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.
02 July 2010
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.
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.
06 May 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)