Albums of the Year in My Collection (Updated)

For a few months now, I've been thinking about going through my album collection and coming up with a list of my favourite albums of each year. Of course, once having sat down to look at my collection I realized that I don't have enough albums to justify making a specific list for every year. Hence, I decided to break down my "Of the Year" lists as follows:

1. pre-1990
2. 1990-1994
3. 1995-1999
4. 2000-2003
5. 2004
6. 2005
7. 2006
8. 2007
9. 2008
10. 2009
11. 2010
12. 2011
13. 2012

It was in 2004, after having graduated University, that I really got down to buying CDs for my collection. That is clearly reflected in the breakdown of categories. Perhaps those readers who are obsessed with accuracy might argue that I should have titled this article "Albums of the Specified Timeframe" but that doesn't really catch interest, in my opinion.

So without further preface, here are the lists:

Pre-1990:
1. Exile on Main St, the Rolling Stones (1972)
2. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the Beatles (1967)
3. Rust Never Sleeps, Neil Young & Crazy Horse (1979)
Honourable Mentions: Every Other Beatles Album, the Beatles

1990-1994:
1. Ten, Pearl Jam (1991)
2. Weezer (The Blue Album), Weezer (1994)
3. Smash, the Offspring (1994)
Honourable Mention: Nevermind, Nirvana (1991)

1995-1999:
1. Clumsy, Our Lady Peace (1997)
2. Mirror Ball, Neil Young (1995)
3. The Presidents of the United States of America, Presidents of the United States of America (1995)

2000-2003:
1. Youth and Young Manhood, Kings of Leon (2003)
2. A Rush of Blood to the Head, Coldplay (2002)
3. Silver Side Up, Nickelback (2001)

2004:
1. Me & Mr. Johnson, Eric Clapton
2. Music from the Motion Picture Garden State, Various Artists
3. How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, U2
Honourable Mentions: Live at Benaroya Hall, Pearl Jam and Antics, Interpol

2005:
1. Aha Shake Heartbreak, Kings of Leon
2. Silent Alarm, Bloc Party
3. Employment, Kaiser Chiefs
Honourable Mention: The Warrior's Code, Dropkick Murphys

2006:
1. Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, Arctic Monkeys
2. Continuum, John Mayer
3. Waterloo to Anywhere, Dirty Pretty Things

2007:
1. Wincing the Night Away, the Shins
2. Into the Wild, Eddie Vedder
3. Yours Truly, Angry Mob, Kaiser Chiefs

2008:
1. Vampire Weekend, Vampire Weekend
2. Dear Science, TV on the Radio
3. The Virgins, the Virgins
Honourable Mentions: One Kind Favour, BB King and Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends, Coldplay

2009:
1. A Positive Rage, the Hold Steady
2. Sigh No More, Mumford and Sons
3. Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King, Dave Matthews Band

2010:*
1. Of the Blue Colour of the Sky, OK Go
2. This Is Happening, LCD Soundsystem
3. Brothers, the Black Keys
Honourable Mentions: The Suburbs, Arcade Fire and Infinite Arms, Band of Horses

2011:
1. Divine Providence, Deer Tick
2. American Goldwing, Blitzen Trapper
3. The Head and the Heart, The Head and the Heart
Honourable Mentions: The King is Dead, The Decemberists and Wasting Light, Foo Fighters

2012:
1. Mirage Rock, Band of Horses
2. Boys and Girls, Alabama Shakes
3. A Thing Called Divine Fits, Divine Fits
Honourable Mentions: New Wild Everywhere, Great Lake Swimmers and Clear Heart Full Eyes, Craig Finn

Any surprises?

I'm not a big Nickelback fan, but Silver Side Up was omnipotent in the early 2000s. It also contained a strong set of simple, straight-forward hard rockers that still sound good today - Nickelback's subsequent output notwithstanding.

John Mayer, the demented pop-prince, strayed a bit from his niche in 2006 to release an album he really liked. The result was the Clapton-lite blues-pop of Continuum. Consider my softer side served.

The Presidents of the United States of America kind of disappeared after amusing pop-punk fans with little ditties like "Peaches" and "Lump", but their 1995 eponymous debut is still a lighthearted and fun album.

When Eric Clapton finally paid due tribute to his great (tor)mentor with 2004's Me & Mr. Johnson, I got my first taste of real blues, and I was hooked. My collection, thanks to Me & Mr. Johnson (and less so to Aerosmith's Honkin' on Bobo), now includes albums by Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson (the "Mr. Johnson" in the album title), BB King, Buddy Guy, and John Lee Hooker. Even albums like the Black Keys' Brothers and the North Mississippi Allstars' Hernando wouldn't be in my collection without Clapton's modern masterpiece.

Some interesting notes about the albums featured above:

• Neil Young is the best represented (Rust Never Sleeps, Mirror Ball, Le Noise) unless you count the honourable mentions (then the Beatles win).
• Pearl Jam and the Rolling Stones, my two favourite rock bands (the Beatles are more pop than rock) are each only represented once (though Pearl Jam backs Neil Young on Mirror Ball, and Eddie Vedder's Into the Wild is on the 2007 list).
• 2008 stands out for me as the best set (not including "Pre-1990" which is too broad to count).
• Two soundtracks made the grade (Into the Wild and Garden State).
• Kings of Leon made the grade twice (Youth and Young Manhood and Aha Shake Heartbreak), but their break-out blockbuster Only By the Night narrowly missed (largely because 2008 was such a strong year).
• Only one live album made it. The Hold Steady's A Positive Rage broke into 2009's list. Neil Young and Crazy Horse's Rust Never Sleeps was recorded live, but significantly mastered with most crowd noise removed and overdubs added.
• Two of the three Kaiser Chiefs' albums I have, appear. The other, Off with Their Heads, fell victim to the strength of 2008.
• Bob Dylan, who I consider one of my favourite artists of all time (I have five of his studio albums and two compilation albums), did not make the grade.
• 2010 has been significantly changed with Brothers slipping to number 3 and two albums not previously on the list taking over the top 2 spots.  Sometimes albums are immediately great, but other times they take time to weasel their way into your head.

Bonus Lists:
Favourite Live Albums in my Collection (with year recorded):
1. A Positive Rage, the Hold Steady (2007)
2. Live at the Spectrum (31 October 2009), Pearl Jam (2009)
3. Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!, the Rolling Stones (1969)
4. Live at Leeds, the Who (1970)
5. Live, BB King (2007)

Favourite Folk Albums:
1. Sigh No More, Mumford and Sons (2009)
2. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan (1966)
3. Blood on the Tracks, Bob Dylan (1974)
4. Into the Wild, Eddie Vedder (2007)
5. Monsters of Folk, Monsters of Folk (2009)


Hope you enjoyed my lists!

#OWS

There has been a lot of confusion about what Occupy Wall Street and its progeny really stand for (we'll henceforth refer to it as simply "Occupy").  People from across the socio-political spectrum have had difficulty identifying the meaning behind Occupy.  This is no surprise as members and supporters of Occupy have refused to come up with a consistent message.  Luckily, a quick look at the circumstances leading to Occupy, and the majority of the opinions that have come out of Occupy, give us a very clear answer.

The most dominant message has been the 99% versus the 1%.  This has lead people to believe Occupy is anti-wealth and anti-wealthy.  People believe this makes Occupy a socialist movement.  It doesn't.  The 99% versus 1% message is merely an attention getter.  It fits nicely on a sign, and media types like how neatly it defines the terms for them.  Occupy knows that not everyone in the 1% is evil.  This is just a convenient way to summarize the conflict.

The real message is found in the choice of locations.  For those out there who think this is about putting down the wealthy and stealing their money, think about why the name "Occupy Wall Street" and location was chosen over options like "Occupy Beverly Hills" or "Occupy the Hamptons" or "Occupy Palm Beach."  The choice of location puts the enemy squarely in Occupy's sights: Wall Street bankers.  Wall Street spent the past 15 years trading toxic assets like a game of hot potato.  Finally, in 2008, some bankers were caught with the potato.  The financial institutions that made bad bets and were eventually bailed out makes for a long list.  A bail-out is one thing.  A lot of these financial institutions were legitimately "too big to fail" (an issue onto itself).  The real insult comes in the aftermath of the bailout.  For example, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, who were caught with a large portion of the hot potato, received approximately $170 billion in bail out money.  Their executives turned around and paid themselves $35 million in salary and bonuses.  Do the executives of a financial institution that failed and were saved by taxpayers deserve any bonuses at all?  Of course not.  But this is the type of "punishment" executives at banks across America received for their significant part in running the world economy into the ground.  Over $18 billion was paid in bonuses on Wall Street in 2009 after the bailout.  This is the heart of Occupy's protest.  The people who's assets were critically devalued are paying the price.  The people who caused it are walking away with the profits they made trading those assets, the tax money they received in the form of bailouts, and the bonuses.  The people are paying.  Why aren't the executives?

The other side of Occupy's protest is directed towards Washington.  The cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street can be summed up in one person: President Barack Obama's Chief-of-Staff is former JPMorgan Chase executive Bill Daley.  You'll recognize JPMorgan Chase from the list of bailed out banks above - and Bill Daley was there right up until the bail out came.  A closer look will reveal an even more incestuous relationship.  The government agency that is supposed to police Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has done exactly the opposite.  They've shredded records of investigations, they've called off investigations for no apparent reason, and they've had a revolving door at top leadership levels.  Where does that revolving door lead?  To big Wall Street banks being investigated.  The above article shows the stunning coincidence of investigations being dropped and the decision-makers who dropped the investigation moving from the SEC into high-paid positions with the bank that was being investigated.  Occupy knows that Washington should respond to voters, not donors.  To the people, not the banks.

Of course there have been other reported Occupy demands.  As with any movement, there are fringes.  There are the anarchist, who would otherwise be squatting elsewhere anyway.  There are the communists hoping to tax the wealthy until they're just average.

But the core of the Occupy movement is nothing of the sort.  The core has been supported by leading economists like Jeffrey D Sachs and Richard Florida.  The core wants the rich to pay its share.  Common are calls for reasonable taxation on hedge-fund traders, a small "wealth tax", a break-up of the "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions that required bail outs, and honest, meaningful enforcement of the laws designed to stop financial institutions from causing world economic collapses.

Occupy is not asking to have the 1% stripped of their wealth, for companies to forgo profits, or to end capitalism.  The wealthy are wealthy because they've earned it (usually).  Capitalism and profits are important motivators for individuals and economies.  Occupy is asking for financial institutions and others in the 1% who have been cheating to play by the rules.  Occupy is asking the super-wealthy to pay their share.  Even some in the super-wealthy are promoting this argument.

Ultimately, in spite of everything you've read so far, Occupy is about one thing: "government of the people, by the people, for the people".  When the President's top adviser is a former Wall Street executive, when Wall Street is in bed with the SEC (imagine if Al Capone and Eliot Ness were sleeping together), and when money buys politicians, it is clear that Lincoln's declaration has been ignored.  Occupy demands that its government, the US government, resume representing the people.  That is a message that I can get behind.  That should be the goal of every government: represent the people.  Until Washington gets that right, I'll continue to support Occupy.

The Worst Thing About Yesterday's Election

Believe it or not, I'm not going to say "Conservative Majority".  I'm half hoping that with a majority, Stephen Harper will be able to put aside all the cheap, dishonest, partisan, stupid tricks he used with a minority, and start to govern the way he said he would as Leader of the Opposition so many years ago.  I'm hoping that now, with the comfort of a majority, he will be able to clean up the scum on Parliament Hill, be able to lead with truth and honesty, be able to manage Canada's finances responsibly, and disclose the information he is legally bound to disclose.  Here's hoping.

No, the worst thing about yesterday's election is not Stephen Harper's ill-gotten majority.  The worst thing about last night's election is the scores of no-name NDP candidates who became MPs.  The stories of nobodies, with no campaign, with no effort, who became NDP MPs is truly frightening.  We've long known the days of the local candidate meaning anything are gone, but now we have irrefutable proof.  Give a piece of stool a name, put it on the ballot next to the letters "NDP" and call it a Parliamentarian.  I have no problem with anybody becoming MP.  I'm not disrespecting these people for winning seats as unknowns.  I would love it if that happened more!  I think it would be good for democracy.  My problem is that they did nothing to earn it.  I expect, at least, that a candidate would have to at least campaign to win.  But many stories indicate some of these newbies were nothing more than names on the ballot.  What a shame.  These people are going to waltz onto Parliament Hill without having earned a thing.

But enough about the bad.  What good came of last night?  The near-death of the Bloc Quebecois.  Finally, a federalist party was able to conquer Quebec.  Hopefully this means the return of classic Quebec: the economically competitive, culturally massive bearer of the french language in North America.  I also wonder, with no Bloc to pander to, will Stephen Harper back away from his promise to pay Quebec for its HST adoption?

I am truly apprehensive about this Conservative majority.  I worry that an emboldened Stephen Harper will irreversibly change Canada into something we're not prepared for.  I worry that he will continue to ensure Canada is unprepared for the environmental crisis on the horizon.  I worry that he will build jails and forget to build the bridges required to keep people out of those jails.  I fear he will continue to commit to expenditures he doesn't know if he can afford (i.e. fighter jets), causing him to start cutting spending elsewhere.  Will he continue to pursue measures that oppose each other (i.e. if you're going to cut income taxes, you can't also cut value-added taxes [HST])?  Will he bother to keep promises like the HST payoff to Quebec or the continuation of the 6% escalator in health transfers?  If he does, how will he balance the budget?  He promised $11B in savings through efficiencies in the public service, but everyone involved doubts he can find even one-tenth of that.

I look forward to the Liberal Party finally having the opportunity to develop it's base, create some stable policy directions, and develop a leader outside the fire (which I'm still not certain will happen).  Neither Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff had a chance to develop outside the dual fires of Parliament and Conservative attack ads.  Maybe Trudeau, or Leblanc, or whoever, will be able to find their sea-legs before being tossed into the perfect storm.  Maybe Liberal supporters will start to see the need to open their pocket-books a little wider.  Maybe the Liberal Party will be able to more clearly define policy direction, and stick with that direction beyond the next question period.

A lot of good and a lot of bad happened last night.  Here's hoping a Conservative majority, with an NDP minority, will balance into something Liberal.

Election Day: Day to Point Out How Off I Was!

Every time there is an election I try to avoid making predictions.  This comes from an awareness that I'm no good at making predictions.  Every time there is an election I make predictions.  This comes from a lack of restraint.  Here are the three different prognostications I've made since the 41st Federal General Election was called:

March 25: Conservative minority, more Liberals, fewer NDP and fewer Bloc members.

• I believe I will be correct on just two counts: we will get a Tory minority, and there will be fewer Bloc MPs.  Having said that, it seems clear that my prediction was as far off as everyone else's from around this time.

May 1: Conservatives 157, Liberals 65, NDP 60, Bloc 25, Independent 1.

• This is the only time I called for a Tory majority (albeit a small one), and I don't think it'll hold up (even though I said it yesterday).  I was still of the belief that the increase in support for the NDP wouldn't turn into as many seats as it seems.  I may still be correct.  I also may still be correct in thinking the Tories will get a small majority.

May 2: Conservatives 148, NDP 77, Liberal 58, Bloc 23, Green 1, Independent 1.

• It's election day, and Elections Canada, rest assured, I'm not broadcasting results before polls close, I'm just making a prediction.  I think we're going to see a Conservative minority, a successful NDP surge into second, the Liberals getting demolished (much to the delight of still bitter PCers from the early 1990s), a shrunk Bloc (largely thanks to the NDP), Elizabeth finally finding a riding that likes her, and Helena Guergis retaining her seat.

Feel free to mock me when it's over.

Election 2011: What's Happening

We're pretty well at the mid-point of the 2011 General Election.  Looking back over the last few weeks, I've noticed some trends.

The campaign started with the Tories determined to brand the election as government versus coalition on the economy.  The Prime Minister has shameless mislead Canadians by telling them the coalition didn't like the Conservative budget and that's why we're having an election.  While the other parties in the House of Commons may not have liked the budget, that's not why we're having an election.  My suspicion is that none of the opposition parties in the House could have been able to justify defeating the government on the budget alone.  The Tories were too high in the polls, the budget was too neutral, and Canadians weren't ready.  What actually felled the government was a lost no-confidence vote.  The Prime Minister shrugs it off saying his party doesn't agree that they were in contempt.  Well, of course not, but this was not a mere vote in the House, it was a confidence motion, losing which means the Prime Minister has failed to do his job properly.  So, legally, technically, speaking, the governing Tories were found in contempt by Parliament, and, more than just that, the Speaker of the House, the neutral leader, also found the Tories in contempt.  The Prime Minister's flippant dismissal of these basic facts reinforces the need for this election.

The Liberals started the campaign seemingly determined to slowly introduce Michael Ignatieff to the electorate.  They decided instead to leak small portions of their platform until it was finally released in full early in week two.  After which, Ignatieff has been thrust front and centre.  The Liberals, on the back of a solid, popular platform and a surprisingly comfortable rookie leader began to make small steps in the polls.  Then came the turning point.

At some point, for some reason, while the Tories were being dragged through the mud by the media, Canadians decided they'd had enough of the Liberals.  Outside of Ontario, the Liberals have stalled 6 to 10 points behind the Conservatives.  The Tories had to struggle to explain why a student in London was booted from a Conservative rally.  Then they desperately released a damning draft of the Auditor General's report on the G8/G20 Summit because it was less damning than the one previously released by (I hear) an NDP supporter.  That was followed by an alleged attempt to steal a ballot box at a University of Guelph special ballot while former Tory cabinet minister Helena Guergis took aim at her former boss for throwing her under a bus driven by secret allegations of indiscretion.  All this adds up to a disastrous week of campaigning.  Except that Stephen Harper, appearing overly medicated behind rimless glasses and under hair that would make Kerry Fraser proud, keeps trolling along proving his inexplicable invincibility.  With a quick flick of the tongue, Harper manages to shrug all of this off as partisan politics and redirect the debate back to the economy.

The economy is where the Conservatives hold a real advantage.  While we might be inclined to think that massively over-inflated deficits and exorbitant expenditures on jets, jails, and G8 summits would overwhelm the obvious advantage a sitting Prime Minister has in metrics like leadership and economic stewardship, it hasn't happened.  The Conservatives continue to float above the rest on a cloud of voter apathy and willful blindness.

So now, half-way through the campaign, nothing much has changed.  Polls are indicating anything from a very narrow Conservative majority to a weakened minority.  That is to say, of course, pretty close to what we have now.  The legions of Liberals who supposedly stayed away from Stephane Dion and the vote in 2008 don't seem to have been flooding back into the picture.  The one place where the Liberals are showing strength is in social media.  They seem to be winning the support of the connected youth.  Unfortunately, these people are historically less inclined to show up on election day, meaning all the social media support in the world may not be enough to swing the vote.

Where do we go from here?  Stephen Harper and the Conservatives need to continue to float along, not straying from their strict message.  Scrutinized guest lists and 5 question limits may be offensive to those with democratic sensitivities, but they are working.  The Liberals, readying to release their crop of living (former) Prime Ministers, need to make a switch.  Their message of respect for democracy has had little influence.  While they need to continue to hammer this message, they also need to introduce something new.  They haven't been able to dent Harper's advantage in leadership or economic stewardship, so those should be considered no-fly zones.  The message needs to be health care.  That's what Canadians care about.  That's where Harper is seriously vulnerable.  And that is where undecideds can be lured into the Liberal camp.

Let`s see where we go from here!

If an election is coming, here's how the Liberals can win it

My former co-blogger Pat McIver tweeted today in reference to a recent Globe and Mail article.  The article explores Liberal Party and Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff's options should an election everyone thinks is coming actually come this spring.  The numbers show a slight Conservative advantage (generally in the range of about 5% +/- a couple).  So where should Iggy and the Grits be looking for votes?  Should they target the NDP, who has long been stealing left-leaning Liberal voters, or the Conservatives themselves?

In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives.  Bold?  Absolutely.  But not foolish.  And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.

The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters.  The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included).  While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister.  Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister).  Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.*  There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.

But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either.  Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility.  This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work.  This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want.  Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state.  To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible.  By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.**  Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.

The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts.  The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts.  Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order.  Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent.  Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.

My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending.  Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office.  Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries.  A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians.  Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message.  Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else.  It is time to give them that reason.

----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake.  But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility.  Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget.  It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget?  No.  But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong."  Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.

** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against.  And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense.  That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible).  It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense.  Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming.  It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.

My Decade?

I got home this Canada Day and tuned the TV to an episode of Scrubs. The episode included Dr Kelso dancing down a hospital hallway to a 1930's (or something) tune. This scene inspired me to think about what decade is my decade (musically speaking, at least)...

I was born in the early 1980s (1981 to be exact) and the first decade I truly remember is the 1990s. In high school, I was totally into rap and hip-hop. At least in my city, I was a little ahead of my time. Most of my friends either loved post-grunge rock (i.e. Creed, Staind, etc) or pop (i.e. Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, etc), but not me. By the 2000s, while the rest of the world seemed to be catching up to the hip-hop craze, my interest was waning. I drifted unhappily for a few years from Rat Pack jazz/big-band/pop to 1980s hair metal to whatever.

Today my interest is pretty evenly split between classic rock (1950s and 1960s), and modern indie rock. My favorite acts includes artists as diverse as Chuck Berry, the Beatles, the Hold Steady and Kings of Leon.

Having said that, my musical tastes still aren't that easily nailed down. I love acts like Howlin' Wolf, T-Rex, Talking Heads, Pearl Jam, and the Black Keys - recordings from the 1940s to this year.

So the question remains: musically speaking, to which decade do I belong?

The Swing era of the 1930s and 1940s always interested me, but it had nothing on the 1950s as ushered in by bluesmen like Robert Johnson and Howlin' Wolf.

Early rock n' roll (Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc) was the music of mid-1950s. But, in all honesty, I think I'm a little too conservative by nature to have gravitated to this emerging music.

By the mid-1960s, early rock and roll was giving way to rock. Chuck Berry and Elvis were slipping while the Fab Four, the Rolling Stones and the Who were gaining fame. Along with these legendary rock groups was the height of Motown- and Stax-style soul and rhythm and blues.

The break-up of the Beatles and epic live shows by Cream ushered in a new era of popular music. Arena rock and heavy metal began to dominate the 1970s.

By the late 1970s, punk rock, as pioneered by the Stooges, New York Dolls, Ramones, Sex Pistols, and the Clash, started to gain traction. Then punk mutated into New Wave with the success of acts like Talking Heads and Blondie. Arena rock mutated from T. Rex and Aerosmith into Van Halen and Bon Jovi.

The 1980s was dominated by acts like Bon Jovi, Van Halen and Guns n' Roses, along with pop superstars Michael Jackson and Madonna.

Then, in 1991/1992, Nevermind exploded onto radio and knocked Michael Jackson out of #1 on the album charts. Nirvana's ground-breaking album was followed closely by Ten, Core, Smash, Superunknown and other alt-rock/grunge records.

With the death of Kurt Cobain and the rebellion of Pearl Jam came the blandness of post-grunge pop-rock and the beginning of the 2000s. Hip-hop and generic dance-pop overtook popular music. Rock was relegated to also-ran status (with the exception of acts like Coldplay and Nickelback). Finding good music meant surfing the net and downloading as many indie rock songs as you could. With help from Napster, LimeWire and Pitchfork, indie-rock's gems began to surface.

So where in all this would I be most at home? The 2000s requires too much effort for me (unfortunately). I was around for the 1990s, but half-missed the best parts. Ten and Nevermind weren't part of my music collection until the past couple years. The 1980s contained too many power ballads and generic rock-anthems. The 1970s saw the debut of punk and alt-rock. The 1960s saw the shift from early rock and pop to the production value of modern hits. Everything before seems to lack connection to modern music and the modern world.

In the end, I think I was around for my decade. Perhaps I missed the best parts, but I was around. I think, with all due respect to the 1960s, my decade was the 1990s. Indie rock, which I currently love, was breaking out with acts like the Pixies, Dinosaur Jr, and Soul Asylum. Punk had been distilled into its best (popular) form with Offspring, (early) Green Day and Rancid. And most importantly, youthful angst was expressed through noise-pop classics by Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Screaming Trees, and others. For the Beatles lover in me, there was always Oasis. The 1990s seemed to be more open to eccentric music. It saw the peak popularity of riot grrrl and grunge, gave radio time to hyper-honest singer-songwriters (e.i. Jewel, Sarah McLachlan, etc) and allowed jam bands like the Dave Matthews Band to break out.

In retrospect, the 1960s is always remembered as the greatest decade, but for me, its the 1990s.

Honorable Mentions:

The 1960s are second: the Beatles, Stones, Sam & Dave, and others defined music's greatest decade.

The 1970s are third: early hard rock by T.Rex and Led Zeppelin had chops its 1980s followers lacked, while acts like the Clash and the Police created pop music with a conscience.

Bett Against Balsillie...Again

Everyone knows there are a bunch of NHL teams wasting away in American cities that seem reluctant to pay to watch a foreign sport. Hockey doesn't mean much in the home of country music or an artificial desert oasis. But those (and other) cities are the creation of NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman's vision. He sees the spread of hockey into all large American markets. Unfortunately, the fact that those cities won't support hockey doesn't seem to mean much to him.

The latest news is that the struggling Phoenix Coyotes, who've been borrowing money from the league to pay its bills, have filed for bankruptcy. And, connected or not, Research-in-Motion co-CEO Jim Balsillie has taken another shot at bringing a second team to Southern Ontario. Bettman has shot Balsillie down before, ostensibly because Bettman likes to support NHL teams in their current markets.

So why has Bettman remained so steadfast in his dedication to failing teams? Because those teams are his babies. Letting Balsillie take one of those teams to Canada means Bettman's vision is blurred. Never mind that everyone can already see that's true, in Bettman's mind, there's no real evidence that his idea is a bust. A moved team would be that real evidence.

There is no other explanation for why Bettman would consistently bet against the sure thing that Balsillie offers. A billionaire buyer who's putting money up-front (and whose business is still growing in a contracting economy) and who wants to put a team in the most under-served hockey market in North America seems like a safe bet. Another team in Southern Ontario would increase revenues for the league, thereby helping Bettman's other struggling babies. But Bettman apparently misses that point.

Why, logically speaking, would the NHL put a team in a city that is missing the two key ingredients for hockey? No cold and no water to freeze anyway! Because, for Bettman, there is media money, corporate money, and a large population base there. Forget that Phoenix media, corporations, and people don't really care about hockey.

Why is Bettman telling Balsillie to buzz off? Because Bettman isn't interested in another Canadian team. He's got his eye on the city of sin and lights.

This year's NHL Awards Ceremony is being held in Las Vegas. Various teams have been rumoured over the past few years to have been talking about relocating to Vegas. It is the fastest growing city in the United States and its specialty is entertainment. Never mind that the city has never had a successful major professional sports franchise (the city currently has 3 minor-pro teams, only one of which is more than 6 years old, and the list of failed professional sports teams is surprisingly lengthy). It seems Bettman is blinded by the lights of the Strip.

Bettman has improved the game, no doubt about it. The new NHL, with no tolerance for clutch-and-grab hockey, is a vastly improved product over that of the slow '90s. But the league is now bogged down with struggling franchises in weak hockey markets. Why not bring another team into Southern Ontario (K-W, Hamilton, Toronto...), Winnipeg, or Quebec City to help stabilize league revenues, then look into expansion into promising American markets (Kansas City, Milwaukee, Seattle...)? After all, there is rumour that Bettman wants a 32 team league.

Give Balsillie his Hamilton Coyotes, then put teams in Winnipeg and Kansas City (or Seattle) by 2015. This gives the NHL another strong franchise to prepare for expansion, then levels out the temporary east-west asymmetry.

What do I think will really happen when Bettman gets his way? The Coyotes stay in Arizona, and the league expands into Las Vegas and Kansas City within 10 years.

Ironic...

I started a new blog on www.wordpress.com (I wouldn't normally advertise the competition, but it has some features I like better) today.

I'm not giving you the URL or giving you any hints how to find it because I want to remain anonymous, but eventually I'll point you towards it.

Anyway, after writing the "About" page, I clicked the spell check button and it identified only one misspelled word: "blog".

How ironic.

Two New CDs

I recently took advantage of a 2 for $20 deal at the local record store. I bought Neil Young and Crazy Horse's Rust Never Sleeps (1979), and the Who's Live at Leeds (recorded in 1970).

Rust Never Sleeps has quickly become one of my favourite albums. From the acoustic "My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue)" to the proto-grunge "Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black)", the album gives you everything you need from music.

Young uses the first five tracks to assuage the listener with classic folk excellence. "Pocahontas" and "Sail Away" combine with "My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue)" to give the first half of this album the credentials required to be listed among great folk-rock works.

Then comes "Powderfinger", "Welfare Mothers", "Sedan Delivery" and "Hey Hey, My My (Into the Blue)" to jolt the listener out of their lull. These four tracks, highlighted by the first and last, rock with an unabashed distortion that could easly have come from Seattle in the early 1990s.

Live at Leeds is my first Who record. I previously bought their greatest hits package Then and Now! 1964-2004 and was disappointed. The collection features many of the over-produced, over-exposed classics we all know. It was only when a friend lent me his copy of The Who: Live at Kilburn 1977 that I decided to give the band another look.

The DVD showed my why the Who are so highly regarded and it prompted me to buy their classic album Live at Leeds. This album shows the Who in their prime and in their element. Songs that seemed too clean, like "Substitute," "Magic Bus," and "I Can't Explain," come alive on this album. Songs that I always loved, such as "Shakin' All Over" and "My Generation," take on a whole new life. This is how the Who should be heard.

Political Polarity

A few days back my good friend Pat McIver suggested that we combine our efforts into one blog. I was flattered that he thought highly enough of my babblings to invite me to post them alongside his own. So we now have a new URL:

http://www.politicalpolarity.com

From this point forward the vast majority of my posts will be made to that address. I will, however, continue to post apolitical notes here.

The new format will allow our readers to view both sides of the arguments on one site, thereby eliminating the need to follow links between our two sites. I hope you enjoy the new blog!

"Harpocricy 2: Elected Senate Unless an Unelected Senate Helps Me Keep My Job"

Consider the following statement made by Stephen Harper:

"Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia remain ashamed of Canada`s senior legislative body. They are ashamed the Prime Minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation."*

On the other hand, Stephen Harper has no problem with the digraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Conservatives to the undemocratic Senate...

Perhaps Stephen Harper said it best himself:

"As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform - on their way to the top. But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government's agenda. Nothing ever gets done."**

It seems Harper has learned the lesson learned by every previous Prime Minister: Senate reform doesn't go over well with Senators who like their jobs. Therefore, you might as well just appoint friendly Senators who can help you get things done.

And boy did Harper learn his lesson! He appointed 18 new Senators (Senate breakdown is now 58 Liberal-ish and 38 Conservative-ish, and some others).*** Looking at the Globe and Mail list of new appointees, I can see that at least 12 are Conservatives, at least one is a provincial Liberal (BC), and the other 5 seem to be overtly neutral politically.

I'm not going to be a Liberal without hindsight - I'm not going to decry Harper's partisan Senate appointments. Every Prime Minister in history, including every Liberal PM, has made overtly partisan appointments.

I am, however, going to duly note Harper's hypocricy on this issue. As shown by the above quotes, Harper has, over and over, spoke out against appointing Senators. He has, over and over, made it clear that he would reform the Senate and make Senators elected. But alas, like balanced budgets and fixed election dates, Stephen Harper has broken his promise.

*****
* Hansard (March 7, 1996)
** Speech on Senate Reform before Senate Committee, September 7, 2006
*** The "-ish" is thrown in because, technically, there are no party affiliations in the Senate.

A Liberal's Manifesto

 I’ve been asked many times before, often by my former co-blogger Mr. McIver, why I support the Liberal Party of Canada.  My explanations range from legitimate politics, to historical alignment, to convenience.  Here follows some of my reasoning.

I have always seen myself as a Liberal.  My first political memory is probably Jean Chretien’s electoral victory in 1993 (when I was 11).  I vaguely remember hearing about the GST and NAFTA before that, but I didn’t have any understanding of what they meant.  It wasn’t until well into the Chretien years that I started to understand and admire how the Liberals rationalized government spending.  But more than how the Liberals governed, I think I was made a Liberal simply because they governed.  At that time the Liberals dominated federal politics.  The PC Party had been destroyed and the only viable opposition was the Bloc.  Who could I have supported at the time?  From 1993 until the new millennium there was no legitimate alternative for a political neophyte.

Then came the resurgence of the Conservatives.  I remember watching as Preston Manning, whom I quietly supported, lost the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party.  I decided I couldn’t support Stockwell Day.  Then I watched Peter MacKay hand the PC Party over to Stephen Harper.  Those two events have kept me from considering a shift to the political right.

The other primary reason I originally aligned myself with the Liberals was a job.  After two years studying political science at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo I got a summer job at then-MP Roger Gallaway’s constituency office.  I was recruited by the many local Liberals who passed through the office.  My respect for these people (and, secondarily, my own selfish reasons) made me want to join the party and I haven’t wanted to leave since.

But more than coincidence and timing, I consider myself a Liberal for many concrete reasons.

I believe in fiscal prudence.  While some might point to Martin’s liberal spending increases during the latter years of his reign, I prefer to point to how he and Chretien gave the government a surplus and how he left the government with a surplus.  Martin's spending increases came when the economy was growing.  To do otherwise would have been irrational.

I believe in a strong national government.  I believe that Canadians need national standards.  I understand that there are federal and provincial jurisdictions, but they too often lead to varying standards and inconsistencies.  What good will BC’s carbon tax do when Alberta’s tar sands industry is ravaging our environment?  How can we have Ontario’s manufacturing base and Alberta’s energy base fighting tooth-and-nail?

I believe in giving Canadians a level playing field.  Tax cuts shouldn’t be for the wealthy, but for the poor.  Social programs are necessary.  War can be justified in extreme circumstances.  Policy isn’t good or bad based on the public’s ability to understand it.  It is a party’s and a politician’s obligation to educate the public about policy.  Elections should be fought on policy and principle, not vague concepts, lies, and libel.

Ultimately, I support the Liberal Party because I have, over my seven years as a member, felt a part of the party’s decision making.  I have drafted policy proposals, and voted for leaders and candidates.  I have supported fundraising and profile-raising events.  I have been intimately involved in election campaigning.  I have seen discussion and disagreement within the party.

Could I ever switch allegiances?  Perhaps.  Crowning Ignatieff instead of insisting on a vote is just one example of where I’ve disagreed with the party.  But for now, I respect the tradition and believe in the future of the party.

Do I always support the Liberal Party?  No.  If you’ve read my blogging you know I have a mind of my own.  When conceiving the Political Polarity blog, Pat had suggested names that included the words “Grit” and “Tory”, but I suggested something more non-partisan (thus we had www.politicalpolarity.com).  I believe I am slightly left of center on many issues, but surprisingly right on others.  I believe the Liberal Party best represents my political philosophy - more often than any other party.  Perhaps Pat put it best: the Liberal Party “stands up for my freedoms and my rights as a citizen, respects my pocket book whenever possible and has clearly defined positions, regardless of other people’s opinions, on the major issues of the day.”

And that’s what matters to me.

Here Come the Deficits

Granted, Canadians didn't vote for a coalition Prime Minister, but they also didn't vote for 4 years of deficit. In fact, you can still go the the Conservative Party website and see Tory campaign pledges to maintain a balanced budget (here's one, here's another).

Of course, being a Conservative campaign promise of real significance, the Tories are now officially admitting it will be a broken promise. According to CBC (citing a Department of Finance report), the Canadian government will run a $5 billion deficit for 2009-2010 and a $5.5 billion deficit for 2010-2011. The CBC is also reporting that the report, if extrapolated for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, tells Canadians we can expect 4 years of spending more than we make.

The Tories, who apparently knew and planned for the current fiscal crisis, told us they would give us balanced budgets. Now they're practically guaranteeing that won't be the case for at least the next 4 years.

The list of Tory lies just keeps getting longer. Maybe you didn't vote for the Liberals or the NDP, but you also didn't vote for more economic mismanagement. The Harper government has to go. Flaherty did this to Ontario and now refers to his home province as "a bad place to invest." When he's done with Canada, will Canada be "a bad place to invest?" It is starting to look that way.

Vote Liberal and get budget surplus with social programs. Vote Conservative and get budget deficit with tax breaks for the wealthy. Seems like an easy choice unless you own RIM or your last name is Thompson...

What About Me?

It seems the Liberal Party had decided to select its new leader via a vote by 800 high-ranking Liberals. While Bob Rae has rendered that vote moot by stepping aside, the outcome essentially remains the same: Liberals didn't choose their leader.

Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian professor in Boston, has ascended to the leadership of Canada's traditional ruling party (fact, not arrogance). A man who has been in federal politics for less time than I have (only since 2006...though at a much higher level) is now our Leader. A man who had spent much of his adult life in another country is now our leader. A man who was never elected as leader by Liberals is now our leader.

As if there wasn't enough fodder for the Tory media machine to counter Ignatieff, now he's been appointed the leader. Why did the Liberal executive drag their feet so long on a permanent leadership convention that could have been held before January 26, 2009?

Ignatieff's eloquently forceful media acumen may not be enough to win a probable March election. Perhaps, as a friend noted, his centre-right political bias might be able to save the party in the long-run, but will he have that opportunity? What happens if the Liberals get trounced in a March election? If Ignatieff delivers even fewer seats than did Dion (which I fear is probable), will Liberals give him an extended mandate in May? Likely not.

That will leave Liberals with a meaningful leadership convention in May. At which point, Dominic LeBlanc will likely challenge Rae and Ignatieff for the leadership. Perhaps, if we're lucky, Justin Trudeau will join the race and we'll get a sneak preview of another Chretien-Martin regime.

Our Media Betrays Us (Except for this Guy...and Maybe a Few Others...)

At least one journalist can see through the lies:

Our Robert Mugabe moment, and other unpleasant memories, by Lawrence Martin:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wcomartin08/EmailBNStory/politics/

On a somewhat related note, I'd like to ask Harper if he ever intends on allowing Canadians to choose their government based on real issues like the economy, the environment, and foreign policy. Another election based on vague concepts such as "leadership" might make me sick. More importantly, it certainly won't help Canada rediscover the principle of "good government".

Finally, and I've always been against this in the past, but does anybody else out there think maybe our Head of State should be elected? Is it time to finally replace the last remaining remnants of our monarchical past? Maybe I'm being rash.

Spin the Top (You are the Top) and Our House of Hostages

Are you getting dizzy? Stephen Harper is trying desperately to save his job and he's intent on doing it with nothing more powerful than political spin.

He's telling you that the coalition is outrageous and detrimental to national unity. He's telling you that the Liberals and NDP have abandoned Canada. Nevermind that the Bloc isn't a full member of the coalition (they've merely agreed not to bring down a coalition government). Nevermind that in 2004 Stephen Harper was actively trying to broker a coalition with the Bloc to replace Paul Martin's government.

He's trying to tell you that the coalition is disrupting Parliament and that he wants to keep working to move Canada forward. Nevermind that he's asked the Governor General to shut down Parliament until the end of January.

If a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc is good for Canada, why is a coalition between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc bad for Canada? If Harper wants Parliament to work for Canada, why has he shut it down?

Harper caused this turmoil by losing the confidence of the House. He showed the inability or unwillingness to support Canadians. He even tried to destroy democracy in Canada! He tried to pull the funding of political parties in Canada knowing fully that this would bankrupt his competitors leaving him to run alone in the next election (which he likely would have called in 2009) . A one-party election is not a democracy. That was Harper's hope and all other members of the House of Commons recognized this as an assault on democracy akin to Germany's Enabling Act.

On another note, shame on the Governor General. She has virtually guaranteed that Canadians will weather the global economic storm without help from their own government. She has essentially left Canada without a government. How can Harper justify spending Canadians' money knowing full well that he has no legitimate claim to the Prime Ministership? He knows his government is walking dead. The Governor General has hung Canadians out to dry. She's simply delayed the inevitable and given a dead government another few weeks of air.

The Governor General, knowing that Harper does not have the confidence of the House, should have refused his request for prorogation and allowed Canada's elected officials to lead Canada through the economic maelstrom. Stephen Harper has lost the support of Canada's elected officials and, with the help of an unelected official, is stopping our representatives from representing us.

I've never trusted Stephen Harper. I've long known his only goal was power, but I never thought he'd take it so far as to shackle our elected representatives. And he did it with the assistance of a witless neophyte out of place in her job.

Did I wake up in Haiti?

Reading the Rhetoric

The rise of the coalition has thrown the House of Commons into the spotlight. People who've never before been interested in Canadian politics are stopping me at work asking what the heck is going on in Ottawa. Therefore, I've decided to try to put aside my blatantly Liberal views in order to sort through the rhetoric coming out of Ottawa. Nevermind the ads coming from Conservative headquarters, even the media seems to be running wild. So here is the reality, the issues and the facts straight up. People are calling this a coup d'etat. They're saying the coalition is holding the House hostage. This is pure hyperbole, pure sensationalism.

After an election, the leader with the most support in the House of Commons is asked by the Governor General to form the government. That leader then forms the government and becomes Prime Minister. After the October election, Stephen Harper had the support of 143 Members of Parliament, more than any other leader. He was therefore asked to form the government and became Prime Minister.

While Parliament is in session, the Prime Minister must maintain the confidence (or support) of the House of Commons. Stephen Harper has lost the confidence of the House. The coalition, lead by Stephane Dion, now has more support in the Hosue than do the Conservatives. The coalition has committed to defeating the government because the government has lost the confidence of the House.

When a government loses the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister must go to the Governor General and ask her (or him) to dissolve the government. At this point the Governor General must ask if any other leaders can form a government (i.e. if any other leader has the confidence of the House). If there is no such leader, the writ is dropped and we have an election. However, if another leader can form the government, that leader becomes Prime Minister. The government will (either on December 8 or January 27) lose a confidence vote and the Prime Minister will be forced to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. At this point, the Governor General must ask Stephane Dion if he can form a government. He will say yes and will become Prime Minister.

However, the Governor General's duties in this case are not well defined. There really is no precident to tell her how to act. Traditionally, because the Governor General is not elected, she must take the advice of her top advisor (the Prime Minister). Stephen Harper will advise her to call an election. While there is no precedent for her to ignore this advice, her normal duty is to ask other leaders if they can form a government. Which decision the Governor General will make is unknown. She will have to consider the ramifications of: (1) having another election so soon, and (2) having a seperatist party as part of a coalition government. She must also decide if the coalition can reasonably form a stable government. We have a signed document showing that the coalition can form a stable government for at least 18 months, but the other two questions are still looking for answers.

The other issue that has arisen is the issue of proroguement. The Prime Minister may ask the Governor General to "prorogue" Parliament. To prorogue Parliament is to end the current session early. Stephen Harper wants to prorogue Parliament in order to buy his government time by avoiding a vote of confidence. The Governor General may refuse this request, but doing so would be unprecedented. The coalition is (as I write this) trying to convince the Governor General that, since Stephen Harper does not have the confidence of the House, she does not need to heed his advice. This is also completely unprecedented...

11:38am ET - Members of the Prime Minister's Office are telling the CBC that proroguation has been granted.

If this is correct, we will see the House of Commons shut down until January 26, 2009 and the government will fall on January 27, 2009. At that time, the Governor General will either allow the coalition to form the government or call an election for early March.

I hope this post, while long and boring, has helped clarify what has and may happen.

Harper Enlists KGB Tactics in Desperate Attempt to Hold on to Power

As you may have read already, the Liberals, currently under the leadership of Stephane Dion, will form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc with the intention of usurping the Tory government and making M. Dion the next Prime Minister of Canada. This is almost entirely unprecedented.

Dion, Layton and Duceppe have decided that the Harper government has dropped the ball. The Tories had previously denied the economy was in trouble and now have neglected to introduce a meaningful economic package to help Canadians weather the storm. They have also, through past mismanagement, virtually assured that our government will run its first deficit in more than a decade.

The much-maligned Stephane Dion may have done it again. He looked defeated at the last Liberal leadership convention only to win on the strength of compromise and coalition. Then, in the last election, he looked embarrassed and defeated, but now seems to have again found a way to rise from the ashes. It looks like he will become the next Prime Minister.

Some very intelligent people, most importantly Patrick McIver, have decried this coalition as hypocricy, accused Dion of making a deal with the devil (aka Duceppe), and called the opposition poor losers. McIver says 74% of Canadians told Dion they didn't want him. However, I will remind him of two facts: 1) 64% of Canadians rejected Harper, and 2) only 36% of Canadians chose Harper while 54% of Canadians voted for the coalition parties. Fact is, this would be one of the strongest majorities in Canadian history, and one of the few true majorities (perhaps only, I don't know).

What a most exciting time for politicos like myself!

Update:
It occured to me after first posting this article that I didn't reference Harper's KGB tactics anywhere after the title. The Harper Tories taped a conference call between the NDP and the Bloc in a desperate attempt to save the Harper government. These tactics are frightening and entirely inappropriate in a modern, democratic, free country. Harper sank to a new low, giving Canadians yet another reason to support the coalition.

President Obama...*Yawn*

A few weeks ago Senator Barack Obama was elected Most Powerful Man in the World. Upon his inauguration he will become the first African-American President in United States history. So what does this mean for the world? It means no more G.W. Bush. Perhaps that means no more unilateralism/bilateralism. Perhaps that means decreased militarism. Perhaps that means more fiscal responsibility. Perhaps it means nothing.

A veteran US campaign analyst noted that Democratic Presidential candidates tend to campaign from the left then (if elected) govern from the centre. Obama campaigned from the left, but, especially considering his staffing choices, seems poised to govern from the centre. Going back through the history of American Presidents, it seems apparent that who is President is less significant than we might assume. Like the two Bushes, Clinton fought in the Middle East. Like the two Bushes, Clinton never created universal health, never fixed the broken banking system, never fixed the broken insurance system, never really governed from the left. So, in my mind, the President of the United States doesn't generally change the course of American history.

Why do American Presidents not matter so much? For a few reasons. The establishment in Washington is too large, too entrenched. For instance, G.W. Bush essentially hired G.H.W. Bush's crew and so far Obama has brought back a number of Clinton's people. More precisely, when G.W. Bush was trying to mount a response to 9/11, he was getting advice from the State Department headed by Colin Powell and the Department of Defense headed by Donald Rumsfeld. On one hand, Powell was pushing for a multilateral response headed by the UN. On the other, Rumsfeld was pushing for a bilateral response headed by the US. Rumsfeld eventually won the battle and Bush will be remembered as the ultimate bilateralist. It was the establishment, not the President, who directed American foreign policy. The bureaucracy is too large, too powerful. Government bureaucracies rely on government funding and changes in government mean potential changes in funding. To combat this reality, bureaucracies have become very similar to interest groups - they campaign for money and, in some cases, for their continued existence. At the end of World War II, the US government dissolved the Office of Strategic Security (OSS). William J. Donovan (creator and Head of the OSS) suggested that President Truman create an office to supply the US government and armed forces with intelligence. Truman agreed and created the CIA. Don't be fooled by the name change, Donovan was campaigning to have his department restored, and he was successful. Truman was President, but it was the bureaucracy that made history by restoring the OSS/creating the CIA. And corporate America is too big and too powerful. Why have universal health care and insurance remained American pipe dreams? Because the corporations behind health care and insurance in America are far too large, rich and powerful. "Money is power."* No President has ever had a chance to create a national health insurance program because every President has relied on insurance company money. President Obama may be the first to have this opportunity considering the current bank and insurance meltdown that has sunk the world into economic recession. Basically, I don't believe life will be considerably different for anyone with Obama as President. And I don't think life would have been considerably different for anyone had John McCain won the election.

That's why I don't tend to follow the American election very closely. That's why it has taken me so long to comment on the election (sorry Anne-Marie!).

On a more positive note, I'm hoping Obama will become one of those rare Presidents who is able to positively shift the course of American (and world) history. Obama is the son of a Kenyan economist, giving him a real connection to the poorest part of the world. Perhaps this bodes well for a continent in dire need of financial and developmental aide. He was against the war in Iraq and has generally been a Dove in the past. This should bode well for world peace. These are the two areas I most believe Obama will change the path taken by G.W. Bush. For all other major areas, including the ones I mentioned above and including environmental policy, don't count on any significant change.

Lets see if I'm right.

*****
* quote taken from Marc "Loafy" Henein