on the agenda, there was no boycott of Chinese products or any effort made by the current government to change China's ways. This so-called "principled stand" was not visible to Canadians and most certainly wasn't noticed by the Chinese. The secret principled stand was apparently amazingly effective as our government is now engaging China, I haven't checked in the last week but I guess they declared human rights for all. The "Hard line on the middle east" that the Conservatives are apparently taken is a position that no one (even people who consider themselves "Pro-Israel" like myself) as it boils down to supporting Israel and ignoring any of their foreign policy wrong doings. The Liberal Party was the first party to speak out on Iran's stolen election, I guess the Conservatives and Prime Minister Harper were making another low-key principled stand.

4.“They note our silence in international councils and ask: Where is Canada?” -- a notion that might come as a surprise to President Barack Obama Wednesday when he sits down for his latest face-to-face discussion with the Prime Minister. What Mr. Ignatieff means is that in a year when Canada runs for a seat on the UN Security council we will have a hard time getting votes as the Harper Government has abandoned Africa. It is great that the PM is meeting with President Obama but it was Prime Minister Harper's office who leaked information during the primaries in an attempt to defeat then candidate Obama and the Pm/President could not be farther on the issues of the Environment and foreign policy so the talk wont yield anything.

5. "In what can only be classified as a direct accusation of racism, he asserted that Conservatives only care about white Canadians, charging that “if their name is Souad Mohammed, our government abandons them.” Ottawa may have mishandled the case of Suaad Hagi Mohamud -- Mr. Ignatieff’s deep concern apparently doesn’t entail spelling her name properly -- but deliberately mistaking bureaucratic bungling for deliberate government bigotry is beneath contempt." Under Prime Minister Harper the Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry has repeatedly ignored Canadians who were being held abroad. Many of these Canadians are minorities. These are the facts. What is repugnant is that a pattern has formed and that the Canadian passport seems to no longer protect Canadians traveling outside of the country.
6. Mr. Ignatieff declared that under Liberal plans for a “Big Canada” (because Canada under any other party is small, weak and unimportant) we would stay in Afghanistan beyond 2011, a position that ignores the fact the Liberals had to be dragged kicking and screaming into endorsing the Conservatives’ desire to keep them there even that long. The part about parties I have already covered. What Mr. McParland ignores is that is what a Liberal Government that took leadership on the NATO mission in Afghanistan. If Mr. Harper was in power at that time Canada would have invaded Iraq and ignored its NATO obligations has he was so provincial as to never travel abroad and had no foreign policy experience coming into office.

7. “Our Canada will champion an agenda of international governance reform ... and to ensure a truly inclusive global forum, we would offer to host and fund a permanent G-20 secretariat in Canada.” Oh boy, a new building full of civil servants in Ottawa. Now THAT will make us important. Thanks to LIBERAL foreign minister Paul Martin, Canada has a seat at the table in the G8 with the biggest economies in the world. The author glibly dismissed the G-20 here with no concept of history.

8. So after Liberals spent eight years mocking, lampooning and insulting the U.S., when Liberal MPs stomped on replicas of the President and paraded around self-righteously denouncing a war in which American troops were giving their lives, after all that Mr. Ignatieff will now sail in and “renew our relationship.” Well gee, I bet they can hardly wait. The author apparently fails to realize that the Liberal party has in fact been out of power for four years and that it is possible for a party to change. It is not surprising he has this view that a party can't change as apparently he is a Conservative supporter and that party is still the Reform-Alliance Party. The Liberal Party was right to have a strained relationship with the United States under George W. Bush. President Bush abused Canada through NATFA (as shown by our trade deficit) and was a major obstacle to any global environmental/human rights treaties. There is a different government in the USA now and a different philosophy in the Liberal Party.

Conclusion:

Kelly McParland is so ridiculous in this article that he verges on satire. His whole piece has the underlying argument that it is unpatriotic to criticize Canadian foreign policy/question Canadian exceptionalism. McParland's article reads like the poorly argued PMO talking points spewed forth every day by Minister Cannon as they are lacking facts and are intellectually offensive. The National Post has managed to slither under the low bar they set for themselves with this article.

If one closely examines Canada in before the 2006 election and Canada today they will see two very different countries. This extends to the economy, the environment, national unity, the technology industry, the political environment and Canada on the world stage. In many respects Canada is worse off and that is as a direct result of Prime Minister Harper's incompetent government. Canada is no longer thought of as a peace-keeper as the Conservative Government has failed in their promise to improve our army and has failed in its UN obligations. Canada has now abandoned Africa at at time when there are many African countries worth investing in. Prime Minister Harper has broken with Prime Minister Mulroney in many ways and has done so greatly in terms of free-trade and human rights. PM Mulroney spoke out against Apartheid South Africa and forged NATFA, PM Harper ignored China which could have given Canada a great trade opportunity and given Canada a voice in China on human rights. It is now harder for citizens of one of our best allies/regional neighbours, Mexico, to enter Canada because of Prime Minister Harper's far-right wing ideology.

The Conservative Party of Canada and Prime Minister Harper are extremely partisan and hateful of other parties and ideas. This political xenophobia has extended to the foreign policy realm and has permeated their supporters (especially Kelly McParland.) Mr. Ignatieff is right, if Mr. McParland actually took off his blinders and read Mr. Ignatieff's speech maybe he would learn something and write an article that isn't a knee-jerk partisan reaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Club of Ottawa: Canada's place in a changing world

I’m here today to talk to you about Canada’s place in the world—how we’ve lost it and how we can get it back.

The world is changing, and Canada has to change with it. Our identity as a people will be defined by the place we find in the world that is taking shape on the other side of this global recession.

Canada was born inside two Empires, the French, the British, and we have matured beside the most powerful nation in history, the United States.

What happens to our identity, our place in the world, when the centre of gravity shifts to Asia? When India and China become the powerhouses of the global economy?

We should have nothing to fear from the rise of these new powers. A new world creates new opportunities for Canada. Opportunities to trade, to learn, and to create the global architecture of security for this emerging new world. But only if we have leadership that seizes these opportunities.

Ce que nous faisons à l’étranger contribue à nous définir. C’est le reflet de notre personnalité. C’est le reflet de ce que nous pouvons apporter au monde pour qu’il soit meilleur. C’est le prolongement de ce que nous sommes comme peuple.

By and large, Canadian politicians scarcely utter a word about Canada in the world on the hustings. It doesn’t seem important. It is.

After the last four years, it’s hard to remember how much Canada once mattered.

Nous avons aidé à créer les grandes institutions qui sont l’architecture du monde d’aujourd’hui. La Banque mondiale, le Fonds monétaire international. Le GATT, maintenant l’Organisation mondiale du commerce. L’OTAN.

Multilateralism was the Canadian mantra. In 1956, Lester Pearson found a way out of the Suez Crisis and made peacekeeping our vocation. When he won the Nobel Peace Prize the next year, the Nobel committee said “he’d saved the world.” We cheered.

In the post-war era, we became the world’s leading peacekeepers. Up to 1988, there was not a single mission that we didn’t join. At the same time, we went to war in Korea, the Persian Gulf and Kosovo. We went to war when we had to. We kept the peace when we could. Blue helmets became an emblem of our identity.

En 1950, nous étions là pour le Plan de Colombo qui a mis en place le premier programme d’aide international. C’était Pearson qui avait proposé que les pays les plus riches du monde s’engagent à verser point-sept pour cent de leur richesse à l’aide internationale. En 1975, nous avions fait la moitié du chemin. Et à Kananaskis en 2002, nous avons pris un nouvel engagement envers l’Afrique.

An engaged, muscular internationalism was not the exception for Canada; it was the rule. It was us.

What we did in the world wasn’t about one party or one policy. Under both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, Canada led proudly on the world’s stage.

Pierre Trudeau a ouvert ses bras à la Chine. Jean Chrétien a fait la promotion de l’Afrique. Paul Martin s’est fait défenseur du G-20. John Diefenbaker a accru l’aide internationale et Brian Mulroney s’est fermement opposé à l’apartheid en Afrique du Sud. Par le passé, il y avait un consensus entre les partis sur le rôle du Canada dans le monde.

Malheureusement, mes amis, ce consensus s’est envolé. Pour le gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper la scène internationale n’existe que pour scorer des points sur la scène domestique. Et notre crédibilité sur la scène internationale s’affaiblit en conséquence.

The Conservatives are giving up Canada’s place in the world.

We have a prime minister who thinks so little of foreign affairs that he changes foreign ministers the way he changes shirts. We’ve had four in just three-and-a-half years. They come and go with the seasons.

Our friends abroad see this revolving door. They note our silence in international councils and ask: Where is Canada?

Under Stephen Harper, we are no longer the world’s leading peacekeeper; we aren’t even in the top thirty. We are no longer among the world’s ten leading donors. Worse, the Conservatives have abandoned Africa,.

Quand nos services étrangers ne sont pas ignorés ou insultés, ils sont muselés. Nos budgets à l’international ont été coupés. Nous nous sommes même retirés de la diplomatie culturelle en laissant tomber la promotion de nos artistes, de nos acteurs, de nos auteurs à l’étranger. C’est notre âme que nous abandonnons.

Stephen Harper has so diminished our stature that we are struggling to win a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations—the seat we’ve held every decade since the founding of the UN.

Nous ne défendons même plus les droits des Canadiens à l’étranger. Ce sont nos concitoyens. Mais si elle s’appelle Souad Mohammed, notre gouvernement l’abandonne. Ce que moi je dis, Mesdames, Messieurs, c’est qu’un Canadien est un Canadien est un Canadien.

We were once the world’s great mediators. Now, in the Middle East, in Africa and in Sri Lanka, we have ceded our place to others.

Sous la gouverne des conservateurs, le Canada a renié sa signature au bas du protocole de Kyoto. Et qui peut dire jusqu’où nous descendrons si ce sont les Conservateurs qui nous représentent à la prochaine conférence sur les changements climatiques en décembre à Copenhague?

Under this government, Canada is becoming the country that dares not speak its name.

We still have the world’s finest diplomats. Louis Guay and Bob Fowler remind us just how tough and courageous our best can be.

We still have the world’s bravest soldiers, one hundred and thirty of whom have died in Afghanistan.

Aujourd’hui, nous rendons hommage au soldat Patrick Lormand, mort lors d’une mission hier, à Kandahar.

We still feed the hungry and treat the sick around the world.

Our diplomats, soldiers, aid workers—still distinguish themselves and our country every day, in every corner of the world.

They deserve a government that does the same.

Nothing seems to matter to this government—not the ascent of China and India, not the rights of our accused compatriots, not a seat in the United Nations, not the threat of global warming. Anything goes.

This is tragic. More than ever, Canada must see itself as a nation of the world, at home in the world. The world must live in Canada and Canada must live in the world.

To reach our potential our government must catch up to what Canada has already become: one of the most international societies on earth.

Nearly twenty percent of our people were born in another country. Nearly two million of us work and live abroad at any given time. We speak all the languages of the world.

Instead of lamenting these facts, instead of insinuating that someone who has lived overseas is somehow less of a Canadian, we should celebrate all our citizens. We should be more international, not less. More open to the world, not less. More adventurous, not less.

We need a government that catches up with the Canadian people’s own internationalism and inspires it to further heights.

This means asking more of our government and ourselves, not less. Raising expectations of our performance overseas, not lowering them.

Let me set out the elements of a Liberal strategy for a big Canada, an ambitious Canada, a Canada that leads by example.

Our Canada will champion an agenda of international governance reform. Our priority, as the host of the G-8 summit next year in Huntsville, will be to expand the G-8 to include the countries of the G-20.

And to ensure a truly inclusive global forum, we would offer to host and fund a permanent G-20 secretariat in Canada.

Our Canada will lead the world in rethinking financial regulatory reform. Our banking system, born of Canadian prudence, is the envy of the world. Our central banker, Mark Carney, is an exemplary public servant. We can take the lead here.

Our Canada will renew our relationship with the US. At a time when Europe is tearing down its borders, North America is raising fences between friends. The number of visitors to Canada from the United States has fallen to its lowest level in a generation. The impact on cross border trade will hurt the United States as much as it hurts us.

Our Canada will engage with the Americans in strengthening not weakening the North American economic space.

Notre Canada assumera un rôle en Afghanistan après 2011. Un rôle différent. Ça veut dire un engagement humanitaire pour aider à construire ce pays et consolider les progrès durement accomplis.

Our allies have appointed high-level envoys to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Stephen Harper has refused. We need to be fully part of the effort to restore stability. Our troops have done us proud. Now we must commit our full diplomatic muscle to the same ends.

Notre Canada renversera la décision de ce gouvernement qui a renoncé à demander la clémence pour des Canadiens condamnés à mort à l’étranger. Si nous n’imposons pas la peine capitale chez nous, pourquoi devrions-nous accepter que pareille sentence pèse sur des Canadiens à l’étranger?

Our Canada will assert our sovereignty over the Arctic, not only by bolstering our air and naval presence, but also by investing in Northerners—their communities, their economic development, their health and education.

We must re-engage with the Arctic Council and foster closer ties with all of the Arctic peoples. Military defense of sovereignty is not enough. We must partner with our Arctic neighbours to guarantee progress for our Arctic peoples, a concerted response to climate change and orderly development of northern resources.

Our Canada will take our place as a Pacific power. We will engage with China and India, where Stephen Harper has turned a cold shoulder. We will harness the strength of our own diversity to strengthen our ties. And a Liberal government will bring back the Team Canada Trade Missions—which were so successful under Prime Ministers Chrétien and Martin.

Our Canada will make ending poverty a top priority, which means returning our focus to Africa, which the Conservatives have deserted.

Notre Canada, nous le voyons comme un représentant de la bonne gouvernance dans le monde, capable de montrer le chemin de la paix, capable d’enseigner le fédéralisme et la bonne entente entre les nations, capable de proposer des codes de conduite et de superviser des élections libres. À ces fins, nous établirons un Secrétariat de la paix, de l’ordre et de la bonne gouvernance.

The responsibility to protect was, in part, a Canadian idea—and central to that vision is prevention. With our record in peace, order and good government, Canada can resume its leadership in conflict prevention.

These are only some of the things we will do to return Canada’s voice in the world.

It isn’t Canadians who are the problem. Canadians are out there. The problem is this government.

Le gouvernement conservateur a perdu la foi. Il ne croit plus à l’action internationale.

Mais les Canadiens, eux, sont présents dans le monde. Ils voyagent et étudient à l’étranger en nombre record. Ils s’inscrivent dans des programmes internationaux ici et à l’étranger comme jamais. Ils sont nombreux à fonder ou à militer dans des organisations non gouvernementales. Ce monde, c’est celui des Canadiens, mais ce n’est pas celui de leur gouvernement.

Our lobstermen in Prince Edward Island want to sell their catch in Macau. Our forestry workers, farmers, and entrepreneurs want us to be conquering new markets in Asia. They are quicker and smarter than their government.

It is time that government caught up with them. It is time for the world to be at the centre of our national conversation, not the margins. It is time that we embraced a view of the world worthy of the country we love, the country I remember from my father’s time, the country we can yet be again.

We can do better – and we will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Article is impressive when you think that Mr. McParland was able to write it while his lips were engaged in a lamprey-like embrace with Prime Minister Harper's behind.**
** Even more impressive when you think that he also has to jostle for space on the PM's behind with the whole editorial board of Macleans.
*** And I read some of Glen Beck's "An Inconvenient Book."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Gerard Kennedy Lays the Smack Down

2009-09-15T22:07:00.001-04:00

Sue-Ann Levy is a big part of the problem

2009-09-13T22:32:00.006-04:00

Sue-Ann Levy is an ignorant fascist with dinosaur-brain and a heart smaller than the Grinch's.

Ad Hominem attacks are very easy to make and can be effective as they rely on emotion instead of logic, reason or facts. The statement in bold above may seem ludicrous but it is in no way different than statements that Mrs. Levy has made in her articles in the Toronto Sun calling Mayor Miller a Communist or the disrespect she has shown her opponent and Premier McGuinty during the St. Paul's By-Election. When Sue-Ann Levy wrote for the Toronto Sun she used personal attacks in almost all of her articles. The Ryerson Review of Journalism said a survey of city councillors found that Mrs. Levy was rated lowest among the 18 city hall reporters for accuracy, fairness and knowledge. As a journalist Sue-Ann Levy repeatedly worked to lower the level of discourse in Toronto Politics by putting ideology before the facts and tearing people down for disagreeing with her instead of trying to find common ground.

Many commentators have said that Sue-Ann Levy is the perfect candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario as she can "appeal to moderate voters.*" I agree that Sue-Ann Levy is the perfect PCO candidate but not because I believe she is moderate (in fact I know she is not.) Mrs. Levy is the perfect candidate for her party because Tim Hudak has no ideas/policies. While this would be a hindrance to any other candidate Sue-Ann Levy wouldn't be able to run in the by-election with policies, facts and principals getting in her way.

Mrs. Levy hasn't changed since she became a candidate in the St. Paul's By-election. With no platform to run on she has brought the same bag of childish insults, false premises, logical fallacies and bald-faced lies she dug into so frequently as a "journalist" into the St. Paul by-election. Mrs. Levy's introduction video offers no vision of what she would seek to accomplish if she were elected to parliament, it is filled with attacks only the Premier, not her opponent in the riding whom she avoids like a coward. The "Vote Levy" policy section is 21 sentences long. Mrs. Levy's blog has a scant number of posts and again features misreading/false attacks on the Premier and Liberal opponent.

Why does any of this matter?

As a journalist Sue-Ann Levy did a disservice to Toronto by making politics about cheap insults and ignoring the facts. However, she wrote for the Toronto Sun and was therefore only an annoyance with little real power. Now Mrs. Levy wants to be a member of parliament. As an MP she would bring her abrasive, angry and ill-informed debate style into question period and the law-writing process. As a member of parliament Mrs. Levy would negatively affect the civility and intelligence of the policy debate for the whole province. Politics in Canada has been drawn in by the laziness of the television media who favour cheap sound-bite politics over substantive discussion and a newspaper industry who ignore issues they believe their readers will find to complicated.

Sue-Ann Levy is Toronto's very own Glen Beck. It is extremely important for Canadian democracy that she is allowed to write as many cliche filled/truth bereft articles as she wants. A free-press is vital to democracy. But it is extremely important for Canadian democracy that voters elect candidates who seek to put forth and intelligently defend ideas that will better the country not candidates who have no ideas and focus on attacking their opponents character with infantile cliches and deceptive fabrications.

Sue-Ann Levy has repugnant views on many issues but it is the way she makes debate divisive and simpleminded that makes her a threat to democracy.

* Moderate apparently being defined as: anti-environment voters, voters who don't like homeless people and Jewish Torontonians who vote based solely on their religion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Faith Without Good Works Is Meaningless

2009-09-13T20:08:00.000-04:00

What good is it, my brothers and sisters,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear
and has no food for the day,
and one of you says to them,
“Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, ”
but you do not give them the necessities of the body,
what good is it?
So also faith of itself,
if it does not have works, is dead.

Indeed someone might say,
“You have faith and I have works.”
Demonstrate your faith to me without works,
and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

- Jas 2:14-18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Minister Van Loan says that an election would stop Prime Minister Harper's Regressive Crime Bills

2009-09-09T14:26:00.003-04:00

Gooooood. The Prime Minister's so called 'Tough on Crime' policies waste money, seek to fill Canada's prisons and protect no one.

The Faint Hope clause "is a statutory provision that allows Canadian prisoners who have been sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole for a period greater than 15 years, to apply for early parole after he or she has served 15 years. The section was added after Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and replaced it with mandatory life sentences for first and second degree murder. This particular provision was added in order to encourage convicted murderers in Canada to rehabilitate themselves and to reflect the fact that other countries allow convicted murderers to be paroled after on average 15 years of incarceration." There is a whole process that prisoners have to go through with plenty of checks and oversight. The FHC helps our prison system to actually rehabilitate prisoners (the ones who try really hard as they should have to) instead of just keeping criminals locked up forever on the Canadian taxpayer's dime and emulating the United States of America's Prison Industrial Complex. The way Prime Minister Harper and his government talk about Faint Hope would lead anyone without proper information to think of Canada's penal system features prisons with a revolving door and only one guard. The Faint Hope Clause works, criminals who would actually harm other Canadians/society don't get released.

Mandatory Minimums are stupid. It is dangerous to throw the word 'stupid' around as it will most likely be overused and coarsen public debate but there is no better word for the Conservative Government's policy of pushing mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums don't deter crime. They ensure that a University student with one cannabis plants gets 6 months in jail and their life ruined for a plant that is less harmless than alcohol and tobacco. It costs a lot more in police force that could be spent fighting real crime (murder for example) and adds to the prison population which costs even more in taxes. MM's are opposed by judges and lawyers as mitigating factors are an important part of Canada's legal system, the government should never tie judges' hands. In the United States most mandatory minimum's target minorities and have created a prison system with high rates of recidivism.

There are many reasons why Canada needs an election as soon as possible to remove the incompetent Conservative Government and Prime Minister Harper from power: the recession that the PM denied, the deficit his inaction/his government's bunging created after years of Liberal surplus, the fact that the Canadian passport is now meaningless as our government has put Canadian's and their sovereignty aside, the lost opportunity from 4 years of Prime Minister Harper and his government ignoring China, the environment that my generation is going to inherit (along with that deficit.) Prime Minister Harper/Minister Van Loan's posturing on crime and policies that are ineffective, wasteful and regressive is enough of a reason to go to the polls by itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election threatens crime bills: Van Loan

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan warned Wednesday that a federal election would jeopardize efforts by the Conservative government to get tough on crime.

Mr. Van Loan said if the Liberals force an “unnecessary vote” it will kill several bills currently on the order paper.

“What is of concern with an election looming is the number of pieces of legislation that we have on the tackling crime front that would be at risk,” he told a news conference shortly after announcing almost $2-million in crime prevention spending.

Mr. Van Loan cited several examples including legislation to increase sentences for major drug crimes and tighten the rules for parole.

One of them is a Tory bill that would change the so-called faint hope clause, which currently gives some people convicted of serious crimes a chance at early parole.

“That would die on the order paper,” he said.

Mr. Van Loan denied that the Halifax crime prevention announcement was in any way campaign-like, adding that the government has been outlining similar program spending across the country over the past year.

“There's nothing new in this, it's just that the opposition has traditionally come from the other parties to have tougher laws.”

The Public Safety Minister Loan said providing resources to help young people make better choices may keep them out of gangs.

The money is being given to the Mi'kmaq Legal Support Network, the Chebucto Communities Development Association and the Atlantic Co-ordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety.

The announcement was welcomed by Halifax deputy police chief Chris MacNeil, whose department has been dealing with several recent shooting incidents, the result of an ongoing gang war.

“In many ways we've lost this generation. What these programs do is prevent the next generation from stepping in to take their place,” he said.

“As a police officer I can take back any corner from drug dealing and violence. The question is ‘How do we keep it that way?' “ He said the only way to do it is with preventive programs such as those announced by the minister.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

The Liberal Party of Canada: Making Infrastructure Sexy ;)

2009-09-01T21:30:00.008-04:00

I L-O-V-E trains even more than I love nuclear power (that is almost enough enthusiasm for me to collapse into myself like a dying star.) High-speed rail is fantastic for many reasons: infrastructure projects create jobs, they are good for the environment, they can effeciently/quickly move people and goods, Mounties get to save damsels from being crushed by them, they can make Canada less geographically massive/desperate and they remind Canadians of our romantic past while showcasing our fantastic scenery. If Canada invests in high-speed rail technology now a strong foundation for future technology will be created. Europe has already embraced the awesomeness of "Bullet Trains" which has helped unite each separate EU country and the whole European Union culturally, economically and politically.

Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada have shown great leadership in promoting investment in infrastructure and new technologies. Prime Minister Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty were still denying that Canada was in a recession and refusing to provide any stimulus even after the Coalition and Prorogation. It was Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party that forced the government to pass a budget that included a stimulus package (with a focus on infrastructure spending.) The Liberal Party has now come out strongly in favour of Canada investing in high-speed rail.

Hopefully High-Speed Rail Investment will be an issue in the next election. Conservatives H-A-T-E high-speed rail.* During the next election they will say that super-fast trains cost too much money and will use the words "taxes" over and over (while ignoring how much they have spent since the 2008 election. Liberals need to fight the ignorance and shortsightedness of the Conservative Party of Canada with truth and vision.

The Liberal Party with Michael Ignatieff as leader is the only party that can unite Canada, create jobs and bring Canada into the future, just like High-Speed rail. Canada needs High-Speed Rail. Canada needs Michael Ignatieff.

Riding the rails to government?

For all the feasibility studies, expressions of openness from politicians and enthusiastic editorials over the past couple of decades, there has seemed something fanciful about the notion of bringing high-speed rail to Canada. Only the federal government has the resources to make such an investment, and the idea – despite some support at the provincial level – has never truly registered in Ottawa.

That may be about to change. Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Leader, has previously expressed enthusiasm for high-speed trains. With his party struggling to differentiate itself from the governing Conservatives, there is speculation that promises to build those links – between Calgary and Edmonton, along the Windsor-Montreal corridor, or both – could be part of the Liberals' next platform.

There would be something convenient about a party that has widely been accused of lacking vision seizing on so symbolic and romantic a project – one that harkens back to the foundations on which the country was built. But Mr. Ignatieff, who has yet to coherently explain in practical terms how his economic management would differ from Stephen Harper's, would be unwise to view high-speed rail as a quick fix for the Liberals' inability to generate excitement. While it might deliver them some ridings in Ontario and Quebec (Alberta is a different matter), it would likely be greeted with indifference in some other parts of the country.

As part of a broader economic vision, however, high-speed rail has much to recommend it. In the short-term, it would create jobs. But unlike many other infrastructure projects announced during the recent bonanza of stimulus spending, its long-term benefits would be greater. To be able to travel by train between Toronto and Montreal in little more than two hours would improve productivity, encourage tourism, and reduce emissions by getting people out of their cars. In Alberta, which bizarrely lacks any passenger service at all between its two largest cities, the impact could be even greater.

What remains to be seen, even if the Liberals commit to high-speed rail, is whether they are prepared to scale back infrastructure spending elsewhere. There is a danger that, in order to appease voters outside the pockets that would directly benefit from the new links, they would continue the scattershot spending – much of it on make-work projects – that flowed from last winter's stimulus package. (A recent tally suggested that the Conservatives have made nearly 1,600 funding announcements since their re-election last October.)

If that is the case, the many billions of dollars required for high-speed rail would be unaffordable. But if the Liberals demonstrate a readiness to make difficult decisions in order to advance a priority, they may finally begin showing some of that vision they have seemed to lack.

*One more point in High-speed Rail's favour.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They should bring back the Rhino Party

2009-09-01T20:57:00.003-04:00

Politics is People!

2009-08-29T20:02:00.012-04:00

Recently an article in the Ottawa Citizen entitle Ignatieff's big problem suggested that is the Liberal Leader wants to become Prime Minister he needs a "savage response team" which the author described as "twitchy, obsessive partisans with no personal lives, no particular need for sleep and a pathological loathing of Conservatives.*"

I am 100% behind this idea. The Liberal Party needs to start hitting back against the Conservative/Prime Minister Harper Hate Machine. On a daily basis I feel like Robert Thorn yelling "Don't you see? Prime Minister Harper is incompetent! Tell them, the Conservative government is incompetent!" which I am hauled away on a stretcher. To list a few items where the PM that 5,208,796 thrust upon the rest of us has shown himself to be a huge hypocrite: Senate reform, Infrastructure spending, Canadians held abroad, the Environment, the list goes on.
Every time the Harper government breaks a promise, sacrifices average Canadians for partisan gain or acts in the opposite of Canadian interests, Dimitri Soudas comes on television and says "Aw shucks" and no one in the media cares.

Many germs thrive and grow in the darkness. The best way to kill those germs is to simply aim the sunlight at them. The Liberals do a solid job and aiming a beam or two on their website but it is time to throw open the curtains.

* Me. The author is describing me in great detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

A Catholic Critique of Sue-Ann Levy

2009-08-28T22:05:00.005-04:00

Very recently in an editorial on the website Catholic Insight a Priest, who lives in the riding of St. Paul, said he would not be voting for Sue-Ann Levy in the upcoming by-election. The reason he cited for his aversion to Mrs. Levy was not her terrible prose style, or her clichéd use of the phrase "pissing tax money away as if it is water" in many of her articles. The priest who commented on the Catholic Insight website is not going to vote for Sue-Ann Levy because she is a lesbian. I have a problem with this for a couple of reasons. The first is that Jesus spent time hanging out with the people society looked down upon. "Jesus made himself a friend of men, even of the tax collectors and the worst of sinners. He set a new precedent among the Jews by accepting and associating with the tax collectors. He ate with them (Mark 2:16), He offered salvation to them (Luke 19:9), and He even chose a tax collector (Matthew) as one of His twelve disciples (Matt 9:9)." Nowadays it is not only the tax collectors*/prostitutes who are at the margins of society. That group has grown and includes homosexuals; there are still many countries where people are put to death for being gay (some of these are countries where converting to Christianity is also punishable by death.) If God decided to send his son to earth today (I can't write 'alive' as Jesus is alive as he resurrected from the dead) he would be hanging out with gay people as well as Revenue Canada employees and celebrity heiresses. Another reason I disagree with Fr. Alphonse de Valk is that I draw from Christ's teaching that God created everyone in his image and loves everyone he created that one's sexual orientation in no way impairs God's love. I am a practicing Catholic and I don't care about a person's race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion when I vote for them. Besides, there are plenty of reasons to not vote for Sun-Ann Levy if you are a devout Catholic. Here are a few:

Sue-Ann Levy is Against Gun Control:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:38-42.

Mrs. Levy is opposed to banning guns in Toronto and also believes that "Crime Prevention" programs are a bad idea. Catholics are very much opposed to guns and violence. Sue-Ann Levy doesn't support programs that would get rid of guns and lead to less violence. The crime prevention programs she detests help young Canadians turn away from crime and start on a righteous path.

Sue-Ann Levy Hates The Environment:

"Today the subject of development is also closely related to the duties arising from our relationship to the natural environment. The environment is God's gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole...Nature expresses a design of love and truth. It is prior to us, and it has been given to us by God as the setting for our life. Nature speaks to us of the Creator (cf. Rom 1:20) and his love for humanity. It is destined to be “recapitulated” in Christ at the end of time (cf. Eph 1:9-10; Col 1:19-20). Thus it too is a “vocation”[115]. Nature is at our disposal not as “a heap of scattered refuse”[116], but as a gift of the Creator who has given it an inbuilt order, enabling man to draw from it the principles needed in order “to till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15)." - "Caritas in veritate" - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI.

Mrs. Levy has written many articles about why she is against government plans to protect the environment. Sue-Ann Levy is against Greening the Ex, the Green Bin project, Greeining City Hall, Recyclable Coffee Cups, Charging 5 cents for Plastic Bags, funds to assist people in buying Green roofs, Bicycle Lanes, Protecting Trees, and Promoting walking instead of driving down-town. Mrs. Levy dismisses any attempt to act with an environmental conscience. God made the earth and we are to be shepherds of the planet.

Sue-Ann Levy Wants The Government To Stop Helping The Homeless:

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." - Luke 6:20.

Mrs. Levy is against building affordable housing for the homeless. As I mentioned before she believes that money shouldn't be spent on crime prevention programs (many of them help homeless teens.) Levy hates beggars and believes they should be arrested. The Progressive Conservative candidate thinks that counting the number of homeless people in Toronto is a waste and also opposes using social workers to help them. The Church teaches that we must help the poor and fight for social justice.

The 8th Commandment, King David, and Those Who Are Separated:
The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has no platform so Mrs. Sue-Ann Levy is campaigning with no real promises. On her blog she refers to the HST as "Dalton's Sales Tax." Here Mrs. Levy is Bearing a lot of False Witness. Her blog post implies that Dalton McGuinty thought of/implemented the HST on his own which is a lie. Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Government are the ones who created the HST.** During this by-election campaign Sue-Ann Levy has acted like a Pharisee as she has made up policies/attacks on the government of Ontario just as the High Priests in Israel made up lies about Jesus and spread them when he was not around. She has repeatedly attacked the Premier and is running again him instead of the Liberal candidate running against her in St. Paul. This is very cowardly and is a dishonourable way to campaign. Even though David was outmatched by the more powerful Goliath he faced him head on knowing he has God, truth and righteousness on his side. The Catholic Church has a great intellectual tradition and appreciates rational arguments and philosophy. Mrs. Levy is running with no platform, she is giving misleading quotes/speeches and is not offering positive solutions, only negativity.

Conclusions:

Jesus and Holy Scripture teach us to love our neighbour as our self, to abhor violence and live a life dedicated to the truth while protecting the planet that God created for us. Just as reading Jesus' words gives us insight into God's great truths we can read Mrs. Levy's articles to determine her philosophy. Sue-Ann Levy is extremely individualistic and cares not for the community or the environment, and she seeks to punish the poor and would halt any activity that stops crime at its root.

As a Catholic my political opinions are very much informed by the morality of the Church. I vote for a candidate who is prudent, compassionate, intelligent and has integrity. Mrs. Levy, unfortunately, does not possess a single one of these qualities.

* Though Mrs. Levy looks down upon tax collectors.
**Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty is the one who convinced Ontario's government to go ahead with the HST. He is married to Christine Elliott who is pictured above. If they are campaigning in St. Paul together maybe Mrs Elliott could explain this to Mrs. Levy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Senate Appointments, Harpocrisy, and Awesomeness

2009-08-27T20:46:00.009-04:00

It should not surprise anyone that Prime Minister Harper is breaking his own promise, again, and appointing more of his cronies to the Senate. Two articles that expression my outrage can be found at:BCer in Toronto and The Tory Tattler. There is a lot of speculation on which party hack will receive the Prime Minister's Patronage. CTV provides the list I find most reliable:

Doug Finley, Harper's election campaign chair, appointed as an Ontario senator.
Don Plett, president of the Conservative Party of Canada and National Councillor, representing Manitoba
Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, who recently stepped down from her post as Harper's director of strategic communications, has been rewarded for her more than seven years of service. (New Brunswick).
Dennis Patterson, former Northwest Territories premier (Nunavut).
Claude Carignan, a lawyer and mayor of Saint-Eustache (Quebec).
Linda Frum Sokolowski, a Canadian journalist and bestselling author (Ontario).
Kelvin Ogilvie, scientist and past president of Acadia University (Nova Scotia).
Judith Seidman, health expert and long-time community service worker (Quebec).

It has been pointed out, by everyone who isn't a Conservative, that Prime Minister Harper is acting hypocritically in appointing these Senators as he said repeatedly and emphatically in the past he would not. PM Harper broke a promise he made a long time ago and has repeated many times since. This is in a different league that his "No deficit" promise, his "Fixed election law" promise or even the Prime Minister's "Income Trust Taxing" promise. It is different because all the Prime Minister had to do to keep his promise was not appoint Senators (or appoint so called "elected" Senators.) Prime Minister Harper's promise to not appoint Senators could not possibly have been easier for him to keep.

How can the Conservatives ask for a majority government if their list of screw ups includes billion dollar deficits and nuclear isotope shortages and they can even keep a promise that literally involves not-acting?

Conservative Bloggers Write About The Appointments:

"Christian Conservative" posted this before the appointments were leaked:
The irony gap is this post is large.* "Despite all the Liberals attempts to thwart Senate reform" is a combination of two rhetorical strategies Conservatives and their supporters have been using more and more often lately. I have noticed Conservatives using the "Blame previous Liberal government even though that was 3.5 years ago" tactic and the "Make the Liberals the boogyman with no concern or the truth" tactic are becoming commonplace in speeches, blogs and articles from the Prime Minister to Blogging Tories. This blogger has decided to accuse the Liberals of doing something that is patently false. This post is so awesomely ironic/oblivious.

You Know I'm Right posted the following:

A few fair question for Liberal critics of the Senate Appointments

1. What have you done for the cause of Senate Reform??

2. If it's wrong for the PM to appoint to like of Doug Finley, was it wrong for Liberal PM's to appoint the likes of Dennis Dawson, Keith Davey, David Smith, Jim Munson, & Jerry Grafstein??

3. If you're so appalled by these appointments, will you call on your party to support Senate reform now??

If you haven't answered yes to all of these questions then shut up. What Harper has done is:

A) No different than what your guys have done in the past

B) As a result of maainly your party's efforts to stymie any effort at reforming the Red Chamber.

So don't attack him Liberals, attack yourselves. You made him do this.

I'm a big fan of this blogger's use of "Fair" in the correct Fox News way. The largest problem with this series of questions is that: even if the answer is yes (the first few questions require long answers but the Liberal party has hardly had the chance to reform the Senate as they haven't been in the government but I digress) that doesn't answer the question: "Is what the Prime Minister doing hypocritical?" The strategy of this post (and the Conservative strategy in general) appears to be "Look over there!" or "The other guys did it too!" The previous Liberal government under Prime Minister Paul Martin actually appointed Senators from ever party you have to go back to Chretien for the old-school, patronage Senate appointments that the current Prime Minister has done/will do in bulk. This argument is also problematic: Not only did the last Conservative appoint hacks to the Senate like it was going out of style (which it did under Paul Martin and has been revived by Prime Minister Harper) but just because the other party did something doesn't make it agreeable when you do it. When he was campaigning in 2004, 2006 and 2008 Stephen Harper was more self-righteous than an NDP blogger. Candidate Harper attacked Prime Minister Martin/Chretien and the Liberal Party as corrupt for doing exactly what he is doing now.

Conclusions:

Prime Minister Harper is acting like a huge hypocrite and has broken almost all of the Promises he made before becoming Prime Minister. There is no justification for the Prime Minister appointing Conservative party hacks to the Senate. The Prime Minister promised one thing before being elected and has done the exact opposite. The Conservative Party of Canada has been in government for 3 and a 1/2 years. It is time for them to grow up and stop blaming the government before them. If they haven't done something it doesn't matter if the gov't before them didn't act or acted the same way.

The Conservatives criticized the Liberals for doing things that they are now doing, this is Harpocrisy, plain and simple.**

*By Conservative Standards it is actually quite small.
** See what I did there. I combined Prime Minister Harper's name with the word hypocrisy. I may be the first person to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Random Pop Culture Ruminations For August 27

2009-08-27T14:26:00.004-04:00

Megan Fox is in not nearly as attractive as Men's Magazines would have us believe. She is truly terrible in the Transformers movies and her new movie also looks awful.

Enough with the Vampires! The Twilight series has successfully indoctrinated a whole generation of teenage girls to be obsessed with vampires and also to be sorely misinformed about them. Vampires aren't sparkly, and the whole vampire mythos should have religious allusions but the "new vampires" are bereft of any depth. There should be a moratorium on all things vampire for 10 years so the whole genre can become cool again.

District 9 and Star Trek were two of this years biggest movies. Both were accepted by a main stream audience. This means that nerds like myself are no longer relegated to the Fringe of society. We are all nerds!

Anne Hathaway is a great actress. Her past performances have been excellent and she has an impressive movie resume. She is going to be the Tim Burton "Alice In Wonderland" movie and will in a production of Twelfth Night in Central Park. She also has a great smile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

The Joint of 'Decriminalization' is being passed around Latin America

2009-08-25T20:06:00.007-04:00

Mexico: Decriminalized small amounts of a wide variety of drugs (including heroin and marijuana) on August 21st.

Argentina: Today, their supreme court in ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish people for using marijuana for personal consumption. President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has repeatedly called for decriminalization of marijuana in Argentina.

Brazil/Ecuador: According to the Cato Institute and the Buenos Aires Herald have reported that the governments of Brazil and Ecuador are moving towards decriminalization.

The United States: President Obama has decided to continue fighting the "War on Drugs."

The Latin American Initiative on Drugs and Democracy has been pushing for progressive drug reform in Latin America. With the United States being obstinate and regressive in their drug policy (the American public are paradoxically against drug reform so it doesn't really matter who is President) it is up to every other country in the Western hemisphere to behave rationally and legalize marijuana and decriminalize all other drugs.

Mexico and Argentina have taken a big step forward but unfortunately decriminalization is a haphazard solution. Marijuana is only illegal because for some reason, even though it is less dangerous as cigarettes and the same as alcohol, society has decided to prohibit it. Decriminalization says that it is bad but you wont be punished for using it. Countries that decriminalize marijuana should be lauded as the politicians responsible for doing so are extremely brave. Sometimes the government has to act and society has to catch up (see civil rights or health care in USA.) Decriminalization is a big first step as cannabis has been misunderstood for years and many Canadians believe the myths about cannabis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

TTAG: Stephen Harper's Flight Suit Photo Op

2009-08-24T22:12:00.023-04:00

Stephen Harper's Flight Suit Photo Op

"Stephen Harper awakes one morning in 24 Sussex Drive to find himself inexplicably transformed overnight into George W. Bush." - Franz Kafka

A few days ago Prime Minister Harper visited Canada's arctic. He was transported to HMCS Toronto by helicopter. When the PM got out of the helicopter he was wearing a sexy orange flight suit and manly helmet. The first thing that comes to mind when one sees a picture of the Prime Minister in all his glory is when former President George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on a battleship while, you guessed it, wearing a flight suit. Like President Bush's announcement, the Prime Minister's is also an expensive show piece with little substance. Nunavut's Newspaper called this "The most expensive photo op you'll ever see." Some of Nunavut's citizens were complaining that the Prime Minister is focusing entirely on the military in the arctic and ignoring the people who live there (and the many challenges they face.

The "Flight Suit Photo Op" is funny for many reasons. It is cheesy, our current Prime Minister Harper is a nerd so it is a fish-out-of-water situation and it is another in the "PM Harper dresses up" series. Canada has had many awkward Prime Ministers but this event may be the most awkward thing any PM has done in the history of our great country. The "Flight Suit Photo Op" is funny on many different levels and it is very public. The nature of the event itself (a choreographed scene that the Prime Minister wanted every Canadian to see) amplifies the funniness by being a shared ever for all Canadians.

Though this arctic adventure is quite awkward noone can deny that it is epic. Even if you are Stephane Dion, if you riding a helicopter to a battleship in the arctic everyone has to agree that, for at least a day after, you are a badass. When you see the pictures of the Prime Minister in the bright orange flight suit you laugh at him but, for a split second, you are laughing with him as it is cheesy but epic.

For years Prime Minister Harper has been George Bush's soul mate (in terms of policy.) Prime Minister Harper's economic, environmental, foreign, tax, crime, education, and all other policies are the same as George Bush's were when he was President. Like the former President, Prime Minister Harper relishes using divisive tactics to scare Canadians and destroy his opponents. Prime Minister Harper and the former President also share a Manichaean worldview. The Prime Minister sees the world as a battle of good versus evil; if a great evil/good disappears another good/evil will fill that void. It makes sense that with Barack Obama being elected President our Prime Minister has decided to fill the void President Bush left by actually become President Bush. When he put on that flight suit and stepped off that helicopter Prime Minister Harper declare loudly "I am George W. Bush!" and "I am sexy!"

Prime Minister Harper's Flight Suit Photo Op is a massive event that all Canadians can and show revel in. It is simultaneously epic, funny, awkward, cool, meaningless and substanceless. This one event encapsulates the completion of Prime Minister Harper's transmutation into President George W. Bush.

Stephen Harper's Flight Suit Photo Op is GREAT!

Premier Primer: Eva Aariak

2009-08-23T22:23:00.008-04:00

Premier of: Nunavut November 2008 - Present.

Full Name: Eva Qamaniq Aariak.

Place of Birth: Arctic Bay, Nunavut.

Education:

Political Party: Independent.

Riding: Iqaluit East.

Pre-Political Career: Mrs Aariak was Nunuvut's First Languages Commissioner (the body which monitors the Government of Nunavut’s use of the Inuit language, French and English) from 1999 to December 2004. In her capacity as Languages Commissioner, one of her more noted achievements was to choose 'ikiaqqivik' as the Inuktitut language word for the Internet; the word literally means "travelling through layers" and refers to the traditional Inuit concept of a shaman travelling through time and space to find answers to spiritual and material questions. After stepping down as Languages Commissioner she went on to teach Inuktitut at the Pirurvik Centre in Iqaluit, and later owned and operated Malikkaat, a retail store in Iqaluit which sold Inuit arts and crafts.She was later reappointed as Language Commissioner in 2007. Aariak was coordinator of the Baffin Divisional Education Council's Inuktitut language book publishing program, president of the Baffin Regional Chamber of Commerce and Chair of the Nunavut Film Development Corporation.

2008 Election: Mrs. Aariak ran for the Nunavut Legislative Assembly and easily won her seat on October 27, 2008. She was the only women elected to Nunavut's 17 seat Legislative Assembly. Aariak represents the riding of Iqaluit East.

Consensus government and the Premiership: Nunavut's Legislative Assembly is governed by "Consensus Government." This means that there are no political parties in Nunavut, individual MLAs are elected and they choose the Premier. Arriak bested two-term premier Paul Okalik and legislative member Tagak Curley in a vote at the Nunavut Leadership Forum in Iqaluit. Premier Aariak chose a six person cabinet all but one of the new ministers are new to cabinet; Louis Tapardjuk was finance minister in the last assembly.Three of the newly chosen cabinet ministers are first-time MLAs: Daniel Shewchuk, Lorne Kusugak and Peter Taptuna.

Premiership:

Economy: This fiscal year, Nunavut will receive more than $1-billion in federal transfers - or $32,373 per capita - to help pay for its schools, health centres and territorial bureaucracy. On his recent trip to the arctic the Prime Minister announced that the government would be investing heavily in Nunavut. "I feel this is a good start," said Premier Aariak. "Ultimately, our new government is really trying to empower communities. We need to feel more empowered to move towards self-reliance." The PM's trip feature speeches, re-announcements and 100% focus on himself rather than the focus on Nunavut's government. Nunavut's economy is based around natural resources: mining (gold, diamonds, zinc), fishing and hunting.

Aboriginal Canadians: Premier Aariak worked with other Premiers (especially ones of Canada's other territories) to create a working group with leaders of Canada’s national aboriginal organizations to address their concerns across the country.

Education: Premier Aariak has stressed the importance of education saying:"Education deals with many of the issues we are dealing with today. Job readiness, suicide, dropout rates, social issues, alcohol and substance abuse — when engaged in focused efforts such as trying to complete their education, individuals are engaged in where they want to go." Unfortunately Nunuvut has a high school graduation rate of 25%, which is the lowest in the country. A federal report estimated it would take another $20 million a year to revamp and run Nunavut's schools properly. One of her first pieces of legislation as Premier was a bill promising Inuktitut-language instruction (Aariak learned her to read/write Inuktitut as an adult.)

EU Seal Product Ban: In response to the European Union banning seal products Premier Aariak denied their application to become a permanent observer at the Arctic Council. The Premier argued that the ban hurt her province and the Iniut people the most: "The European Union's proposed ban on seal products ignores the very real negative impact their discussions already have on the market for all Canadian seal pelts and on the people of Nunavut."

Louis Tapardjuk: "In January 2009, Taparadjuk was demoted as Minister of Justice due to comments that he made concerning the mutuality of domestic violence between men and women. In an e-mail message dated January 21, 2009, Taparadjuk wrote: "Often, in cases of domestic disputes, both parties share the blame, but according to the criminal code, the person who gets physical is charged, even though the other party may have initiated the conflict. Often the male is charged even though the conflict may have been initiated by the female partner." Three days after Taparadjuk's e-mail was sent, Premier Eva Aariak removed him as Minister of Justice, saying, "This government does not condone violence against women or men in any way, for any reason, which the line seems to imply.""

Trade: Nunavut’s environment minister says Nunavut wants to try selling its seal skin pelts to new markets — such as Russia, China and northern Canada.

Population: Nunavut has the highest birth rate in Canada and over half of Nunavummiut are under 25. Premier Aariak is making education her top priority. The Premier also set up a Social Advocacy Office, which will have a staff of four and a budget of $876,000, to look after young Nunavummiut specifically.

Gender Equality:Before the territory of Nunavut was created in 1999 a proposal was put forth that called for gender parity in Nunavut's Legislative Assembly. It suggested one man and one woman each should be elected to represent a smaller number of constituencies, but the idea was eventually rejected. After become Premier, Mrs. Aariak has suggested this policy be re-examined as she is currently the only female MLA in Nunavut's House of Commons.

Inuit Values: Premier Aariak has be adamant about the need for Nunavut's government to include "Inuit values." The Premiers government wants to overhaul government hiring processes, create an office to help the most vulnerable, visit every Nunavut community, and improve "two-way" communications with Nunavummiut and the wider world as well as have more public consultations on government policy.

Miscellaneous:

5th Female Premier: Eva Aariak is the only woman currently serving as a provincial or territorial premier in Canada, and only the fifth woman — after Rita Johnston, Nellie Cournoyea, Catherine Callbeck and Pat Duncan — ever to hold a premiership. She is the sixth female First Minister in the country, that total including former prime minister Kim Campbell.

Greenland: On June 21 when a law allowing Greenland to become self-governing came into effect Premier Eva Aariak attended a celebration in Greenland.

Seal Heart: When Governor General Michaëlle Jean traveled to Canada's arctic and ate a tradition Inuit meal that included seal heart many took this as the Governor General responding to the EU Seal Product ban. Premier Aariak declared that she did not understand why people found this so fascinating/why there was such an uproar: "To us it's an everyday thing. That's what we do."

Nunavut Wide Tour: In honour of Nunavut's 10 Anniversary of its creation Aariak plans to visit every Nunavut community in 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->

Two Recent Polls With Infinite Interpretations

2009-08-23T16:13:00.008-04:00

Elizabeth May Poll:
A Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey about Green Party leader Elizabeth May came out on Thursday. The survey asked Canadians if they would like to see Mrs. May win a seat in the House of Commons.

40% Yes.
36% No.

Liberals/NDP were most likely to say yes, Conservatives least likely. 45% of those surveyed from Quebec said No. The poll questioned just over 1,000 people July 23-26 and is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

There are plenty of ways you can read any poll and this poll does offer a couple of different elucidations. Greens read this poll and triumphantly proclaim that a plurality of Canadians wants their leader in parliament. They could also contend that with the margin of error (3.1%) in their favour 43.1% want May in parliament (which is enough to possibly win a majority government if you think national polls are more important that riding by riding analysis.)

People who don't like the Green party would point out that 40% is pretty far from the majority of Canadians and with the margin of error on the no side 43.1% say they don't want her in with 36.9% being pro-May.

What I thought of immediately when I saw this poll was: "What would this poll look like without Green Party supporters?" If it was left up to Liberals, NDP members, Conservatives and Bloc supporters would May's numbers be lower? With the assumption that at least 75%of those who declare they would vote Green (currently 9.2%) support their leader, what happens is we take that 6.9% away from the pro-Elizabeth May total. If you take away those who support the Green's anyways her numbers drop (my hypothetical brings Mrs. May down to 33.1% nationally.) Just something to keep in mind.

It is also very interesting that Liberals/NDP want the Green Party's leader to get a seat in parliament. The Liberal Party and NDP would gain the most if the Greens no longer existed (not some much the Bloc as the Green Party is weak in Quebec.) To me it seems counter intuitive to support the Green Party as the Liberal Party already has solid environmental policies and I therefore believe the Green Party is irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for a change poll:

Another recent poll by Nanos asked Canadians if Prime Minister Harper deserved re-election or if it is time for a change. A whopping 58.5% of Canadians polled believe it is time for a change. Depending on what poll you follow the Conservatives come from 1-3% under their current national support in the "Do you think PM Harper deserves another term?" category with 31.9% saying yes. The 9.5% who are unsure does give the Conservatives "room to grow" but it also means there could be even more of a silent majority who think that the incompetent Conservative government has to go. Every area of Canada supports change with large majorities with the lowest "Change" support percentage in the Prairies. It could be noted that the Prairie Provinces have 44.9% wanting change with 14% unsure which makes both sides even.

The question in this poll is of the utmost importance. It was not ambiguous in any way. "Change" doesn't swing both ways. If the poll just said "It's time for a change" Conservatives could (and would) argue that means some of those polled believe change is defined as giving Prime Minister Harper a majority.

Conclusions:

- Elizabeth May as a solid name recognition around Canada. Support for the Green Party leader doesn't clear the margin of error and fails to pass the 50% mark. Either way we shouldn't fall for Prime Minister Harper's lie that "All Canadians vote directly for the Prime Minister." Mrs. May will have to get the most votes of any candidate in one riding.

- Prime Minister Harper seems to be mistaken when he claims that Canadian's don't want an election. A solid majority of Canadians want change. There are a couple of ways to change government in our parliamentary system but as PM Harper believes a coalition government "un-democratic" it seems an election is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->