"I live in a van down by the river"

The new mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, was officially installed today. Is it just me, or does this man have more than slight resemblance to Chris Farley?

Yeah, I think it is pretty close. I think Rob Ford would be a perfect Chris Farley persona too. Too bad this is the real world and not some movie.

Perhaps more amusing is Don Cherry's rambling rant made at the inauguration. Some great person uploaded it to Youtube:



The Globe and Mail predicted something like this would happen. As one of the "pinkos" that rides a bicycle, I have to wonder what has caused Cherry to become so bitter, because he used to just keep the subject on hockey.

Certainly, Rob Ford don't realize the realities of commuting in Toronto. I have never driven to the heart of Toronto, but even in the suburban areas and the 401 are a nightmare with traffic stoppages, even on Sundays. Transit and bicycle lanes are ways to encourage people to not drive, and thus make driving in Toronto less of a nightmare. Toronto is a city that is getting larger every year, and something needs to be done to ease gridlock. Having no real knowledge of prior attempts to revitalize the transit system in Toronto, I can't say how well their plans were going. Having been on the light rail systems in San Francisco and Calgary, it is an effective way to bridge sprawled cities. Ford's plan to cancel light rail in favour of subways (and incurring millions in cancellation fees that the city will have to pay itself) doesn't really make sense, as I cannot see how digging tunnels is supposed to cost less than creating an above ground rail system.

At any rate, Toronto reaps what it has sown. They wanted a man with "clever" sound bytes rather than someone who actually knows something about city planning. However, some blame also has to go to those who supported David Miller, who caved into the garbage collectors union when most people were insupportable of their cause.

Chain Letters and The Baby Boomers

Over the past few days, the following post was made by many people on my Facebook account:

Change your FB profile picture to a cartoon
from your childhood. The goal? To not see a human face on FB till
Monday, December 6th. Join the fight against child abuse, copy &
paste to your status and invite your friends todo the same.

Over the past few days, I would estimate about 70% of people who regularly make posts and are on my friends list have done this. I sort of mocked this by putting up a picture of the stoner aliens from Heavy Metal, shortly after they snorted up some "plutonium nyborg".

Today, people started taking their cartoon avatars down, with another post of the vein:

ATTENTION: the group asking everyone to change their profile picture to a cartoon character is actually a group of pedophiles. There doing it because kids will accept their friend request faster if they see a cartoon picture. It has nothing to do with any Child charities. IT'S ON TONIGHTS NEWS. ...Copy & Paste this on to your status - Let everyone know

It is amazing that in this day an age, with people being more net savvy, that chain letters still get passed along so easily. It is no wonder malware is common on Facebook. People seem all to willing to spread these chain letters and "funny and shocking videos" around, not realizing that there are consequences to this. There are people out there trying to take advantage of the naivety of the common Facebook user. If only people realized. You have to wonder how people can logically come to the conclusion that changing their profile picture will raise awareness for child abuse. You also have to wonder how these same people will come to the conclusion that a bunch of pedophiles are behind getting adults changing their profile pictures.

Onto other things.

Relevant Link

Every few months, I read articles about how the impending retirement of baby boomers en mass is going to invoke some sort of economic catastrophe. Can't say I completely disagree with this. I think we are headed for a major generational shift, probably unlike anything seen since World War II ended. We may indeed see the standard of living in first world nations drop for the first time since the Great Depression as massive budgets hang around our necks like a lead weight.

Is this really something that my generation should worry too much about? I'm not entirely convinced. I think that people will continue to live their lives comfortably, though they may not be able to afford the luxuries of the past. Home ownership is not going to be in everyone's future, or if it is, it won't be until later in life. People in their 20s and 30s have a lot of debt due to things like student loans, but by the same token those same people delay having families until their 30s. I think that the looming health care crunch will force young people to take care of their parents, like they did two generations ago, and by that same token those parents will have to look after their grandchildren as their children work. Taxes will rise out of necessity, and the retirement age will rise to reflect the fact that life expectancy is far higher than when the retirement age was set at 65.

Personally, I probably reflect the typical "post-boomer". I am nearing 30, and have never held any type of long lasting job, and I have spent most of my adult life in university. I have never stayed in any one location for very long time, never had any long term commitments or relationships. I have few assets, though I don't have any major debts (which might put me ahead of the game compared to many of my peers).

I have no illusions about the future. I know that there aren't going to be any free rides, and in all likelihood the costs of my health and living are going to be completely up to my own ingenuity. I have picked a career path that I believe will be able to sustain me until I reach retirement age, which I expect will be in my 80s. I think a large problem will happen once those who are forced into low paying jobs that are hard on the body reach their 60s. Without adequate health care or pensions, I would not be surprised if old aged homelessness becomes a significant issue in the future.

I read through all of the comments in the MacLean's Magazine article. Though many people share concern about the inevitable rise in costs in the social safety net, there were a bunch of idiots comment along the lines that "the young feel entitled and are lazy" and how they "worked hard for their pensions, health care and jobs that they are entitled to". I wonder if they will say the same things when the gap in skill level in professional jobs increases to the point that the knowledge economy suffers. For instance, in exploration geophysics, the SEG publishes demographics in the profession every year, and there a huge gap in experience in the fields, with the average age of geophysicists pushing into the baby boomer age group. I imagine such statistics would follow in other professional fields. Without having an even distribution in experience level of employees in professional employment, the economy will eventually suffer. And having been through this before, it is the people on the low end of the experience ladder that get laid off first. A sustainable economy depends on balancing the workforce to include people of varying experience levels.

C'est tout pour cette nuit.

Restart

It has been a long time since I made a post in my blog. I guess the whole "Wikileaks dump" has led me to want to restart it. The reaction to the current leak of US diplomatic cables has been more telling than the actual contents of the documents, most of which are mundane opinions that most people assumed anyways. Where was this level of outrage earlier this year when the Iraq War documents showed damning evidence of civilian death and indiscriminate slaughter? Now, we see Wikileaks figurehead, Julian Assange being dragged into a well orchestrated smear campaign, most notably the supposed "rape" charge. I'm thinking there must be some really juicy leaks coming in the future that is causing governments to react so loudly this time, because the diplomatic cables releases are no Watergate.

Here in Australia, Assange has pretty much been left out to dry by the government. I was watching the news the other day, and the "news" commentators on the station I was watching were basically falling in line with the government line, and basically spewing off about the rape charges. I will probably post more about the sensationalism in the news media here in Australia (keep in mind that Rupert Murdock still owns a lot of the newspapers here).

As for the leaks themselves, the sheer volume of documents kind of overstates the significance of the release. While I don't really agree that these should have got out into the public, the blame for this leak falls squarely on the bureaucratic structure that allowed a lowly private in the US Army to gain access and download all the documents. With the ease of access, imagine the likelihood that these documents have already been leaked to spy services of competing nations. If there are two million people with access to the cables, the chances of some covert operative gaining access is incredibly high. The only difference with Wikileaks getting it is that the documents are out there for everyone to see. Though with the things that have come out so far, I doubt there is much intelligence to be had from diplomatic cables.

I am interested in hearing about this "near environmental disaster regarding a rogue shipment of enriched uranium", though.

Net Neutrality and the Stimulus

Relevant link

So, the opposition parties are calling for the government to improve regulations and enforce net neutrality.  That is wonderful.  Where were they five or six years ago when efforts to improve network infrastructure effectively ended?  It is good though they are speaking out, because the CRTC is unlikely to do their job.  For the past two or three years, the CRTC has acted in a way that makes it seem as though they are in the pockets of the major ISPs.  For example, they refused to strike the hammer down on Bell for throttling the connections of third party ISPs that use their lines, as required by law.  The ISPs would have you believe that everything is hunky dorry, of course I would rather believe this report by Harvard University stating we are 22nd place out of 30 major nations.

It shocks me how silent the Conservatives are on this issue.  I understand their hesitation on regulating, but it is clear that free market is failing in this case, primarily because a handful of companies own all of the methods of getting high speed Internet.  For example, Rogers has cable and cellular wireless capabilities and Bell and Telus have DSL and wireless capabilities.  The only other competition are largely regional ISPs such as MTS, SaskTel and Eastlink.  MTS has been leading the charge for regulated net neutrality, as they intend to become more national in their business networking service.  Right now, Bell is throttling their networks, which is costing MTS a pile of money.  Additionally, Canada has one of the worst broadband wireless systems in the civilized world.  As of yet, there is no proper 3G network, meaning your Iphone or Blackberry is not being used to its potential.

The CRTC decision on net neutrality is coming this week.  I fully expect the CRTC to not enforce it, and will lead to continuing stranglehold on networks by the major ISPs, all at the disadvantage of the consumer.

Relevant link

This silly story shows the Liberals claiming the Conservatives are saying that paying for "doorknobs" is stimulus.  Now, this is a pretty silly claim, as it is clear that this particular project is to upgrade and repair the Charlottetown RCMP building.  Upgrading infrastructure is exactly what the stimulus money should be used for, considering the age of a lot of buildings.

No, the big deal is how the Conservatives are branding the novelty cheques used to announce spending.  This is a novel way to promote MPs and the governing party in ridings.  The only problem is that it completely violates political party advertising on publicly funded projects.  The news website comments by Conservative trolls basically make claims along the lines of "well the Liberals did this while they were in power".  If that is the best defense that the Conservative supporters can get, it truly has got to the point where there is not much difference between the two parties.  The lack of accountability shows what a sham the campaign by the Conservatives in 2006 really was (it did a good job to spend government money!).  With the Liberal party continuing to be very inept, and the NDP not gaining any traction, I see this sort of governing continuing in perpetuity.

Starting it back up

Well, I sort of fell out of the whole blogging thing since January, particularly due to the end of the major conflict in the government (ie the coalition), and because I felt disheartened.  I suppose I feel that writing something on the Internet requires a certain need for attention, and when no one is visiting, you kind of give up.  I guess I need to do more reading of other people's blogs, and they will come here in response.

At any rate, I feel there are many things going on in this world, and I feel the need to write about it.  The depression I felt that compelled many of my previous posts has largely subsided, due to my move to another part of the country.  I don't think it will always be gone, but for the moment I feel pretty good.

Canada is a lovely country with many places that are must visits.  Recently, I moved to the Calgary area after living in Sudbury, On for the better part of a year.  After seeing much of the country, I would have to say my favourite drives of Canada for scenery are (in no particular order):

1) Icefields Parkway - this drive takes you from Lake Louise in Banff National Park to Jasper.  You need a park pass to get through, but it is totally worth it.  The sheer beauty of the mountains and glaciers is unlike anything else in Canada.

2) Lake Superior, highway 17 - this drive takes you from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste Marie.  It is sparsely populated, and the terrain is rugged.  It is in the Canadian Shield, but it is one of the younger parts of it.  Lake Superior formed during a failed rifting phase in the early Proterozoic, and the rocks, especially in the Thunder Bay to Wawa section remain relatively undeformed.  The red sedimentary rock cliffs are amazing and beautiful.

3) Ontario, Highway 41 -  This highway stretches from Pembroke to Napanee, but the truly beautiful part is the middle section of this road.  For the most part, it is relatively unpopulated.  The terrain is hilly, and covered in an assortment of deciduous trees.  I went during the summer, but I could just imagine how amazing it would be during the autumn with the coloured leaves.

4) Highway 20 (Trans Canada Highway) in Quebec, east of Quebec City - This is a great drive.  The highway hugs along the St Lawrence River, as it gradually widens on its way to the Atlantic Ocean.  There are mountains of moderate height all along both sides of the river, and a variety of farms.

5) Highway 1/5 from Chilliwack to Merrit - Of the mountains in BC, I think the neatest portion is the Coast Range.  These mountains are heavily glaciated, full of jagged arretes.

6) Winnipeg to Portage La Prairie, highway 1 - no list of favourite drives could exclude a prairie drive.  The thing about this particular drive is that it is one of the flattest places on Earth.  Though everyone claims Saskatchewan is pretty flat, it is downright hilly compared to the area around Winnipeg.  The Winnipeg to Portage drive is largely devoid of trees, and is pure cash crop farmland.

I'll probably get back to the political stuff in my next post.  The drives thing was on my mind at the moment.

Parliament back in session

Relevant Link

Well, the government is back in the house, and a brief throne speech (only 4 pages long) is intentionally vague after the messiness last month.  Why make a broad based plan for the next session if it might only last a few days?  Harper looked quite grim during the speech, and knows that his days in power might be limited.  Many had doubted Ignatieff after his lack of speaking out after proroguing, but in the past week he has really begun to hang the noose around Harper's head.  And the Conservatives are responding by putting in a deficit.  In fact, I would not be surprised in the least if there aren't any broad-based tax cuts, like most Conservatives want.  The Bloc and Liberals are playing it safe by not shooting down the budget right now, while I think that the NDP are merely satisfied with playing to their base by announcing they would vote it down right now.  I don't think the average voter cares for such posturing.  It will be an interesting time the next two days.  Of course, since much of the budget has already been leaked, I can't see there being much more to be said to change an opinion.

Relevant Link

The other big news today is the appointment of a bunch of new senators.  I made a commentary about this before, so I don't think I need to elaborate more.  I don't think the new senators will really strive to make big changes, but I will hedge my bets for now.  A method for senate elections can't happen soon enough.

Here comes the deficit

Relevant Link and here

Now that Obama is president, the focus returns to Canada. The projected deficit in the next budget has been leaked out, and it is $34 billion. Perhaps the most interesting quote from the CTV article is by the parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page:

Meanwhile, a report released Wednesday by parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page warned that deficit spending could become "status quo" for Ottawa.

In fact, Page's report blamed the coming deficits on permanent tax cuts and spending programs implemented by the Tories since 2006.

In particular, the two per cent GST cut brought in by the Conservatives costs national coffers about $12 billion a year.

It is interesting reading the comments of these news articles, and despite the fact the Conservatives are running a very large deficit, that it is somehow the Liberals' fault. If the Conservatives were so against deficit spending late last year, why have they abandoned their principles and started doing them? If the Conservatives are so fiscally responsible, why do they not intend to roll back irresponsible tax cuts done in 2007's fiscal update statement? Also, why do they think that tax cuts will be an effective form of stimulus? As someone in the so called "middle class", I doubt a $100-$200 tax cut is going to really affect any of my financial decisions, but it would devastate the coffers of the federal government. The same goes with the GST cut. The GST, though it is a poorly implemented tax (a lot of it comes back to you in quarterly payments), was essential to getting us out of debt back in the early 1990s. Even Mulroney commented that he did not like the fact that Harper was cutting it.

Relevant Link

Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada expects economic recovery to start by the end of the year. Now, I'm not denying this is not going to happen, but really they completely dropped the ball on predicting the recession in the first place. On the whole, I think that most of the financial experts try to make the best case scenario so as to keep people positive. However, when you look at the reality of low commodity prices, I just can't see things rebounding quickly. It took nearly a decade for oil prices to rise from its mid-90s low to a price that more reflected the true price of oil, and I think that the US will try its best to keep it low now. The oil sands project will be frozen until prices are above $80, and I just don't see that happening for several years. Then you hear things like how Vale Inco might shut down their mines in Sudbury for a few months (the mines represent about 10% of the world's nickel production), and you get a sense on how bad things are in the resource sector. The Canadian government (and provincial governments) foolishly squandered the surpluses generated during boom times and did not invest in parts of the economy that would generate more stable jobs. Without high resource prices, Canada's return to prosperity will be long and hard.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Canada's productivity levels are among the worst in the civilized world. We need to invest in new technology and stop relying on the cozy world of non-renewable resources. Productivity will also decrease as our population ages. All of this paints a pretty bleak picture.

Relevant Link

Henry Champ, a longtime reporter for various networks, and fellow Manitoban, gives a really good commentary on the inauguration of Obama.  He discusses how his victory was created by embracing the new media in the Internet, much the same way FDR embraced radio, and JFK with television.  As well as those two leaders, Obama comes in with America in crisis (FDR with the Great Depression, and JFK with the Cold War and space race).

The inauguration ceremony has turned into a huge event, none that has been seen in Washington since the civil rights era.  It is rather interesting to see this spectacle.  In Canada, the start of a new government is a rather tepid affair, and begins immediately after the election.  The only thing close is speech from the throne, which will happen for the second time in two months next week.  Still, the excessiveness of the inauguration seems rather odd considering the times we are in.  I guess the people in America who are very tired of the failed presidency of Bush are just excited and optimistic.  Having optimism may be key to get out of the financial crisis and failed military ventures.  Millions are descending on Washington, and aside from security (which will cost millions), this is totally funded by donations.

Still, it seems almost ironic to me that this is even going on, considering how the country was founded to escape the rule of a king.  The president is the king of the US, which might make George Washington put his nose up if he was alive.  If Obama were to reduce some of the powers that the president has, it would certainly undo some of the damage that the Bush presidency did to the democratic institution.

Indefinite Imprisonment

Relevant Link

Well, this Omar Khadr imprisonment just got thrown another anvil its way.  The United States does not seem intent on creating the conditions for a fair trial for these people, none the least Mr. Khadr, who was only 15 years old when he was captured.  I think it is pretty ridiculous to imprison someone that young that long, regardless of crime, especially when no trial has taken place, and with the sketchy evidence to which they hold him in the first place.  Of course, this problem with Khadr wouldn't have happened in the first place, were it not for our Conservative government, which has about as much compassion as a chuck of rock.

Barack Obama intends shut down Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office.  It seems almost like the last throws of a madman that would cause the proceedings to restart again, as was stated in the opening link.  The military presumably wants to keep Guantanamo open due to its leverage to the enemy.  However, our democratic system, as well as that in the US, is based on a constitution that applies to all citizens.  And to not look like a bunch of hypocrites, they should really apply it to those they imprison from other countries as well.  Khadr deserves a fair trial outside of the military organization, and he deserves to be released if that is not going to happen, as per our constitution.  Section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

• 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

And section 11 part b states:

• 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right 
  (b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

By refusing to push for these rights to be exercised, Stephen Harper has proven that he has no moral leadership to run this country.  The problem that in his circle it is popular to detain a so called "terrorist".  And it seems that now a days, grasping onto power is more important than protecting the individual rights of the citizen.

"There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave"

Relevant Link

Barry McGuire's classic 1965 song was one of the first protest songs of the Vietnam War-Cold War era.  It is bleak.  "You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction" goes the chorus.  The message is still applicable today.

As of now, the Israel army continues to march on into the heartland of the Gaza Strip.  Some might say this is a bit of an extreme reaction to a series of missile attacks, but really this conflict has been inevitable ever since Hamas took over control of Palestine.  Hamas continues to refuse to admit defeat, and I doubt they will until Israel hunts down and kills them all off.  Of course, genocide would be frowned upon as Israel has a lot of friends in the West who think that genocide is a bad idea.  Strangely enough, genocide was an option for the west only a short time ago.  Although I do doubt that genocide will happen in this case, some other areas of the world are not so lucky.

At present, the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo continues to escalate, after several years of relative peace.  There have been millions killed in the Congo since the late 1990s, all in the desire of neighbouring nations such as Uganda lusting for their plentiful natural resources.  The war in the DRC makes the Palestine-Israel conflict look like a minor skirmish.  It doesn't help that China is in there stirring things up.

Africa is just full of bad things happening.  Zimbabwe's despair is not going away, though it is off the front page headlines.  Robert Mugabe's refusal to step down has amounted to the deaths of thousands of people, and the cholera outbreak is just the latest part of this.  I remember when the Iraq invasion was about to happen, Mugabe's forces were committing mass genocide, and it was just a footnote.  Don't forget that China's all up in there too.

Let's not forget Darfur.  Probably the largest genocide in recent history, just because there is a lull now does not mean that this battle is done.  As climate change forces nomads onto farmers' land, we have seen hundreds of thousands dead in ethnic conflicts.  I truly believe that the situation will continue to be tenuous for the year or 2009.

Afghanistan is another conflict that is escalating.  During my holiday, my uncle remarked that his son in law (who just got back from his third tour there) said that things are worse there than ever, and that they had translators quit because the people they were fighting did not speak the local languages.  Who are these so called insurgents?  Apparently they speak Russian.  Maybe Russia feels bullish about their ability to invade after the success in Georgia last summer?  Or perhaps they are Chechnyan rebels?  I really don't know as there is not much coverage on this.  At any rate, the mission in Afghanistan has been a failure for the West, as it was for the East previously.  The situation will most likely continue to degrade this year.

Iraq continues to be a hotbed of suicide attacks and other extreme acts.  The US intends to retreat, but ironically Iraq is probably more stable than the aforementioned Congo or Darfur.  Iraq does have the semblance of a government, which is more than can be said about Afghanistan.  Out of all the conflicts, I expect Iraq to be the one to be tempered the most this year.

And who can forget about Burma?  Well, I guess all of the rest of the world.  Burma is a full fledged Orwellian society where all political descent is jailed or executed.  There was a brief spell of interest after a cyclone killed off a bunch of people and a mockery of an election was held shortly after, but that has since gone away.

The biggest brewing conflict has to be the Pakistan-India conflict.  India has gone so far as to accuse Pakistan of being involved in the bombings in Mumbai.   This is all coming to a head right now, but the conflict between Pakistan and India has been happening ever since the Kashmir refused to join Pakistan after the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Look for this to become the big new war in the next year.

As you can see, there are lots of battles brewing for 2009.  And this doesn't even count nations with extreme governments like Iran or Venezuela, or countries that have growing instability such as Mexico or Ukraine, or the growing lust for power of countries like China or Russia.  The West has seen their considerable leverage erode since the the start of the decade, and the democratic ideal may be waining.  With poor turnouts in the last elections in the West (including in the US), maybe people just don't care anymore.

Senate Posts

Relevant Link

Well, finally Stephen Harper has given an early Christmas present to 18 people for the plush job of the Senate.  Long since Preston Manning held a fiesta for a senator long removed from Canada, Harper managed to fill the senate with a bunch of quiet-spoken backbenchers and backroom strategists who will most likely do as they are told.  The exceptions, of course, are former journalists Pamela Wallen and Mike Duffy.  I personally think the Duff is a great choice for the senate and probably knows more about the government of Canada than anyone.  How appropriate it is for a journalist to become a politician is up in the air.  Other than that, I think it is pretty telling how half of the appointments don't even have pages on Wikipedia.  Many commentators are wondering about the lack of Reformers on the list, such as Preston Manning, without realizing that Alberta had no vacancies.  A big WTF is the appointment of Nancy Greene Raine, but I suppose it is no worse than the appointment of former Leaf Frank Mahovlich.

Another thing most commentators don't realize is that Harper's vain attempts to reform the senate are futile and unconstitutional.  The only way senate reform will happen is if the provinces finally get their acts together and agree on a method to do it.  As of right now, Alberta and Saskatchewan are the only provinces pushing for senate elections, and I find it highly unlikely that at least one of Ontario or Quebec will go for it either.  Without one of the two most populous provinces, senate reform will not happen, as it requires reopening the constitution.  Of course, Harper could bring about a national referendum on this, but I doubt most people care that much.

One stipulation is that the senate terms are for 8 years, but I somehow doubt that it is binding.  Who wants to bet these senators will find it rather comfortable, and when the eight years are up and after failed attempts to make elections that they just stay there?  They are entitled to their entitlements, so they say.

Relevant Link

Perhaps of more concern is the low radar appointment of a federal judge.  By the article, it sounds like Thomas Cromwell is an agreeable choice, however it flies in the face of the vetting process that Harper himself set up at the start of his first term in government.

The Governor General should really look into how constitutional all of these appointments are.  Appointments during non-confidence times just doesn't seem right.  Although I fully agree that the senate is overly stacked with Liberals, I still don't see it as an excuse to ignore the wide variety of political opinions in this country.  A Stephen Harper of the opposition 6 years ago would have agreed.

Back to the start again

Relevant link

Well, with the excitement over the constitutional crisis over, and a new Liberal leader, the polls are indicating things are back to where they were after the election in 2006.  The polls are indicating that Ignatieff and Harper are essentially tied in terms of how "Prime Ministerial" they are.  I think this shows right away that the last election is less about hating the Liberals as it was hating of Dion.  Ignatieff is largely unknown to most of the public, and I think they are optimistic that things will be better organized in the opposition ranks with him.

Relevant Link

And in the big surprise of the week (that's sarcasm), a poll has found that Canadians don't really know how are government works.  In a democracy, it is incredibly important that the people voting know how the government works, otherwise we might as well just have a dictatorship.  With the responsibility of the vote, people should at a minimum realize some of the basic functions of how the leader is chosen and who the head of state is and what they do.

Relevant link

The story of the weekend is Auto Bailout.  I really don't see the reason to bail out an industry that has plenty of variety in the marketplace already.  The "Big 3" got to their position through a combination of overpayment to manual labour jobs that could cheaply be done in other countries, poor marketing of more fuel efficient lines, focusing on huge gas guzzlers that are no longer profitable, and large amounts of consolidation.

I have always had the opinion that having large corporations is bad for the economy, because if a single large corporation goes down, it has a huge ripple effect on the entire economy.  This is the fatal flaw of those who advocate for the free market, as it has shown that it leads to consolidation as companies do not want to compete against each other.  What would have happened if GM, for instance, was split up into individual companies that focused on different products, like small cars, trucks, and parts.  If one of those companies failed, then it would only have minor affects on the entire economy.

Even so, with the Hondas, Toyotas, Kias, etc., why do we even need to save the Big Three?  If the Big Three collapse, will that mean that people will stop buying cars?  That is silly.  The other companies might be foreign, but most of the cars are actually built in North America.  In Canada, those companies are putting their plants exactly where the closed Big Three plants are.

In the US, things are complicated by the fact that the foreign companies set up their plants in the south, where Republicans are dominated, while the Big Three are in the North, which is dominated by the Democrats.  There will be a bailout, but I don't see how it will end up saving these companies.  They are bleeding money from a combination of low sales and the inability to borrow money from banks due to the credit crunch.  They will not be able to all of the sudden make products that people will buy in just a few months, about the time that that 14 billion bailout would amount to.  Ultimately, the big three are done, and should be allowed to follow in the footsteps of Lehmann Bros.

Horray Hypocrisy

Relevant Link

Well, in the face of having difficulties in passing bills, Stephen Harper decided to pull a Mulroney and stack the senate with partisans (just as a note, Mulroney did this because the Liberals majority in the senate refused to pass the GST bill).  Before the end of the year, 18 new senators will be appointed by Conservative lackies, flying in the face of the throne speech for the failed first session 40th parliament, where Harper pledged senate reform.  Senate reform is something that I strongly agree with, but the way things are going, it will never happen.

Now you might say "well, the Liberals did the exact thing".  Well, I say two wrongs don't make a right.  Paul Martin at least tried to balance his appointments (though two of the "Conservative" appointments he made sat as PC members and refused to join the new Conservative party, and the NDP refused to let the NDP appointee in their caucus).  Simply put, Harper knows his days could be limited, and he needs to exert all the influence he can should a coalition government take his place.  The senate is the ultimate house of cronyism, and in its present form is almost completely useless.

I have always proposed that in lieu of standard elections for senators, that the senate be filled by proportional representation by party.  In a way, this will still lead to appointments, but at least they will be reserved for a particular party.  The senate was meant to balance out the power of densely populated areas, and I think it should stay that way, with the west, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes each getting the same amount of seats.  I think that 30 or so for each area would be appropriate (and maybe 2 for the North).  The senate should be elected every 6 years to give a little bit of stability compared to the House of Commons (6 years is the term for US Senators, just for a reference).  Floor crossing would not be allowed, and any renegade senator would be replaced by their party.

Of course, this is unlikely to be the system that the Conservatives had in mind, but I think it would be a way to balance things out, rather than having appointments be solely up to the Prime Minister.

Enter Ignatieff

Well, after a two year delay, Michael Ignatieff finally got his wish and became leader of the Liberal party.  I'm sure he is delighted that Stephane Dion dropped their seat count by 20 during the last election, but I guess it took a disaster to bring the Liberals together.  Already the Conservatives are calling this an undemocratic thing, carefully ignoring how they came to be.  Of course, the coronation of Paul Martin certainly failed, though things are a lot different than 2004.

Ignatieff became convinced that he could become the leader of the Liberals after a popular speech at the 2003 leadership convention.  Many Liberals were already trying to convince him to come back to Canada from his plumb post at his alma mater of Harvard.  Few people, including myself, took too much stock in his move to the University of Toronto as being sincere and I figured that he would pack his bags and leave should he lose his bid for a seat.  However, he did win that seat, and Paul Martin did lose the election, paving his way for frontrunner status in the leadship race that followed.  However, he had his share of gaffes, and a slight majority of the Liberals at the convention felt he was too much of a liablility, and instead chose the unknown Dion.  As for Ignatieff, I'm sure he initially considered going out of politics until it quickly became apparent that Dion would not last long.  And here we are.

Now, I admit that before the election, I considered voting Liberal.  Could I vote for an Ignatieff led party?  I am going to say no.  Although I consider him to be a much stronger leader than Dion, I think that his views will certainly take the Liberals to the social right, something I cannot support.  Or maybe it is his glowing support for the invasion of Iraq to "spread democracy", or his incredibly smug "apology" where he claimed that the Nobel winning people who opposed the war had less judgement than a bus driver.  Here is a man who's ego stretches out far and wide (much like Dion, but more eloquent).  Let the descent of Canadian politics continue, as we have a leader who has spent most of his professional life outside of Canada.

Monday's events

Compared to last week, today seemed rather mundane.  First the Liberal leadership debacle.  Dominic LeBlanc,  realizing he has absolutely no chance at winning after near invisibility last week, decided to back obvious front runner Ignatieff.  Dion stated that he will step down far sooner than May, as the Liberals make a push to find a new leader before parliament resumes on January 26th.  I can tell you nothing will make all Canadians happier than to see Dion gone.  The big question is will the Liberal executive appoint Ignatieff and go with a token leadership vote in May, or will they decide to go with a more broad-based vote?  Ignatieff has a lock on the executive, due to their reluctance to back the failed former NDP Premier of Ontario.  Maybe they will surprise us an appoint an interim leader who is more pragmatic than Dion while Ignatieff and Rae bicker.  I'm guessing they will go with appointing Ignatieff, but I would warn the Liberals to remember the anointment of Paul Martin and the problems that caused.

The second big thing of the day is the Quebec election.  It appears that Jean Charest and the Liberals got just enough seats to win a majority.  It is probably less an endorsement of the Liberals than the absolute rejection of the ADQ and the poor leadership of Mario Dumont to increase the broad base support of the ADQ.  It also doesn't help that the ADQ are fairly close on many levels to the federal Conservatives, who aren't exactly popular in Quebec.  I think that Charest is a bit of a douche but given the alternative of a traditionally fiscally irresponsible PQ, what choice did Quebec have?  Marois is a very decisive personality herself, especially after the debacle over her mansion.  Well, the dream of a right wing party in Quebec seems to be over, anyways.

Now something completely different, the US is starting to fly aerial drones over the Manitoba border.  I wonder if they fear some sort of invasion by all the border straddling Mennonite communities.  But seriously, one has to wonder at the point of this exercise other than to build a level of mistrust between Canada and the US.  I find it highly unlikely that a single drone flying over will have any effect on the illegal drug trade.  The lessons of prohibition were obviously not learned in the US.  If they want to end the organized crime associated with the drug trade, the most effective thing would be to legalize and regulate these substances.  Of course, the US could never regulate anything and would rather spend billions on a futile battle across a border that would be impractical to monitor all the time.

Rick Mercer on the political mess

Relevant Link

Rick Mercer has written an interesting comparison of Stephen Harper and a polar bear in a German zoo who was so nurtured growing up, that when the attention was gone, it became depressed.  It is pretty crazy that a bunch of the supporters of Harper on Thursday were a bunch of paid staffers.  Seems almost a bit dishonest to suggest he had a huge amount of support there.  Of course, this is the same guy who secretly taped a closed NDP meeting last week.

Of course, one of the items on my list in this post is coming true.  In all likelihood Stephane Dion will be gone in the coming week.  Although I can't say I will likely support Ignatieff or Rae, at the very least they are more competent than Dion.  Things already seem to be calming down, and I am sure that by the second week of January we will have another Liberal leader.  It really is too bad there isn't someone more inspiring than Ignatieff or Dion, though.

Prorogue happens

Relevant Link

Well, proroguation has happened. We now have no government working for the next month and a half, basically summing it up since the beginning of the election to make it almost 5 months (or even 7 months if you count the fact that there was the summer break). Another thing mentioned is that sets the dangerous president that the Prime Minister now has the power to prorogue whenever he is set to lose a confidence vote. Here are some things I would like to see:

1) Stephane Dion resign and the Liberals settle their leadership contest a week before parliament resumes. It is clear that he has little support from Canadians, and he should step down before he destroys the Liberal Party.

2) Stephen Harper resign before he tears this country into 4 or 5 parts. Regionalism was on a downturn in the earlier party of the decade, and now it has been inflamed to levels not seen since the Meech Lake Accord failure. He is not a leader and has no ability to bring people from across the country. He should resign so that another Conservative leader can patch up things with Quebec before the damage is permanent. He should resign so that there is a chance that there can be a deal made with another party before a confidence vote.

3) I want see an economic stimulus package laid out before the budget. There should be a lot of spending on infrastructure in particular, especially after hearing about things like the bridge closure in Ottawa. Canada's infrastructure is falling apart, and now is a great time to build it up again when the threats of unemployment and falling exports is very real.

4) I think it is necessary that people get educated on how parliament works, and what the roles of the elected members and the Governor General are. News networks should really broadcast prime time specials on this issue, so that people know and aren't stonewalled with rhetoric.

5) A promise to close the loophole in the elections law that allowed Harper to call the early election in the fall. Would we be at this point if there was no election?

6) I want to see an end to all private donations of public parties. I think the Conservative media bombardment now and long before the election should never be allowed, and it wouldn't happen if the Conservatives didn't have more money than the rest of the other parties combined. This is very unlikely to happen, and many people do not see why public funding of politics is a good idea. Another good idea would be to make laws that prevent electioneering and public advertising for political parties outside of elections. That is something that I think is more important.

Living in Sudbury, the largest company here, Vale Inco has started to shut down mines and get people to retire early.  I'm sure that elsewhere the same kind of things are happening.  And we currently have no working government.  This really is pretty crazy.  It certainly will be an interesting holiday season.

Not much new today

Relevant link

Well, the stage is set now, Harper will most likely prorogue parliament.  He gave a pretty calm televised address, which is a far cry from the madness during the rest of the day.

I am pretty pissed off at the optics that the Conservatives are putting forward that this coalition is some "unholy" deal with the separatists.  Although I am no fan of the Bloc, this tactic will only inflame the separatist movement, just like I am sure the coalition idea will inflame separatist movements in Alberta.  This really tells me that the Conservatives have given up hope of getting more seats in Quebec.  They seem destined to create a minority hell where we will never have a truly stable government ever again.  We are quickly approaching the longest string of minority rule in Canadian history (the string of Diefenbaker and Pearson minorities during the 60s was slightly longer).

Large cities are going to continue to vote Liberal/NDP, Alberta and rural Canada is going to continue voting Conservative, and Quebec will continue to vote for the Bloc.  It is very discouraging that with this situation that the Conservatives refuse to make deals with the opposition parties on a vote by vote basis like they did at the beginning of 2006.  Back then, I was optimistic that the Conservatives would get through some legislation that I supported, such as an elected senate, removing the long gun registry and ending the wheat board monopoly.  None of these things happened, and Harper pushed the opposition too far.

The Globe and Mail lays out the options

Relevant Link

Tonight will be a short post, as I had a busy day.  The Globe and Mail has laid out 10 options that Harper has in the next few days.  The most bizarre is replacing the Governor General with a Conservative lackey, which would require the Queen getting involved (I really doubt that would be popular).  Reading the comments on that page, it is pretty clear that most people think that the 10th option - where Harper resigns would be optimal.  And I agree.  I think that if Harper resigns, this coalition plan will die off.  With Harper as leader, there is no possible way that the opposition will back down.  If he has the best interests of Canada in mind, he will do it by Thursday.

And Harper is finished

Relevant Link

Well, it is official, the Conservatives are done, unless they do something extreme like proroguing the parliament.  I don't think that is really an option, and I doubt the Governor General would allow it considering the reason for doing it.  The dissent in the Conservative ranks is already beginning to show with Stockwell Day and Rob Nickolson not rising when Harper spoke in Question Period.  The look on Harper's face when Jim Prentice spoke and the opposition shouting "leader!" was priceless.

The only option to save a Conservative government now is for Stephen Harper to resign.  He has had many chances to get a majority government, and now he has failed to provide confidence in the house.  I think it is very unlikely the Conservatives will ever get a majority so long as he is the leader, and it will certainly only get harder if Michael Ignatieff becomes Liberal leader (despite my disdain for Ignatieff, he is certainly going to have broader support than Dion).

When it all comes down to it, I think Canadians are going to be pissed off at all parties.  Although I welcome a coalition to bring down Harper, I would be lying if I said it will last a long time.  I fully expect there to be an election next fall, and I predicted that long before this happened.  What a mess.