Canada Shall Remain One...At Least for Now

Last night we found out that the Parti Liberal du Quebec (PLQ) will form a minority government in that province. The Action Democratique du Quebec (ADQ) will form the official opposition and the Parti Quebecois (PQ) will be rendered meaningless... Okay, the PQ finished third, a mere 12 seats behind the PLQ, so "meaningless" is an exaggeration, but you get the point. This is sort of how everyone expected the election to go down - the PLQ would stay in power, the ADQ would leap frog the PQ to become the official opposition, and the PQ would lose some seats and finish third - no surprises really. And that's a good thing. The plunge taken by the PQ (they won 9 fewer seats than they did last time) means support for Quebec seperatism is waning (if only temporarily). Either way, we can (hopefully) count on at least a couple years without having to worry about another sovereignty referendum in Quebec.

To make things more interesting for those less politically nerdy, here are some interesting tidbits about the election results:

• Quebecors (like your Prime Minister) don't much care about the environment - the Parti Vert du Quebec was unable to win a single seat;
• Quebecors are not commies - the Parti Marxiste-Leniniste du Quebec also failed to win any seats;
• Quebecors don't like weed - the Bloc Pot won fewer than 2000 votes (or 0.04% of the popular vote);
• Quebecors prefer weed over Christianity - the Parti Democratie Chretienne du Quebec garnered more than 100 fewer votes than the Bloc Pot;
• The Parti Democratie Chretienne du Quebec has nothing to do with Jean Chretien;
• finally, the Quebec Solidaire didn't matter.

P.S. If you're looking for more analysis, but don't like "the man's" news sources, check out what the incomparable Mr. McIver had to say. If you do check out his article, remember that he speaks with a blue tougue which is almost certainly controlled by Stephen Harper.

Rock Mash-ups

I was listening to Seven Mary Three's American Standard today when I got to thinking about some potential rock mash-ups. Here you go:

1. Everclear/Seven Mary Three - Everclear lead singer (and creative driving force) Art Alexakis ought never to have been given a microphone. Notwithstanding great tracks like Santa Monica, Summerland, and Strawberry, Art has, in my opinion, one of the worst voices in music. On the other hand, in my opinion, he is also one of the best songwriters in rock music. His songs seem to connect to everyone. He manages to express his thoughts and experiences without the vague, cryptic lyrics that so many rockers use.* I think if Art set down his microphone, and started writing songs for other bands, he would be much more appreciated. Here's where 7M3 comes in. Lead singer Jason Ross has a killer voice - it rivals the best grunge has ever offered. Unfortunately, from what I heard on American Standard, he should not be allowed to write anymore song lyrics. I will grant him genius on Cumbersome, but it pretty much ends there. A message to the 7M3 crew: hire Art to write you some songs (like Everclear or not, the man writes hit songs), and return to your platinum glory days of 1995-1996.
2. The Doors/Nickelback - This one is a stretch, but just think about it. Nickelback singer-songwriter Chad Kroeger is seemingly incapable of writing complete songs. Almost everything I've heard from Nickelback is (musically) murderously catchy, but (lyrically) incomplete. I'm not kidding, go read the lyrics to some Nickelback songs - they repeat the same verse over and over (sometimes Chad changes a word or two). On the other hand, you have the Doors. Replace the kitschy Doors music with the near-metal Nickelback sound, then replace the incomplete Nickelback lyrics with Jim Morrison poetry and you have a great, cross-generational rock band. Also, give the Doors' Robby Krieger the lead guitar duties because I'm not convinced Kroeger and Ryan Peake actually know how to play their guitars.
   
3. Nirvana/Pearl Jam - I'm not suggesting either of these monster rock bands need(ed) any help being great, but imagine them combined. I would never replace Kurt Cobain, but since he...took himself out of the picture, think what could have been if Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder had taken over singer-songwriter duties and Mike McCready had taken over on lead guitar: Vedder's lyrical genius, Novoselic's monster bass, Grohl killing his drum set (back where he belongs), and McCready on lead guitar. The only problem: McCready and Vedder would have to pull double-duty because Pearl Jam is too great to let die.

Those are my rock mash-ups - fantastical, absurd, intriguing.

Who would you mash-up? (If you say Linkin Park/Jay-Z I will not publish your comment - it was tried and it was useless. Jay-Z dominated so much, it just as easily could have been a mediocre house band behind him.)

*****

* I like some of the vague, cryptic lyrics out there, but too often there's no discernable meaning behind them. Lyrics can be vague and cryptic, but they have to mean something. Take the Shins for instance. James Mercer's lyrics are not easy to understand. They meander around meanings, but they say exactly what he wants them to say, you just have to think about them a bit. James Mercer = genius.

Thoughts While Procrastinating

NME magazine is reporting that Eminem is suing ex-wife Kim in an attempt to stop her from insulting him in public. What a hypocrite! Before I say anymore, you should know that I hate Eminem. Talk about wasted talent. The man is a lyrical genius with perhaps the best flow in the game, but he's a complete idiot. The man sells his records by releasing pop-ready, (moderately) kid-friendly, bouncy singles, then fills the rest of the album with hatred. It's roughly equivalent to pedophiles attracting children with lollipops. Anyway, back to the story. Eminem is suing wife Kim in an attempt to make her stop insulting him in public. The hypocrisy is this: every single Eminem album has been characterized by him insulting Kim at on at least 75% of the tracks. According to Eminem, when he insults her, it's freedom of expression. But what happens when she insults him? Suddenly it's defamation of character and harmful to their daughter? What the hell is the difference? Eminem, go away. You tool.

*****


In more important news: Today Quebecors go to the polls. The Quebec provincial election has begun and analysts are predicting a tight three-way race between the ADQ, the PQ, and the (incumbent) Liberals. I'm pulling for the Liberals. The PQ are, of course, the seperatists, so to pull for them would be to pull for the dissolution of Canada. I'm not too familiar with the ADQ, but I hear they are the right-wingers in Quebec provincial politics (filling the void left by the missing Conservative Party), so I cannot pull for them. Anyway, it sounds like we're going to have to wait until late tonight before we get the results. Should be interesting!

*****

That's all for today. Enjoy your Monday!

Rolling Stone is a Fan of Mine

It has become crystal clear that Rolling Stone magazine reads my blog. A few months ago (on my lost myspace blog) I wrote an article in which I created two fantasy supergroups. I created them from past and present rock stars - Clapton, Page, Ramone, McCartney, Hendrix, Flea, Cobain, Grohl, Peart, and others. Then, a few weeks later, Rolling Stone magazine asked its readers to name their own supergroups. Clearly, they were inspired by my creative genius.

Now they've done it again. A week or so ago, on the "Random List" part of this blog (just above the links on the right hand side) I named my top five Neil Young songs. Well guess what? Rolling Stone borrowed my idea again. Our lists weren't the same, but clearly they were once again inspired by my blog. I'm not mad at them. I think it's pretty cool. I'm flattered. They could at least give me a shout-out though.

P.S. - The only thing I can think of that would be cooler than having Rolling Stone reading my blog would be having the Rolling Stones read my blog. A boy can dream.

Do Drugs Enhance Creativity?

This is a common question I hear. Ever since Bob Dylan introduced the Beatles to marijuana in the mid-1960s, this has been a common question among rock fans. The standard answer seems to be yes, drugs do enhance creativity. The proof seems overwhelming: the Beatles, Pink Floyd, the entire psychedelia movement, but maybe it's not true afterall. Nine Inch Nails driving force Trent Reznor says no (courtesy Rolling Stone):

• Trent Reznor has spoken very candidly about the extent to which drugs impaired his ability to create music, saying: “I had made writing out to be a terrifying prospect filled with pain and failure and some things that I dreaded doing because I’ve always lacked self-confidence and every other thing. By the end of my run with drugs I’d also realised that my brain wasn’t functioning right and I’d lost the power to really concentrate – it really made my art suffer, which made me feel worse, which made me want to get high and you know, that cycle starts up.” Now that he’s sober, Reznor says, he’s finally learned how to write on the road, which makes him even more productive than he’s ever been before.

(Read the original article here.)

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. Doesn't it seem like the more drug-infused a rocker is, the quicker his/her career plummets? Pink FLoyd, the Beatles, and countless other bands seemed to peak then self-destruct, largely due to substance abuse. On the other hand you have bands like the Rolling Stones. They nearly broke up leading up to the release of Exile on Main St because some members of the band were abusing drugs. But others were (relatively) clean, and that probably saved the band. The Stones are the only British Invasion band that still matters - that still makes good music. You can also consider people like Eric Clapton. He nearly killed himself with substance abuse. His addiction caused him to stop making music for years. Then he kicked the habit, cleaned himself up, and released his most successful songs like Change the World and Tears in Heaven.

Listen to Trent Reznor.

The Rock Icon Party

I was in the car today on the way to my special edition Organizational Behaviour class listening to Modern Times by Bob Dylan when I began to wonder if I would like him if I ever met him. I came to the conclusion that I probably wouldn't much like him on a personal level. He seems, judging by his music and articles I've read about him, like a bit of a kook. The interesting thing is that I LOVE his music. From Like a Rolling Stone (which I previously named the greatest rock song ever) to All Along the Watchtower to Gotta Serve Somebody to...hell, there are way too many to name, I can't get enough Dylan. But the man, well, he seems like he's probably a little bit out there. A little bit too conspiratorial for my taste. I'm not the type of guy who sits back and believes everything exactly as it appears in the news, but I'm also not going to, for example, believe the US government staged the 9/11 attacks (which is a pretty popular theory - it even made Time Magazine). I'm not saying Dylan would, but I get the impression he would be more interested in that type of conspiracy. I love Dylan the folk-rocker, but the man, I'm not sure. I'll hold off judgment until I meet him in person.

This got me thinking about what other rock stars I would or wouldn't particularily like in person. I recall a friend noting that, notwithstanding a love for the Doors, Jim Morrison was probably a real dick. I concurred. Judging by the stories and the songs, I think it's clear that Jim was not only a drug-addicted womanizer, but he was probably also painfully pretentious. I bet he was the type of guy you'd want to knockout, if not because he was a total jerk to your best friend Jane then because he talked to you like he was walking somewhere over your head. Seeing as Jim's dead, I guess I can't really hold off judgment like I'm doing fo Bob, so I'm going to go ahead and judge Jim a complete ass.

What about Kurt Cobain? Again, I love his music, but I'm not sure about the man. I don't know much about him. I know his widow (Courtney Love) is a real tool. I think your left thumb harbours more intelligence than Courtney Love's entire body. But worse, she just annoys me, period. But does that reflect the type of man Kurt Cobain was? Probably. I've read some stuff about him, but I don't really know what to think. Certainly his own music is great, but he seemed to have a knack for choosing only great songs to cover (especially The Man Who Sold the World). I don't think he was a very happy person though. He'd probably totally bum me out. I think I'd talk to Kurt for a bit then loose interest and move on to someone I would actually enjoy being around.

In this rock-star-studded party who would I actually enjoy being around? A few names come to mind. I think, of all the Beatles, I'd get on best with Ringo Starr. He doesn't abuse his wife (McCartney), he never supported a communist party in Great Britain (Lennon), and he didn't seem excessively dedicated to the psychedelic lifestyle and sitar music (Harrison). He was a late addition, he was always in the background, but, being the drummer, was the heart of the band's live performances, and he seemed to be the most low-key. I bet he had great stories to tell, and I bet he'd talk to you like you mattered.

I also think Eddie Vedder would be a good guy to chill with. I've read some artcles about him and interviews with him. He seems like a chill kind of guy. From his music, he seems socially conscious, but not conspiratorial like Dylan. He has always seemed to me to be down to earth. Having said that, he's a rock icon, so I think he's got some stories to tell. He seems charismatic, but not too charismatic. I think the years spent fighting Ticketmaster and the music video phenomenon probably helped ground him.

Then there's Bono. The man seems to ooze charisma, but more importantly, he seems 100% real. When he was one-third of Time's People of the Year the article exposed him as a hard working, down-to-earth, sincere man. He's had more musical success than almost anyone else in the past 25 or so years, but he still fights for people who have nothing. I once stood about 30 feet from him and what a thrill! Not many people can inspire that kind of emotion in me. The funny thing is, at that time, I wasn't really a big U2 fan. It was when he appeared at the Liberal Leadership Convention in Toronto. He spoke flawlessly about debt and AIDS relief. I bet I could sit across a table from him for days without ever losing the wide-eyed-little-hockey-player-who-just-met-Wayne-Gretzky look.

Some other rockers I think I could be friends with:

• the entire roster of BNL
• Eric Clapton
  
• Chantel Kreviazuk (mostly because she's smokin' hot)
• Andre 3000 (OutKast)
  

Some other rockers I think I'd detest:

• Amy Lee (Evanescence)
  
• Pete Doherty (Babyshambles/The Libertines)
  
• the Gallagher brothers (Oasis)
  
• Gene Simmons (Kiss)
  

I wonder what jack-ass rockers I missed? I wonder what cool-shit rockers I missed. Any thoughts?

The Conservative Budget

I promised the impressive Mr. McIver (a future student, congrats) that I would look into the Tory budget and determine what all the thumbs down were about in an email I recieved. I will begin by summarizing the inverted pollices:

1. The budget did not deliver meaningful tax relief. "Tax relief for hard-working Canadians is a paltry $80 per tax-payer" (no word on what relief less industrious Canadians were given). In fact, the Conservatives have been raising taxes since they took power. In 2005 the lowest income tax rate was 15%. Today, it is 15.5%.
2. The budget did not deliver on promoting environmental sustainability. The Conservatives cut our commitment to renewable energy by 1500 megawatts. They maintained tax breaks for the expansion of the (very dirty) oil sands projects (Harper helping out his Albertan allies). They reduced funding for environmental issues to the provinces by half. Finally, they replaced rewards for those who make energy saving changes with costly gimmicks.
3. The budget did not deliver help to working families, students and Aboriginal Canadians. In 2006 the Conservatives promised 125,000 new childcare spaces over 5 years. They have delivered precisely zero in the past year. The so-called Universal Child Care benefit is fully taxable and the government will pull in an average of $400 per family thanks to this. The only money delivered to students will be given to the top 4000 graduate students (you included Pat?) while the rest of us get nothing. The Conservatives dropped the Kelowna Accord and replaced it with funding that is, comparatively, a "drop in the bucket."

According to Stephane Dion, "never have we seen a government do so little, with so much."

This all coming courtesy the Honourable John McCallum (Markham-Unionville).

So what is my take on the Conservative budget? I don't know. I'm no economist. Ask Pat what he thinks and you'll have the precise opposite of what I think. Okay, not really, but from what Mr McCallum (former Minister of National Revenue and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance) tells me, it sounds bad. What else would you expect from a righty like Stephen Harper?

Here's my half-assed assessment:

1. No help to those who need it, only to those who don't. Case and point: the Tories are giving money to the top 4000 grad students, all of whom are almost certainly getting other bursaries and being given various jobs by their schools to help them earn money to pay for tuition/living expenses/beer (I know WLU does that).
2. The Tories raised taxes for those in the lowest tax bracket. That means the second poorest class of Canadians are bearing a larger percentage of the tax burden.
3. As for his 1% decrease in GST, well, same thing. That reduction becomes more meaningful as you spend more money. If you spend $5000 (before taxes) a year on goods and services that are subject to the GST, you will have saved (roughly) $50 (wooohooo) thanks to this decrease. If you spend $15,000 (before taxes) a year on goods and services that are subject to the GST, you will have saved (roughly) $150. So the more you spend the more you save. Who do you think spends more: someone making $20,ooo per annum or someone making $200,000 per annum? I would assume the latter. If I'm correct, that means Harper's GST cut benefits the rich much more than the average Canadian.
4. The budget maintained tax breaks for oil sands expansion. Why? Let's (for now) forget that the oil sands are killing our environment. If the oil sands are really worth expanding (i.e. they are financial viable; profitable), why do they need/deserve tax breaks? Take a look at all the most profitable companies in the world and I bet you find a whole lot of big oil companies that are conducting business in the oil sands region. But, hey, who cares if they're killing Earth and raking in dough like Daniel Negreanu at a Texas Hold'em tournament? Give them tax breaks anyway. It's not like those breaks are coming out of the average Canadian's pocket right? It is? Shitty.
5. The Tories are giving money to families for child care. That's nice of them. But you say the money they hand over is taxable? That means whatever they give Canadians, they get a certain percentage of it back. Meaning what they promise is a lot more than what they're actually giving. Dirty.
6. Ever wonder why the Canadian government isn't trusted by its negotiating partners? First we sign the Kyoto Accord, then Harper comes in and scraps it. "I know we promised we'd do this, but I'm not really keen on that anymore, so we're not going to do this instead." Then we sign the Kelowna Accord only to have Harper come in and scrap it. "I know we promised we'd do this..." you know the rest. It is a fundamental principle of international politics, of politics plain and simple, that agreements are binding on the state, not the government, meaning a change in government does NOT void those agreements. You simply cannot have agreements being signed then scrapped everytime a government changes. For you business types (here's looking at you Pat) consider what happens when a business changes ownership. Is that business still bound by contracts entered into by the previous owners? I don't know about all contracts, but any collective agreement (i.e. unionized businesses) remains in force, as do all employment contracts (i.e. non-unionized businesses). The same for government agreements like the Kyoto and Kelowna Accords. Unless you're the Harper government, then you don't care. Because you're stupid. That's right, the Tory government is stupid. Morons.
   

Okay, clearly I'm getting a little testy. Must be time for some zzzz's. I didn't get to have my nap today and I've been up since about 8am...and I only got about 3 hours of sleep last night. Yes, I would like some cheese with this whine. Thank-you. Brie, preferably. Thanks.

Bonne nuit.

Politicians are Liars

Here is an article from Psychology Today that I found very interesting:

For many Americans, the words "government official" and "lying bastard" are practically synonymous. Now Colgate University psychologists report that leadership skills and the ability to deceive do, in fact, go hand in hand. And the connection begins earlier than you might think.

The researchers gave preschoolers a drink that was either sweet or tart. Then they asked the kids to say that the drink was sweet--even if it wasn't. The best deceivers, it turned out, were the same kids who had emerged as leaders during an earlier play period. Their superior social skills and ability to manipulate others helped them both lie convincingly and attain top ranking in the playground pecking order, report Caroline Keaating, Ph.D., and Karen Heltman, Ph.D., in Personality and Psychology Bulletin (Vol. 20, No. 3). A second experiment, this time with college students, produced similara (sic) results, particularly with men.

So with presidential primary season upon us, a little skepticism might be a good idea. The fact that leaders are masters of deception doesn't mean that politicians actually lie more often than the rest of us, Keating cautions. "But if they did, we wouldn't be able to tell because they are better at it."

Here's the article as published by psychologytoday.com.

Only Read this if You're a Hard-Core Politico...or Sadistic

I've had a conversation (over and over) about the original intent of the writers of our Constitution as regards the nature of power in Canada, specifically whether the authors of the Constitution Act, 1867 meant government power to be centralized in Ottawa or decentralized among the provinces. At the centre of this debate are, of course, sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act. Here they are (if you're interested in reading what I have to say, but aren't interested in reading Sections 91 and 92, just scroll down to where it says "Here's where the article really starts" in bold, capital letters):

POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

1. Repealed. (44)
1A. The Public Debt and Property. (45)
2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
2A. Unemployment insurance. (46)
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
5. Postal Service.
6. The Census and Statistics.
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.
9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
10. Navigation and Shipping.
11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces. 14. Currency and Coinage.
15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
16. Savings Banks.
17. Weights and Measures.
18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
19. Interest.
20. Legal Tender.
21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
22. Patents of Invention and Discovery.
23. Copyrights.
24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.
25. Naturalization and Aliens.
26. Marriage and Divorce.
27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.
29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. (47)

EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

1. Repealed. (48)
2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province
4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.
9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

(Section 92A be damned...for now...for our purposes here.)

If you don't trust my faithful reproduction of these sections, go here. I don't know why I didn't just use a link in the first place, but it's all here now, so it's staying. If you're wondering what the numbers in brackets after some of the lines are, they're links, and you can follow them if you follow the link I gave you above.

For future reference, "Parliament" = federal government, while "Legislature" (generally) = provincial government (that's just basic Canadian political knowledge if you're a nerd like me, so I'm clarifying for the vast majority of people who aren't so nerdy).

*****

HERE'S WHERE THE ARITCLE REALLY STARTS

*****

So, do these sections indicate that the authors intended Canada to be centralized or decentralized? I will argue they wanted Canada to be centralized. I'll start at the top.

1. The "POGG" Clause. "It shall be lawful for [the federal government] to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada". This is the Canadian equivalent of the 'national interest' clause in the American Constitution. Washington has made extensive use of the national interest clause so much so that the US is now centralized even though it was initially conceived as a loose union of independent states not unlike the European Union. The Canadian government has not similarly taken advantage of the POGG clause largely due to pressure placed upon the legislative and judiciary branches of the state to recognize duality (English/French) and regionalism.
2. The expansive preamble of section 91. "...and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated". This clearly indicates that the ferderal government has exclusive power to legislate regarding all matters not delineated specifically in section 92. It also specifically notes that the list which follows is general and not exhaustive (i.e. "not so as to restrict the Generality...").
3. The preamble to section 92. "In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated". This preamble is highly restrictive. There is nothing to indicate that this list is not exhaustive. Even in the preamble to section 91 you see that the list in section 92 was designed to be exhaustive.
4. Section 92A(3): "Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict." Specifically the latter part, which reads "where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict." This subsection only refers specifically to renewable resources, but the idea that federal laws supercede provincial laws is a clear indication that the authors intended the federal government to be superior, and therefore, Canada to be more centralized.*

You don't have to take my word for it. I tracked down my copy of the nauseatingly boring Comparing Federal Systems, Second Edition, by Ronald L. Watts.** The book was produced for the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. It was "required" reading for one of my courses at WLU (though it looks to be in near mint condition...). According to Watts, "The original 1867 constitution was marked by strong central powers including some powers enabling the federal government to override the provinces in certain circumstances...with the major residual powers assigned to the federal government." He very clearly states that the Constitution's original form was unequivocally centralized.***

There is no denying that the Constitution Act, 1867 was designed to centralize power under the federal government. Mr. McIver, I rest my case.

Well, not quite. Mr. McIver is going to ask how the Liberal Party could possibly consider something like child care to be within federal jurisdiction. To help answer, here is Section 93(4):

"In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section."

Basically, if a province does not make a law about education, "the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section." If you're like me and you can't find anything about child care in the Constitution Act, 1867 then you cannot logically come to any other conclusion then that the federal government has the authority to enact legislation regarding child care. Thanks to section 93(4) this remains true even if you're like Mr. McIver and you don't buy in to the whole "including, but not limited to" interpretation of the preamble to section 91 (that is assuming you think child care could reasonably be considered to fall under the category of education).

Case closed.****

*****

* If you are interested in reading the rest of the Constitution Act, 1867, I've been told (by various professors) that you'll find other similar evidence.

** Watts is no kook, he apparently wins awards.

*** All this is on page 24 if you're interested.

**** Booooyaaaa

btw - I hope I have the right to reproduce sections of our Constitution. It's not covered under any copyright or intellectual property laws, is it?

A Confession

I have a confession to make. It is in regards to the post My Irish Odyssey. I've had feedback from a few people already. One thought the article was great fun to read (they got the point), another wondered if I bought the girls breakfast, and the others thought it sounded like a great time. So here's the confession: the story is not true. I decided to try my hand at fiction (I think I did a modestly good job for a first timer). I'm sorry I misled you. In my defense, there are (at least) five hints, of varying obscurity and subtlety. If you don't believe me, here they are:

1. The title - I'm a really big nerd, so I like to do nerdy things like reference ancient Greek epic poems in my blog. If you're familiar with your ancient Greek epic poems, you know Homer's Odyssey is a mythical story - it is fictional, just like My Irish Odyssey.
2. The first pub we visit - One of my favourite TV shows is How I Met Your Mother. The characters in that show frequent a pub called McLaren's. Ergo, I picked that name for my pub. I referenced a second work of fiction. (If there is an Irish pub called McLaren's in downtown Chicago, that's a hell of a coincidence.)
3. The green man - Another of my favourite TV shows is According to Jim. In one St Patrick's Day episode, the title character, Jim, turns himself into the green man for the night. Also, the show is set in Chicago, just like my story. A third reference to a work of fiction.
4. The bold letters - Unfortunately, the bold letters didn't translate into my Facebook feed, so if you only read the story in its Facebook form, you can't have caught this clue. If you read it here (at Kerr's Comments), you can see the seven bold letters. Extract them from the story, and line them up next to each other (in the order they appear) and they read "fiction".
5. Me - If you know me, you know some of the specifics in the story are very uncharacteristic of me. More importantly, you know nothing in the world would make me miss a Habs-Leafs game.

Hey, I'll admit I'm no Dan Brown, but those were the clues I added to belie the appearance that this post was a narrative of actual events. If you noticed any of these clues, kudos. I didn't much expect many people would (except perhaps the bold letters, but I put them there, I knew they were there, and I still have problems finding them all). Sorry to mislead you.

The moral of the story: don't take anything I write at face value, and (more importantly) don't take anything I write seriously (except the last three congratulatory posts...and any future congratulatory posts). I give links to my sources so you can take those sources seriously. What I write is usually a joke - and a bad joke at that.

I hope you at least enjoyed my story. If you still don't believe me, you can ask my mom, with whom I spent St Paddy's Day watching hockey (Habs beat the Leafs! Oh yeah!).

Thanks.

Music News...and Others

If you're wondering how to get ahead in the music industry, here are some tips. I'm not advocating this, but if it worked for Christina Aguilera and Joss Stone, maybe it'll work for you.

*****

If you're like me (void of musical talent) you would probably prefer to see a big concert. Here's one: The recently reunited Smashing Pumpkins, the Killers, and others will be headlining the Toronto Virgin Festival. This will be the first North American date of the Pumpkins' reunion tour. Get pumped.

*****

I picked up this bit of news about a week ago, but couldn't think of a good way to report it, so I let it go. Rolling Stone did not have the same problem. If you don't want to bother with the link, I'll tell you it's about Bob Dylan and the Pope. Now you're going to click the link aren't you? I would. If not, Pope Ben says Dylan is the "wrong kind of prophet." I've always been a Christian, but never supported the Church - this is just more justification.

*****

National Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills) lied to you...and the House of Commons...and everyone else in Canada. In the immediate aftermath of breaking news of prisoner abuses in Afghanistan, he told Canadians that the government was being informed by the Red Cross about the treatment of detainees handed over to Afghan officials by Canadian forces. It turns out that was a lie. Later he claimed he was misinformed. Now, he has apologized for "providing inaccurate information for [House] members." He lied, and judging by the centrality of control of messages eminating from the Harper government, I think it may be accurate to say Stephen Harper lied to Canadians.

*****

I don't want to say the Globe and Mail is a Liberal newspaper, but this headline seems overtly partisan, even by Western Standard...standards.

*****

If you protest a Liberal Prime Minister you get the Shawinigan Handshake. If you protest Stephen Harper, you get thrown in jail - even if he's not around. Some Greenpeace protesters locked themselves to the gate out front of 24 Sussex Dr (the Prime Minister's residence), and were arrested for the act. The environmentalists were protesting the Harper government's lack of commitment to the Kyoto Accord.

*****

The Toronto Star is reporting that the Conservative budget has votes in mind. No shit. I want real news.

*****

The Conservative government's Senate Reform Bill (C-43) is unconstitutional says Senator Serge Joyal. According to Joyal, the provinces need to be involved in the process, and C-43 does not involve them. I've written on Senate reform recently (as has Mr. McIver). I believe the Senate is fine the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (That's Edmund Burke turned redneck.)

*****

Read about the PCO and Stephen Harper's $24,000 party here.

*****

And in the most important news stemming from this past weekend: the Montreal Canadiens beat the Toronto Maple Leafs on Saturday!

My Irish Odyssy

Yesterday was St. Patrick’s Day - the greatest non-holiday of the year. It may actually be the greatest day of the year, but I’m holding off judgment until after this Canada Day. Anyway, here’s the story of my St. Paddy’s Day:

It started at about 8am in the morning. Normally, if a friend calls me unexpectedly at 8am on a Saturday morning, that friendship is over, but this was a special case. An old college buddy was on the other end of the phone. A few weeks ago he had won a trip for four to Chicago including a night at the Marriott hotel in downtown Chi-town, breakfast in the morning, and a limousine to get us there, around, and home again. I must have done something right because whatever Celtic god is responsible for good luck was smiling down on me. One of his friends was forced to cancel at the last minute (I wasn’t going to ask why, I was just counting my lucky stars), and I just happened to live along the way. He called me from somewhere west of London and gave me 30 minutes to get ready. I hung up, dashed to the shower, got dressed (my genuine Art Guinness “Is it St Paddy’s Day, or am I seeing things?” shirt with the standard 8-year-old blue jeans) and got packed. Half an hour after the wake up call a big, black, stretched Cadillac pulled into my driveway. Off we went.

My buddy, a true Irish-Canadian bachelor, had planned this out pretty well. He had 24 cold cans of Guinness sitting in an ice-filled cooler and a fridge full of Irish whiskey – 8:30am or not, I reached directly for a can of the black gold. But I was stopped by my buddy. Apparently it was limo rules that I had to start with a couple shots first. Two shots later, I opened what would be my first of many brews.

We each pounded back our beer as we waited (nervously) in line at the border. No worries, the border guy was cool and we were on our way. We pulled over in Port Huron for some breakfast at a rundown grease-loving roadhouse. With a (un)healthy coating of grease and french toast protecting my stomach lining, we hit the road again. Some shots, some beers, and about 500 miles later, we pulled up to the hotel valet. I’m not going to lie, we weren’t the most graceful as we exited the limo, but no problem because everything was taken care of. The valet guy took care of our bags while the limo driver checked us in. We went to our suite way up in the Chicago skyline, tossed our bags, took care of some business and headed back down to street level. It was (probably…I guess…I’d had a few by this point) almost 3pm by now, so we headed to the nearest Irish pub (thanks Mike the concierge for sending us to a great place).

As we stepped into the pub (McLaren’s I think), we were greeted with a vision of what I think Ireland must look like. Green everywhere: everyone in the bar was decked out in green; every beer I saw (except the Guinness) was green; they were even giving out green leprechaun hats. Four mid-twenties Canadians were about to teach a bar full of Irish-Americans (if they weren’t Irish, they were yesterday) how to celebrate Ireland. It didn’t last long. Apparently my buddy becomes a bit of an exhibitionist after a few drinks. I looked over and saw him walking out of the washroom with his pants around his ankles (and a rather loose fly on his boxers).

After being politely asked to leave the pub (ok, we got kicked out- those bouncers weren’t nice), we headed across the street to another bar. That bar wouldn’t let us drunkards in, so we went for a bit of a walk. We came across the Chicago River, where one of us (not saying which one) decided he wanted to be entirely green (you know, in the spirit of the day). The city dyes this river green every St Paddy’s Day, so we tried to make our way down to its shore where we could dunk him and dye him. (Luckily,) some kind policemen stopped us before we froze ourselves (and, judging by our blood-alcohol level, drown ourselves).

Being St. Patrick’s Day, the cops were very understanding as they pointed us towards the next pub. We stepped inside, looked around, and picked our hotties. Unfortunately they were on their way out, so by about 7pm (again, who knows what time it really was, just go with it) we followed the lasses to the next pub. After a sobering wait in line, we saw our next vision of Ireland. I don’t know if I ever saw the name of this place, but the food was good, so if you’re ever in Chicago…

Anyway, a bunch more pints brought us to 11pm (or so…you know the drill) and some new lasses. These girls were calling a cab to get them to some “legendary” Irish pub on the other end of downtown, so we called our limo and crammed 8 people into the back. After a round of whiskey and some general inner-limo debauchery, we pulled up to a tower on the banks of the Chicago River. Into the elevator and up to the roof we went. Not really your standard Irish pub setting, but when you enter the doors, you’re left without doubt. Some big green man (who was apparently a regular) gave us a story about how every piece of art and furniture in the place was imported directly from Ireland. According to the guy, the pub’s owner immigrated to Chicago with his family back in the 1970s and brought his Irish pub with him from Cork.

More pints led us to last call and we headed back to the limo with those same lasses (I think they were the same girls, but everyone was wearing green, so it was hard to differentiate). We all headed up to our suite at the hotel, partied through the rest of the Guinness from the limo, and passed out (I wish I could fill you in on the details, but I must have been pretty ‘tired’ because I don’t remember).

We woke up around 11am, kicked the girls out the door, and checked out by noon. We grabbed lunch at the hotel restaurant then hit the road. At some point yesterday someone was smart enough to pick up some Gatorade (usually a hang-over cure) so we re-hydrated on the ride home. My buddy passed out somewhere outside of Kalamazoo, so we took the rest of the whiskey (only a couple shots worth was left) and spiked his Gatorade (sorry bud, wasn’t my idea, I swear). He woke up and chugged back the rest of his drink. I guess the old saying “hair of the dog that bit you” is true, because he seemed to be the only one who’s head wasn’t pounding as we pulled up to the border. By 6pm today I was at home, in bed trying to sleep off the Irish flu. No luck, so here I am, telling you all about the day that was (please forgive any poor grammar/spelling).

That’s my story; I hope your St Paddy’s Day was fun!

More Congratulations!

Congratulations to new mother Nicole, new father Doug, and their families on the arrival of baby Kathryn.

It has been a good month as this is the second healthy new arrival into the lives of my friends and family.

Congrats again.

Nirvana Drummer Forms New Band

No, this article in NME isn't from 1995 when Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl formed the Foo Fighters. The man who hammered the hides on Nirvana's debut album Bleach has formed a new band called Before Cars. Chad Channing is looking to find the same kind of post-Cobain success as Grohl. Not likely, but if you spend that much time around a genius like Kurt Cobain, you probably pick some things up. To summarize, here are the similarities:

1. both were drummers for Nirvana,
2. both have switched to vocal/guitar duties with their new band,
3. both have first names containing exactly four letters (wow).

Alright, I'm trying to stretch this out so it's worthy of its own post, but that's failing, so I'll talk about Sir Elton John as well.

According to Entertainmentwise.com (via Rolling Stone), church leaders in Tobago are worried Sir Elton's appearance at the Plymouth Jazz Festival will spontaneously turn Tobagans gay. I'm not going to underestimate the influence and mystical powers of the man whose middle name is (apparently) Hercules, but, from personal experience, I cannot imagine they outweigh the mystical power of boobs.

What's Wrong with Quebec?

Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair, while speaking to students in Montreal, said, "When I was in Boston, where I spent a year, I was surprised to see that on [the Harvard] campus about one-third of the students doing their bachelor's degrees had slanting eyes." Is that really a politically expedient way to describe people of Asian descent? And this in the wake of the furor over the Quebec government's decision to (effectively) force a Muslim prison guard trainee to quit or remove her hijab. Then if you go back a little further, we have the small Quebec town of Herouxville publishing new rules in response to the arrival of an immigrant family. BBC News writes:

"We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here," the declaration reads.

"We consider it completely outside norms to... kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc."

So what's going on in Quebec? The province has historically been very protective of it's own language and culture, but does that necessarily breed this type of prejudice? Boisclair's comment is inexcusable. I'm not sure his remark is the most offensive racial slur I've heard, but certainly there's no place for that type of comment in an election campaign, if anywhere. Then we have the hijab thing. I can somewhat understand the Quebec government's stance here. They argued that the hijab could be a saftey hazard if/when inmates become hostile. Maybe. I've never worn a hijab so I don't really know the logistics of the thing but from seeing them, I can understand the concern. Finally, the Herouxville thing is so filled with prejudice it reaches South Park-level humour. I mean, one family moves to town and officials feel it necessary to inform them that public stoning, burning women alive, etc are outside of Canadian norms? I've opined before that too many Canadians don't have any comprehension of the world beyond their daily commute, but this is preposterous. I can't help but think that decades of defending Quebec culture has gone too far. Young Quebecors indoctrinated with a distaste for Anglo-Canada seem to have expanded their cultural dislike to all non-Quebecors. I might be blowing this out of proportion, but these three incidents are coming straight from Quebec leaders, so they represent a problem. It's time for the rational moderates in that province to step up.

Return of the News Bits

The Globe and Mail is reporting that Alberta was the worst polluting province in 2005. Alberta contributed 40% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Ontario ranked second (28%) and Saskatchewan third (8%). Alberta's number is excessively high considering the province only accounts for about 10% of the Canadian population. Ontario accounts for about 39% of Canadians, meaning we polute less than would be expected. Saskatchewan also overpolutes by population - only about 3% of Canadians live in that province.

Of more interest in my region (Southwestern Ontario), the Lambton Generating Station (a coal powered generating station) was the fifth worst polluter in Canada. Every once in awhile the Ontario Government suggests it is going to close LGS, and everytime that happens Sarnia-Lambtoners go haywire. The argument is that LGS has been retrofitted with clean technologies (apparently not though) and eventually the government backs down. Last time this happened even local MP Roger Gallaway stepped in to defend LGS (in his defence, we were nearing a federal election and he had his job to worry about). LGS provides a lot of jobs in the area, but surely we can phase out the station and bring a new industry to replace it. I know this would mean a lot of people would need to retrain, but that's just industry. I'm campaigning for the closure of LGS. I don't care if Sarnia-Lambton doesn't like it.

*****

Conservative Environment Minister John Baird (Ottawa West-Nepean) says his government wants "to be part of, and provide leadership around the world for, negotiation of a new pact that will go farther than Kyoto in the years ahead." According to the Globe and Mail article, Baird also wants to bring the US, China and India into the process. Sounds great John, but here's a translation for those not so fluent in Tory-speak. "In the years ahead" means not now, but maybe before the next new millenium scare starts. "Be part of, and provide leadership around the world for" means we want to take the focus of our inaction by pretending to talk to other states. Finally, by saying they want to bring the US, China and India into the process, Baird means he wants to be able to blame his failure on someone else. Kudos John - way to lower the price of talk.

*****

Here's a message I got on Facebook from Stephane Dion (that's right, we're friends):

I will be in Toronto for St. Patrick's Day, hope you can join me for a green drink. Below are details for the event:

Date: Saturday, March 17
Location: Ram in the Rye Pub at Ryerson
Address: 63 Gould Street
Time: 4-6 PM

Now this is a leader I can get behind! Any politician who likes to pound back the green suds on St Paddy's Day has my full support! The only question: Why only for two hours? Come on Stephane, you can't drink enough in two hours! ...or can you? Challenge accepted.

*****

Ho-hum: Palestinians announce new cabinet, Israel refuses to work with it. In Israel's defence, the new cabinet (according to the Globe and Mail) still has representitives of the terrorist organization Hamas.

*****

No political alliances in the next election for Dion and the Liberals. No problem, we'll win anyway.*

*****

The great Ken Dryden (York Centre), who helped the greatest sports team in the history of the universe to 6 league championships in only 8 seasons, is now trying to save Darfur. Good luck.

*****

That's it for now. I'm cutting this short because my interest has been pulled elsewhere. Hope you enjoyed!

*****

* Political trash talk starts here, but, admittedly, is not as cool as other forms of trash talk, like sports-related trash talk.

The Senate Debate, Part II

Remember the mostly useless high philosophy that was my "Ignorance Undone and the Senate Debate" post? Well, Mr. McIver was inspired to write his own theory, and he blew mine out of the water. If the Senate debate interests you at all, his post is much better. Read it here. Thanks Pat.

Am I a Lefty or a Righty?

I was thinking last night about how I always proclaim myself a liberal (small 'l'), generally a moderate one, and usually describe myself (relevant the political spectrum) as being slightly left of centre.

For any political science neophytes who read my blog, I'm including here a quick lesson about the political spectrum. The spectrum has three main points: the left, the centre, and the right. On the extreme left is socialism (i.e. Marxism, communism). On the extreme right is nationalism (i.e. Fascism, Harperism*).** The extreme left, basically, believes in strict equality among people. They say the state should regulate all facets of the economy so as to ensure this equality.*** The extreme right, basically, believes in the people's freedom to act. They say the state should allow the economy to move as it will (laissez-faire economics), and allow people to either succeed or fail.**** The spectrum becomes very difficult to define at its borders, but I think this is generally a good description. In the centre we find the vast majority of Canadians. They believe the state should only intervene if it is necessary to maintain stability and standard of living. This, clearly, is a balance between the left and right. The spectrum becomes increasingly confusing as you expand beyond considerations of political economics and start to consider social factors. (Did I say "quick lesson"?) Basically: left = more government intervention to ensure equality, and; right = less government intervention to ensure equality.

An example:
Health Care:
Canada is very leftist here. All Canadians have public health insurance. The state picks up the tab.
The USA is very rightist here. Most Americans rely on private health insurance. The individual picks up the tab.

Now that I've confused the hell out of myself, I can move on.

In my blog I've talked smack about the Conservative Party (which I call slightly right of centre) and about George W. Bush (who is a couple notches right of the Conservatives). I've had both harsh (re: his consolidation of despotic powers) and kind (re: his belief in market protectionism for developing South/Latin American states) words about Hugo Chavez (who is miles left of centre).

My question is: Where am I? Am I a rightist? Am I a leftist? I claim to fall slightly left of centre, but does what I say/write back that up? Or am I confused? (I'm certainly confused, but I'm asking specifically about this topic.)

Here's part of the problem. I believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand, but I also believe in equality. But I believe more strongly in equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. That is, I think it is important that people have every opportunity to reach the same status, but that reaching that status is not a given. For example I'll talk about education. I think it is important that the government help fund post-secondary education (i.e. OSAP, tuition amounts on your tax return), but I don't believe the government should pay for everyone to get a post-secondary education.

I wonder where a regular Kerr's Comments reader would put me on the spectrum. I know Mr. McIver would put me somewhere left of Marx himself, but that's coming from someone who is slightly right of Dick Cheney.

Pondering such philosophical questions is great fun!

*****
* I think I made up "Harperism" and it is designed to refer to Stephen Harper. The reality of course is that Harper and his Conservative Party are quite close to centre, so ignore this and recognize it as a joke. Thank-you.

** The example of fascism probably leads people to think Hitler, and he was a rightist fascist, but fascism and nationalism do not necessarily mean Hitler-esque tyrany and evil. It just sort of seems that way.

*** For a true socialist the state becomes obsolete once true equality is acheived, so saying the state should regulate the economy is only half correct.

**** Unlike for a socialist, a rightist would never suggest the disappearance of the state system.

Congratulations!

I neglected to mention this in the previous post, so it gets its own (and worthy it is):

Congratulations to new mother Lisa, to my best friend "Uncle Pat", and the entire McIver family on the arrival of baby Sophia.

Read more from the beaming uncle here.

News Bits and Gladrags...or Something

Rolling Stone is reporting the best news all year! It seems Paris Hilton will not be polluting the airwaves with anymore musical vomit. Warner Music will apparently drop the caustic heiress from the label. Maybe the pop music industry does have standards afterall. Unfortunately, Rolling Stone is also reporting some bad news. Original lead singer of the monster rock band Boston was found dead in his home. Bradley Delp was responsible for the rock anthem More Than a Feeling, among others. In other Rolling Stone-delivered bad news, Maroon 5 is set to release their new album.

*****

The membership of the new (US Congressional) Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was announced on Friday. Looking at the members two things jump out: (1) only one member is from auto-hub Michigan (Candice Miller - who happens to be from directly across the Twin Bridges from me - that is, not Detroit), and (2) the only state with two members is California (the jurisdiction with the strictest emissions standards in North America). According to the Washington Post, this committee was initially met with friction from "veteran lawmakers, such as Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who in the past guarded the interests of the big U.S. automakers from his state by opposing higher fuel-efficiency standards." The committee was created by the House, not the President, but I still see it as a step forward in America's battle for the environment. It means at least a small shift in power and focus.

*****

The Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have both spoken out recently in admiration for a 2002 Saudi peace initiative. Though the initiative was outright rejected in 2002, the prevailing situation in Israel (including increasing numbers of suicide bombings in recent days) has led the government to reconsider its merits. Could this be a step in the right direction? If it is, it's a tiny one, but then, the only big steps in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seem to go backwards.

*****

If you didn't believe that Dick Cheney was the mastermind behind the Bush Administration's Iraq strategy, you should now. While the rest of the Administration seems to be taking a more low-key approach, the Vice President is still saying the same old things: "those in Congress who pursue a gradual drawdown of American forces are 'undermining' the troops and that a withdrawal would represent 'a full validation of the Al Qaeda strategy.'" How much longer until November 2008? Funny I should mention this now...I just got the mail and the cover of Time magazine calls Cheney "one of Bush's biggest liabilities." Coincidence abounds today (more on this later).

*****

The newest Conservative Party candidate (for Newton-North Delta, BC) is a liar. Sandeep Pandher said publicly that he was never a member of the Ontario Liberal Party when in fact he was up until last year. He says federal and provincial parties are different, which they are (I'm a Liberal federally, but I've been considering both Liberal and Conservative memberships provincially), but if Pandher knows this, why lie? Because that's what Tories do.* I guess Sandeep was just trying to "pandher" to his new party. (Sorry, that was bad.)

*****
Auditor General Sheila Fraser, the one who's report on the sponsorship scandal rocked the Canadian government and (specifically) the Liberal Party, refuses to investigate why former environment commissioner Joanne Gelinas abruptly left her job. The Tories will tell you she just wanted to move on, but if that's the case, why did Gelinas tell us she learned of her dismissal through a Globe and Mail news report? Because Harper and his cronies pushed her out (even though the position she held is not supposed to be subject to the government's whims)?

*****

I don't think I can avoid talking about the Chris Simon incident....so I won't. Simon is a veteran NHL enforcer (one of the few who actually has some skill) who has a history of over-the-line incidents. He's been suspended a total of six times now. But Simon, by all accounts, is a great guy. His work in his home town (Wawa, ON) is impressive. He also happens to be among the few Native Canadians in the NHL and his work for that communittee is admirable as well. Different people around the league have stood up for Simon, calling him "an honest guy" and a "great teammate". Chris had this to say (from NHL.com):
"I want to apologize to my team and Islanders fans everywhere," Simon said in a statement released Saturday night. "My actions Thursday night played a major part in our team losing a crucial game. I also want to apologize to the National Hockey League for the damage I have caused this great game of ours. “What you saw Thursday is not the person, player and competitor that I am. I know my teammates and opponents over my 14 years in the NHL understand that. I do not remember much about Thursday's incident. When I saw the tape on Friday morning, it explained a lot to me when I saw the look on my face after being hit into the boards. I was completely out of it."
I don't know about anyone else, but I believe him. Just before the incident, Simon took a hit from behind and went face-first into the end boards. When he got up, it was clear he wasn't all there (he says the hit gave him a concussion). I'm not justifying what Simon did, he deserves every game of his 25-game (maximum) suspension, but I'm still a fan of his. I have been ever since his days as a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds.

*****

(I'm taking a big risk here, but for good reason.) This article** is extremely poignant (as in "astute and pertinent; relevant" - thanks Dictionary.com) for me right now. I'm not sure if the author knows the connection, but it would be a wonderful coincidence otherwise. Anyway, click the link, read the article, get an understanding of what I'm thinking.

The inspiration for this topic is one of my best friends. I want to wish her all the best in her forthcoming endeavor.

.

.

Congratulations J & T

.

.

*****

* Okay, that's not a fair generalization, but I'm a blogger, I can get away with it.

** This link is probably temporary, but it's the best I can do. Look for "In Defense of Marriage."

P.S. If you're wondering about the title, think Rod Stewart...and remember how daftly random I am.

Communication

Last night I (finally) got to watch Babel. I've been dying to see this movie since I first started seeing advertisements for the theatrical release months ago, and it exceeded even my loftiest of expectations. The movie, simply, is about communication. According to Genesis (not the band), Babel (aka Babylon) is an ancient city (about 80 kilometres south of modern-day Baghdad) where the residents began building the (mythical?) Tower of Babel. The purpose of the tower was to allow us (humanity) to reach the heavens. Apparently this pissed God off, so he destroyed the tower and divided humanity through language (so they could never again attempt such a thing).

Here starts Babel. It is a story about people across the globe (Mexico, Morocco, Japan, and the US) having difficulty communicating with those around them. Brad Pitt is stuck in Morocco tending his injured wife. He cannot seem to communicate because of language, culture, and his own desperation. A young Japanese girl, who is deaf and dumb, cannot communicate with those around her. And two young American children caught in Mexico are unable to communicate through the cultural differences. Those are the main storylines, but the movie goes much deeper. It deals with many other barriers to communication - alcohol, prejudice, desires, even death - that aren't as obvious. Babel shows the viewer that there are a lot more barriers to communication than simply language.

But this is not a movie review, this is a discussion of communication in general. I find I communicate most frequently electronically - emails, text messages, instant messages, (blogs) et cetera - and I think that's probably true of an increasing number of people. I always held the (probably naive, arrogant) view that one could communicate as well through these means as any other, but recently I've been noticing many shortcomings to these impersonal media. Where I used to think using straight-forward, overt language would be as good as a face-to-face conversation, I'm starting to reconsider the importance of non-verbal communication* - a smile, a nod, a shrug, even a quick glance away. These little signs can change conversations as much as the words being used. One can say the exact same thing via email as in a conversation, and the receiver's reaction, their interpretation, can be profoundly different. A simple message can be perverted by the lack of tone, lack of a smile, lack of anything, into something totally different. I'm not talking about something as simple as telling an off-colour joke while laughing so people know you're joking. I'm talking about the lack of much more subtle tells. For example, an honest critique can be received as something much more insidious.

I think that if words were taken at face value, it would be possible to effectively communicate without the non-verbal cues. I don't think this is possible though. Everything that is communicated comes with context. When you communicate in writing, the receiver looks for other clues to help give deeper meaning to the message. The person you've emailed may try to consider what the tone was last time you communicated, and may assume that is the tone you are sending. Or the receiver may assume the sender is feeling the same way they are, and interpret the words in that context. Perhaps the receiver just finished a conversation with someone else, and they may interpret the message in that context. Maybe the receiver is thinking about the kind of person you are, and assuming your message falls in line with their perception of you. The variables are endless and we haven't even considered language and culture.

The misunderstanding can be in the language. In a face-to-face conversation, the speaker can recognize confusion versus understanding and make the appropriate next step. This cannot happen in (most) electronic communications, and this leads to numerous problems. Maybe the receiver and the sender have different ideas of what a word means, or which definition of the word they should use. Maybe the receiver doesn't know at all what a word means - or maybe the sender doesn't, or they used it wrong. If I use the word "fag" in this article you would probably be offended, unless you're British, then you think I'm talking about a cigarette, or you're a sailor and I'm asking you to fray or unlay the end of a rope (apparently). If I start talking about "cleavage", you may think I'm a pervert, or you may know I'm talking about a critical division in opinions, beliefs, et cetera (this in case you didn't bother clicking the word in my last article). If the sender refers to the receiver as magnanimous, the receiver might have no idea what it means and could end up making a wrong assumption (we've all done that, at least I have - stupid university textbooks and their plethora of polysyllabic words). Maybe the sender just made up a word (again, I've done that too), and the receiver can't possibly know what it means and can't look it up. Maybe the sender has misspelled a word (I've also been there).** Or maybe the sender is rambling on without reason (like the author). Considering all of the difficulties inherent in communication it seems we can use all the help we can get. The non-verbal cues give us a lot of help.

Eniwhey Babel wuz a grate moovee end it openned mi i's in this werld its impossible two avoid emales texed messages instent messages and uther like modes of communication so won must werk hard too insher enithing sent veea thees menes iz cleer and open the onis four this is on both the sender and the receever.

Here's to a renewed emphasis on (and appreciation for) verbal, face-to-face communication. At least it's a start in this cursed post-Babel (the Biblical story, not the movie) world.

*****
* If there is some confusion as to what non-verbal communication is, I'm using it to mean wordless communication. Therefore written communicaton does not fall under non-verbal communication.
** Consider the consequence of erroneously exchanging the 'e' for an 'a' in deft.

Ignorance Undone and the Senate Debate

In an earlier post today I admitted to being "fundamentally ignorant" about the British Parliamentary system. I said something stupid about its make-up. I decided, primarily with the help of my favourite resource (Wikipedia) that I would fix that. I believe I can now talk somewhat intelligently about it.

The British Parliament, much like the Canadian Parliament (and unlike what I wrote earlier), has two Houses: the House of Lords is the upper house (we call it the Senate) and the House of Commons is the lower house (we call it the same). What was confusing me is that the House of Lords has two types of members: Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. Right now, neither faction is democratically elected (as with our Senate). The vote in the British parliament I referenced is going to change that. The House of Commons, like ours, is democratically elected. The Queen chooses the person most likely to be able to gain support of the majority of the House (usually the leader of the Party with the most seats, but not necessarily) to be Prime Minister. Again, this is exactly like our system (except instead of the Queen doing the selecting, it is our Governor General).

So the British parliament has voted in favour of a fully elected House of Lords. The Western Standard* thinks this is a boost to the Conservative plan of having our Senate become a democratically elected body. I'm not sure an unelected House of Lords an ocean away is what was holding us back, but perhaps. Is there really that much deference still paid to the British system? I think it had more to do with Liberal control of the Senate (i.e. since the Liberals usually form the government, why would they change the system and risk losing their guaranteed Senate support?).

But do we really want an elected Senate? Right now, the Senate acts as a sort of Socratic philosopher king in that it protects against the tyrany of the majority. The Senate doesn't need to worry about whether or not their decision will cost them the next election, thereby allowing Senators to make the right decision, even if that decision is not popular (i.e. a law taxing red heads more than any other hair-colour cleavage would benefit the vast majority of the population, and it wouldn't really violate the Charter [where does it say we are free from discrimination based on hair colour?], but it would, I think we can agree, be unfair/wrong/an example of tyrany of the majority and could conceivable have popular support).** I'm not saying this is a common thing, nor am I saying the Canadian Senate actual does this, but it can, and that is the benefit of having an appointed-for-life Senate.

Besides that, what's wrong with the current system? In comparison to the American system (their upper house, the Senate, is elected) I don't think we come up short. I mean, if the theory of voter fatigue is correct, Canadians don't want any more elections - far too many of us don't turn up on election day as it is.

I don't think this change in the British Parliament has much significance in Canada. I think Harper has the same long road ahead of him if he wants to make our Senate an elected body. I give credit to the Western Standard for jumping on anything that could possibly further their cause (remember that their cause and the Conservative cause are one and the same), but this train isn't going anywhere.

*****

* Is it possible the Western Standard could be any more partisan? Wholly rightist, entirely Conservative. I know it is "Canada's only conservative national newspaper" but it could at least pretend to be unbiased like the rest of our national newspapers do.
** Give me a break, this is the best idea I could come up with. If you've got a better one, leave it in the comments.

I'm Googleable

I searched for "kerrscomments" on Google, and low and behold, this site was the only response. I suppose no less should be expected (especially seeing as Blogger is part of the Google empire), but being Googleable for the first time is pretty cool.

I only have one complaint. When you Google me, the description below the link is from a blog post I deleted a few days back. Worse, this is a post that is not representative of what most of my blog is about. I want that changed! Can't it put my subtitle there ("A blog where I spout whatever's on my mind or in the news")? Get to work Google!

I'm Bored...and other News Bits

If you have something you don't want, just bury it. Alberta is planning to build a "carbon dioxide pipeline" that apparently will be used to bury carbon dioxide. According to the Globe and Mail scientists aren't certain if this type of project (which is used elsewhere) is a good idea. I say we vacuum out the centre of the earth and start storing shit there. Who needs all that molten rock anyway? We could totally shoot that crap into space and make ourselves a second moon! Other planets have multiple moons, why not ours?

*****

Liberal heavyweight MP Bill Graham (Toronto Centre) announced he's not running for re-election in the next federal election so former Ontario NDP Premier Bob Rae has decided he wants the seat. Rae recently finished third in the Liberal leadership race, and to be honest, I thought he was going to call it a day after losing. Apparently, I was wrong (take note, I admitted I was wrong).

*****

"The largest military operation ever undertaken in Canada" is being planned. It seems Stephen Harper has ordered the invasion of 81 Metcalfe Street in Ottawa. I didn't read the whole article, but I think it has something to do with the tenants housing extremist factions. Wait... Nevermind, I read the rest of the article and it's just about the Defence Department planning security for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Which reminds me, I'm pumped about the Olympics being in Canada!

*****

I wonder if a federal election is coming soon? According to the Globe and Mail, Moncton area Conservative Party workers are being pushed to speed up the candidate-nomination process. Wouldn't it be funny if Garth Turner (Halton) is right? Especially after Conservative and Chief Government Whip Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River) opined "I think that perhaps the tin foil hat's a little tight on [Turner's] head." It would be even funnier if Garth is right and the Conservatives, who campaigned on instituting fixed election dates, actually do have an "election manual" with specific (unfixed) dates.

*****

In light of what would be yet another Harperian policy reversal, I'm proposing we call Stephen Harper "Mr. Flipper". I know Pat, you wanted that title for Stephane Dion, but really it could work either way. How about we call them collectively "The Federal Flippers"?

*****

I think it is awesome how Middle Eastern leaders consistently call for the US to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then decry American intrusion in Middle Eastern affairs. Being a Liberal (and liberal), I hate to say this, but I kind of feel bad for George W. Bush sometimes. Jordanian King Abdullah II spoke to a joint meeting of House and Senate members in Washington today. The King said results are needed this year. Good luck. How does one broker peace between a perpetually paranoid government (Israel) and one that denies the other's right to exist (Palestine)? Maybe after we've sucked the molten rock out of the centre of the earth (remember, to make room for carbon dioxide and other waste) we can make a replica of the Promised Land just off the coast of California. Surely either the Palestinians or the Israelis would be willing to trade their home for a plush island in the Pacific. I know I would. No offence Sarnia.

*****

Word to the wise: don't send emails to crazy broads.

*****

I really thought those pesky Parti Quebecois people had moved on. Apparently not. PQ leader Andre Boisclair promised a smooth transition to sovereignty if his party wins the upcoming Quebec provincial election. Perhaps Harper's "Quebecois nation" declaration wasn't a quick fix. I wonder if Boisclair's version of sovereignty is the same as the 1995 version - "we want to be sovereign but we still want your military, money, resources, and whatever else suits us." Here's a personal plea to M. Boisclair:
S'il vous plait ne faites pas au Québec un état souverain. Je ne veux pas devoir encourage pour une équipe appelée Montréal Quebecois.

*****

A historic vote in the UK means the House of Lords will be wholly elected (there are currently hereditary and appointed members...or something). As I read the article, I realize I'm fundamentally ignorant about the British Parliamentary system. I thought it was Upper and Lower Houses like ours, but they have an Upper Chamber too, and some other stuff. I don't know, read the article and figure it out yourself if you're interested. This is very significant.

*****

Yesterday I posted an article that talked about Human Rights abuses. Today's Guardian reports a couple more. Turkey is banning YouTube and Russia fired a journalist for giving an interview about police brutality. I'm assuming here that freedom of speech/press is a human right.

*****

There's a power struggle starting in Iran. The venomously anti-Bush Iranian President is being challenged by the country's leading elder statesman. Bush must be loving this.

*****

Why are the Raptors in a free fall? They've lost 3 in a row, and the last two were decisive losses. I'm not happy. Sam Mitchell, if I were GM, your neck would be on the line. Okay, not really, these Raptors were supposed to suck. Raptors face Memphis tonight. Go Raps!

*****

Go to London (England) and see little Harry Potter. I won't be there. I promise.

News Bits... with a Dash of Anti-Toryism

It seems some politicians in the US were listening when the Canadian government was talking about the Maher Arar case. According to the Globe and Mail, US Democrats have cited the Arar case in a movement to ban extradition to third countries that engage in torture. Representitve Ed Markey of Massachusetts said, "outsourcing torture is a hideous and illegal practice that has no place in the policy tool kit of [the] United States."

*****

According to the US Department of State's Annual Report on Human Rights, the genocide in Darfur (Sudan) was the worst human rights abuse of 2006. The genocide continues today. Major violations were also reported in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems Canada did okay in the study. I found this via an article in the Globe and Mail.

If you read the New York Times article, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't mentioned until the second paragraph (both are mentioned in the first paragraph of the Globe's article). Those two American muck-ups are mentioned only after Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China (they are second and third in the Globe's article). Interesting.

*****

Is this really the first time this has come up? The CN Tower has been standing for decades, why hasn't ice fallen from it before? Toronto police were forced to order the closing of a section of the Gardiner Expressway yesterday as falling ice threated motorists. Perhaps this will bring back calls for a Torontonian version of the Big Dig.

*****

Elsewhere in the Big Smoke, PM Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest) has announced $1.5B in funding for an anti-gridlock plan. The Toronto Star called it "an election campaign style event." Remember, Mr McIver, when you decried Liberal big-spending announcements close to elections as a way to buy votes? Must just be politics.

*****

Apparently there is a giant hole in the middle of the Atlantic... Should we be concerned at all?

*****

The absurd intrusion into free-market economics proposed by NDP leader Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth) apparently found ears in the Conservative government. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa) says he believes banks will cut ATM service fees. If you're wondering, that's the government's way of telling banks to do it voluntarily or have it legislated. I thought the Tories said they were not courting the NDP to help stabilize their minority government...

*****

This is so cool - the Guardian's "24 Hours in Pictures" - check out number 4 of a firefighter in Mexico and number 6 of a sunken Bolivian city. Then check out the rest because they're pretty cool too.

*****

US President George W. Bush is heading out on a trip to Latin American where he will talk about "an energy partnership plan to create jobs and decrease poverty and inequality." The plan is aimed at countering Hugo Chavez's leftist revolution which is sweeping that region. Since the elder Bush was President, the American policy has been strictly trade liberalization (with a dash of drug war). But that continent has quickly turned left down an anti-US road, and the younger Bush is trying to redirect popular opinion.

China Steals from Children and Other News Bits

No, really. China is being blamed for a rash of thefts across Japan. According to the Guardian, Japanese authorities are blaming China for disappearing metal objects including "incense holders from graveyards, hundreds of metres of copper wire, and the roof of a public toilet." But worst of all, the Guardian is suggesting kids should blame Chinese scrap yards if their playground slides (one of the most popular targets) go missing. Apparently the Chinese building boom, combined with sky-rocketing world metal prices, are leading to unusually high rates of theft. And this is no joke. Japanese police report this underground industry has cost more than 2 billion yen so far. So next time you're looking over your investments, and your kid asks what you're doing, you can't tell them commodities prices don't matter to them. That would be a lie.

*****

In other news, the North Korean government has started cracking down on citizens trying to flee the country. Apparently in the past North Korea generally looked the other way when its starving citizens fled to China, but according to Human Rights Watch and as reported in the Globe and Mail, that has changed. Now, "those who seek refuge or are forcefully returned by Chinese authorities now regularly face prison sentences of up to five years – where they must live under harsh conditions that include beatings, forced labour and starvation."

*****

Coincidently, after finding the Human Rights Watch internet address for the above section, I decided to take a look at the site. There's a video (and a link to a short article) about cluster munitions on the home page. These bombs, delivered in a variety of ways (often dropped from airplanes) break apart in mid-air and release "dozens, and often hundreds" of smaller explosive devices (bomblets). These bomblets often end up covering an area larger than a football field, and consequently, result in civilian casualties. Worse yet, sometimes they don't explode when they hit the ground - they just lay there waiting for someone to come along and find them. When these unexploded bomblets are found, they can explode if moved - even if just by a breeze - and the result is either death or disfigurement.