(I know its been a while... shush... meh, no one reads anyways)

The first rule of moving out of your office: Take the incriminating things with you.

Also, heres the video in all of its godawful glory

I can understand, I really can. These guys have had over 20 years to get cozy in their wing of the legislature, theres bound to be stuff floating around behind cupboards, filing cabinets and under rugs that no one has seen since this went out of style (not that the Sask party would ever condone the look of course).

What a lot of people dont know is these legislatures are pretty insular in style. Literally, one wing is for government, one wing for opposition. In the case of Saskatchewan, which, barring the occassional six month stint has been NDP Orange since time immemorial, meaning that the right wing politicos in Sask have had to get used to living out their daily lives in the same wing of the building for just as long.

Now that the NDP has to do one of their once every couple of decade stints in opposition, they're bound to find shit that is just begging to be released. Im just waiting till the Liberals take over Alberta and they find the pictures of Ralph Klein in full S&M bondage gear...

Ah well, at least something caught the public eye this week, its been a pretty dreary few months in politics, nothing exciting or scandalous has come up at all. Surely we havent had a former Prime Minister on trial for bilking the tax payer and taking bribes for political favours, nor too have we seen any scantily clad women on anyones laptops, and we most certainly havent had accusations of million dollar bribes to dying men.

Ah, its a good time to be Harper, no doubt. I imagine he might even manage to go a week one day soon without a serious scandal overtaking his legislative agenda. Naw, too much to ask for.

Quebec is a Nation?
Im sorry, but Que'est-ca Fuck?

I would just like to say at the outset, all this motion does is set a dangerous precedent. Though a friend of mine pointed out the other day that all the words 'dangerous precedent' really are are the justification of a slipper slope.

Its not exactly the end of the world, but its scary. Its an advancement in the direction of sovereignty, and in the words of Shatner, I just cant get behind that.

Coyne is incenced, Kinsella started a petition, Wells rationally pointed out flaws while sniping with wry commentary, in other words, they all acted exactly like themselves.

In yet another pop culture reference, im going to give out a series of tips of the hats.

The first goes to those brave 16 souls who voted against this motion. And now I will list them:

1. Navdeep Bains (Liberal, Ontario)

   Bains.N@parl.gc.ca

2. Don Bell (Liberal, British Columbia)

   Bell.D@parl.gc.ca

3. Raymond Chan (Liberal, British Columbia)

   Chan.R@parl.gc.ca

4. Joe Comuzzi (Liberal, Ontario)

   Comuzzi.J@parl.gc.ca

5. Ken Dryden (Liberal, Ontario)

   Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca

6. Hedy Fry (Liberal, British Columbia)

   Fry.H@parl.gc.ca

7. Jim Karygiannis (Liberal, Ontario)

   Karygiannis.J@parl.gc.ca

8. Diane Marleau (Liberal, Ontario)

   Marleau.D@parl.gc.ca

9. Bill Matthews (Liberal, Newfoundland and Labrador)

   Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca

10. Dan McTeague (Liberal, Ontario)

    McTeague.D@parl.gc.ca

11. Maria Minna (Liberal, Ontario)

    Minna.M@parl.gc.ca

12. Scott Simms (Liberal, Newfoundland and Labrador)

    Simms.S@parl.gc.ca

13. Paul Steckle (Liberal, Ontario)

    Steckle.P@parl.gc.ca

14. Andrew Telegdi (Liberal, Ontario)

    Telegdi.A@parl.gc.ca

15. Garth Turner (Independent, Ontario)

    Turner.G@parl.gc.ca

16. Joe Volpe (Liberal, Ontario)

    Volpe.J@parl.gc.ca

17. Keith Martin* (Liberal, British Columbia)

    Martin.K@parl.gc.ca

*Martin technicaly didnt vote on the motion, but had announced that he would and was kept from doing so by being stranded in BC thanks to the snow.

All of these Members stood their ground and did what was right, and deserve our thanks, if my member of parliament were on that list, I would be writing her right this moment. In fact, even they ARENT your Member, feel free to congratulate them.

If your interested in emailing your MP, go here, the site will have their email in the profile.

I would also like to congratulate Ken Dryden, Elizabeth May.

Dryden took a stand as a candidate for Liberal leadership, and he called upon his caucus members and parliament as a whole to vote down the motion.

Elizabeth May pronounced that the Greens would never vote for a motion like this. Thankfully there is a federal party out there that likes the idea of having a country.

Others have gone into detail as to the many reasons this motion is wrong, if you want to read a litany of them, go to Coyne or Wells, both have gone into great detail.

I mostly wanted to take this time out and congratulate a few people for their actions on this divisive issue that resulted in a painfuly lopsided vote.

2008 US Presidential Election

(or as I like to call it, degree's of Clinton vs. degree's of Reagan, and I'll tell you why)

Ok, lets analyze the major Democratic contenders to date:

Hilary Clinton IS a Clinton (.9 Clintons + .1 womens vote)

John Edwards is LIKE Clinton, poor background, southern, lawyer, 'emotes' (the 'I feel your pain' factor). Most Clintonesque (1.0 Clintons)

Barack Obama talks like Clinton, has the ability to give a speech in a very conversational and understanding tone, much like Bill. Very much the man of the people. He's also seen by Dems as the golden boy, they absolutely love him. Plus he tried cocaine, I wonder if he inhaled? (.6 Clintons + .3 former drug users). Least Clintonesque, especially since he probably couldnt win a southern state if hell froze over.

Ok, now lets look at the major Republican contenders to date:

John McCain: First, he's old, a direct connection with Reagan, next, he's spry, another connection to early Reagan. He's good with one liners, has been in movies (Wedding Crashers?), and is generally well liked. Ok, now, realistically: He's far right but has moderate views, and he has that ability to deliver emotion into his speeches similar to Reagan, as well, he's good with teh pithy responses (McCain-"Except for making my kids sing Hail to the Chief, I never think of myself as President", Reagan- "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.") This is really the key, he's viewed as an independant, not as a Republican, thus he can win centrist voters like no ones business., and appeal to the common man, without BEING the common man. All very Reagan qualities. (.7 Reagans +.2 war hero + .1 loved by Democrats)

Newt Gingrich: He thinks like Reagan and is able to effectively win the American people through soundbites, much like Reagan ('tear down this wall', 'contract with america'. Plus, much like Reagan, he is DESPISED by Democrats. (.8 Reagans)

Giuliani: Im just going to equate being mayor of New York with governor of California right now. Hell, most Americans probably couldnt tell you whether he was mayor or governor of New York. Anyways, another one whose popular in the mainstream, comes from a traditionally liberal state and yet is a conservative. Very similar in terms of status, though relatively different personalities I suspect.


And thus, in my oversimplified way, I have reduced the 2008 election as being one fought between Reagan and Clinton by proxies. This should be an interesting match up.

There is your comedic thought for the day.

Because its funny...


Well, back to essay writing hell.

On my extended absence...

Yes, I have not posted in ages, and for this, I apologise.

However, excuses I have!

Ive spent the last month and a half out at the Canadian Forces Summer Training Company Chilliwack. I succesfully completed my Basic Military Qualifications and am currently working my way through the Soldier Qualifications course.

Yes, I joined the army. Well, not quite, I am now, and have been since March 6th, a member of the primary reserve, with the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada.

I will resume posting once I have completed training and am back, although I will also be gone again for a portion of September for a conference in Quebec City. Expect the regular posting cycle to resume in late September.

Bye for now.

The 64,000 Dollar Question

When is the election going to be held?

If you ask Stephen Harper, he'll tell you 2009.
If you ask the CBC, they'll tell you October.
My sources in Ottawa tell me May.

This week has seen the CBC wildly speculating an October vote, something that, though definitely not outside the realm of possibility, seems relatively groundless.

As reported earlier, the 'fixed' election date does no such thing, and Harper may still call for the dissolution of parliament at any time, will he do it in October?

Will we see a second winter vote? Will his government only last 10 months before going to the polls again? Will he gamble with everything?

Considering the polls, the scattered and fragmented Liberal party and the popularity of his various measures since taking office, it doesnt look like much of a gamble.

I do not think it will be October personally, but anything can happen. If Harper's aim is to further smash the Liberal party, October is likely his best bet, or at the very least, before a front-runner can establish himself amongst the Liberal party. If an election is called before the leadership conference, the Liberal executive will elect someone to lead them into the election. Should they be forced to choose between a number of competing factions, then the party will go into the election with unsteady leadership, likely with a veritable unknown in the running.

Who wants an election? The Liberals are desparate to not have an election, and the Bloc want an election even less. A federal election in Quebec, which will surely result in a substantial loss of seats for the Bloc will be seen as a major victory for federalist forces, and with a provincial election around the corner, no separatist wants to see that happen.

So who will push for it? Harper likely wants one, but doesnt want 'the people' to percieve that he himself called it, as few actually want an election. Layton may want to pick up seats, but he's no fool, he knows that if Harper pulls off a majority, a lot of his current power will be diminished. At the same time though, if Layton can help break the Liberals in a quick election now, it could pave the way for replacing the Liberals as the dominant center-left party. It worked for Labour in Britain, could it work here?

So, will Harper continue in the path of the last Western Conservative Prime Minister, consolidating his minority with a massive majority? Will it be in October, May, 2009, anytime in between? I guess its anyones guess, but its largely up to Harper and Layton, and reading either of them is pretty tough.

Nova Scotian Election Results!

Conservatives: 23
NDP: 20
Liberals: 9

Interestingly, the NDP picked five seats, though the tories only lost two.

The most interesting thing to me about this whole election is that the NDP and Conservative platforms were nearly identical. More hospital beds, better senior care and lower tuition were the three main planks of both parties.

Looks like another few years of Conservative/NDP coalition.

Nova Scotia Votes 2006!

Yes, its that time, Nova Scotians are going to the polls.

Now, as a British Columbian, I should note, my knowledge of Nova Scotian election is most definitely not first hand, heck, I wouldnt even really call it second hand, more no hand.

This is going to be a close one, the tories and NDP are in a pretty dead heat by all acounts, and I look forward to watching the results roll in tomorow. The Nova Scotia Liberals are in a distant third. It looks like the NDP could unseat the tories and form government, which would make these last few years look pretty rosy for the NDP so far. Historic gains federally, a massive rebound in BC, holding steady in Saskatchewan and picking up the government of an atlantic province.

4:00pm Pacific should be the time for results to start coming in in case anyone was wondering.

First, apologies for the rather lengthy delay without posting, I dont intend to allow it to happen again without forewarning, been very busy.

First, Some Vindication:

It would seem that The Economist agrees with me when it comes to the Conservatives newly announced senate reform and fixed elections. In an article in the conservative magazine, they deconstruct the hype around the two changes, and the article ends with the line: "Rather than coherent constitutional reform, these bills look like a mere swipe at the Liberals."

So Apparently We Caught Some Terrorists...

or so Ive heard, from every single news outlet and political pundits blog in nauseating levels of detail and coverage. Andrew Coyne spent endless post after post examining every last minute detail. Warren Kinsella was so gushing with resiliance and an attempt at a stiff upper lip that he created an entire website devoted specifically to stating that we are not afraid of 17 extremely amateur and largely harmless wannabe terrorists who never truly posed much of a threat. It hit the front page of every newspaper imaginable, and in the opinion of this writer, was vastly overblown. There is even a massive sars-concert type event planned for Toronto to try to 'rebound' from this supposed threat.

Lets think about this. These people had little training, knowledge or even ingenuity. Five of them were under 18. These amateurs managed to FAIL at smuggling weapons into our country, which is no small feat of incompetance given our disgustingly porous borders. They NEVER posessed the supposed 3 tonnes of Ammonium Nitrate, they merely ordered it, and were quickly denied the order on the grounds of it being a ridiculously suspicious order.

There have been a number of such amateur terror cells captured in the United States, as evidenced by the Monitor. Why is it such a big deal here? I think for a lot of us, it was summed up well by Jon Stewart, its as though we've joined the club of the 'also hated', as though we can say 'hey look! We're hated too!'

This Also Brings Up a Pet Peeve of Mine...

Why is it that when it comes to terror suspects, assuming guilt is perfectly alright? Now, Im pretty sure these guys are guilty, all accounts would appear they are, but theres a disturbing trend with terror suspects of assuming guilt. You see it in the United States a great deal surrounding the Guantanamo debate, the assumption often made that those in Gitmo are terrorists because they are there.

Ive heard it a great deal of late, the idea that we should simply shoot these terrorists, that somehow, because they are alleged to be terrorists (or more accurately, terrorists in training), that we shoul somehow skip the judicial process. We have a judicial process for a reason, and we should never walk down that path that says that some crimes dont need that process. Down that road lies the ability to justify Gitmo.

Innocent until proven guilty is a maxim that should not be railroaded.
Habeas Corpus should not be ignored.

Personally, I congratulate CSIS and the RCMP for a job well done (assuming guilt), but caution that we shouldnt make too big a fuss over such a small incident.