Solaris

Whatever happened to tasering all criminals?

2009-02-18T22:38:00.001-08:00

I thought the Mounties love their tasers?

Or is that for innocent civilians only?

Sorry. I get cynical when I read this.

This might sound outlandish

2009-02-16T19:40:00.000-08:00

But government monopoly on auto insurance actually sucks. Mandatory participation in government monopoly insurance has all the warm and fuzzy feelings of robbing people blind.

First, you have to pay the insurance company so you can drive on the road. Then, if something happens to your car, ICBC uses every rule there is in the book to not give you any money or less money than what you should get if they can't weasel their way out of it. Oh and while they're at it, they bilk your money too if they can.

If you hit a deer but did not tow the deer's carcass (or other body parts) back to the ICBC office, then tough, ICBC won't cover you.

If you send in an old beater car to ICBC to have them fix it but ICBC sells it instead, then - wow that's a golden opportunity! Keep charging insurance premiums on a car that doesn't even exist! Not to mention under-offering you on compensations.

And through all of this, ICBC is mostly free from having to be accountable because it's part of the government.

The bottom line is that ICBC is a gang of money-grubbing con artists and criminals who exist in government to cheat people of their money. They must be unceremoniously axed. Not just privatized, but completely dismantled like Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party in Iraq, so that when the auto insurance market is deregulated, there won't be a big player in the field who already has the upper hand. Only then will the industry have any chance of becoming competitive.

Then the idiotic legislation requiring people to insure their cars to drive on the road needs to be scrapped. This is probably more important than deregulating the auto insurance market. With this law, it's like ICBC never had to work a day in its life because people are forced to come to its doorsteps with money in hand. Hey, I'd love to work in some government body where people are forced to come to me with their bank accounts at my disposal, if it wasn't so sleazy and immoral.

Next time, if a leftist tells you to eat shit

2009-02-16T19:34:00.000-08:00

You probably will.

Everything is A-okay as long as it's done in the name of leftism.

George W. Bush only lasted for 8 years. But scumbags like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro last for a lifetime. This is the work of leftism.

Obligatory Iraq commentary

2009-02-07T02:05:00.000-08:00

The recent elections in Iraq mark two important milestones:

a) the elections are largely peaceful with only a handful of American troops to maintain order.
b) voters mostly did not vote along religious / sectarian lines, as once feared.

It cannot be helped that the world has mixed feelings about democracy in Iraq, given the circumstances under which it was democratized, but for the sake of peace and democracy, a successful election where sensible choices were made is good news, especially during a worldwide economic recession.

So how do elections in Iraq rev up the world economy? Beats me. But during the 2005 parliamentary elections, Wall Street did see significant gains, and I remember very distinctly watching CNN reports repeatedly implying or outright stating that the stock market's surge was precisely because of the successful elections in Iraq. I still don't know how that is supposed to make any sense. But apparently that's what happens.

So here's to the success of the upcoming parliamentary elections in Iraq and another stock market surge to get the world out of this hell hole of a recession!

This worries you?

2009-02-04T00:35:00.001-08:00

I thought unions exist to destroy businesses. So when GM mulls pulling out of Canada, shouldn't the CAW be dancing in the streets?

Oh. Even unions need businesses? Who knew?

All the comic relief you need in this dire economic turmoil

2009-02-02T20:16:00.001-08:00

So if your monthly Bergdorf’s allowance has been halved and bottle service has all but disappeared from your life, lighten your heart with laughter and email your stories to dabagirls@gmail.com.

Warning: overindulgence in the blog above may result in anger more than hilarity. Paying excessive attention to the blog may also land the blog authors a 6~7 figure book deal that they don't deserve (as is part of the speculation about why this blog even exists). As they say, all things in moderation. You hear that, you mindless materialistic whores?! ALL THINGS IN MODERATION?!

Strategic aftermath, post-budget

2009-02-02T00:48:00.000-08:00

So I'm just wondering, would it make a difference if the Liberals boycott the budget instead of actually voting in support of the government?

Because I could've sworn, if the Liberals vote in support of the Conservatives, they're essentially in a weaker position than when they were under Stephane Dion, who could at least say that he didn't vote in support of the Conservatives.

Or does that not apply to Iggy because he can "put the government on probation" like no other?

Fiscal conservatism, by the numbers

2009-02-02T00:40:00.000-08:00

When all is said and done, Canada is probably more conservative than most governments in the developed world.

The G20 are calling for governments to cough up stimulus packages worth 2% of their GDP. This is the norm these days.

Canada is implementing an $18 billion stimulus, which would be 1.0% ~ 1.5% of Canada's GDP. The deficit is still an outrageous $33 billion for fiscal 2009-2010, because the status quo deficit (the deficit that the government incurs if it does not introduce any spending cuts or new spending) is apparently $15 billion already, tax revenues having fallen faster than expected.

Getting back into the black should still be an important priority, but when you're already at a status quo deficit of $15 billion, balanced budgets don't happen overnight. That doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavor for budgetary surpluses in near future, but to accuse any government for not doing it overnight is, as I've said before, preaching and demanding the impossible.

And finally, let's not forget a deficit-happy conservative icon. Quick! Someone come out and accuse Ronald Reagan of ever being un-conservative!

No takers? Hypocrites.

Congratulations Pittsburgh

2009-02-02T00:38:00.000-08:00

There will always be an NFL final each year, but chances are, few will be as nail-biting as the 2008 Steelers v.s. Cardinals game. So congratulations on the sixth NFL victory, Pittsburgh. Er I mean, Sixburgh.

The cursed privilege

2009-01-29T20:56:00.000-08:00

It just occurred to me that the NDP can do a lot of things.

They get to slam Stephane Dion for propping up the Conservative government.
They get to slam the Conservative budget for spending too little even as we rack up $85 billion in deficits when all is said and done.
They get to slam Michael Ignatieff for betraying the coalition.

All this stems from the fact that they were never in government, and can therefore say whatever they want (short of supporting the Holocaust like Robert McLelland).

How would the NDP behave in a hypothetical coalition?

They can take credit for all the good times and blame all the bad times on the governing party of the coalition, which won't be them, naturally.

In short, nothing is ever their fault. No matter what happens, they are always the cute little romantic socialists fighting the good fight.

This allure only wears off if they ever become the governing party. And therein lies the silver lining to the dark clouds of perennial privileges that Canadian socialists enjoy.

Phew.

Budget day reflections on conservative principles

2009-01-27T22:52:00.000-08:00

What does it mean to be conservative? This budget calls for a serious revisiting of this topic.

There's this growing trend among online conservatives in Canada. Something about taking jabs at the budget to beef up your conservative credentials. People like Gerry Nicholls practically gets paid to go on TV and radio to whine about the deficit.

And there is something wrong with that picture.

Does anyone believe that there would be no deficits if Jean Chretien is prime minister right now instead of Stephen Harper? What about if Gerry Nicholls is prime minister?

Ah.

It's an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian population when people like Nicholls get paid to demand and preach the impossible on TV and radio (but then again, worse people than him are all over mainstream Canadian media). It's an insult to the intelligence of conservatives to remind us of the good old Chretien days, clearly with the intention of implying that Jean Chretien could turn out a surplus in this economic recession if he's still Prime Minister today. Let us not forget that Jean Chretien was one of the backroom architects of the coalition, the one that promised to go even deeper into the red with their budget than the Conservative Party. And apparently, Nicholls thinks that Chretien is fiscally swell. There are some lines you should not cross as a conservative. That's one of them.

Principled conservatives are not about preaching and demanding the impossible (and, quite frankly, turning out a surplus in this recession is impossible). That's an avenue for demagogues and leftist partisans. And, unfortunately, that is the avenue that people like Gerry Nicholls, Andrew Coyne, and several conservative bloggers have taken. The thing about Nicholls and Coyne is that, like I said, they get paid to do this (but I find Coyne somewhat less annoying, for what it's worth), pitting them among the many political parasites of Canadian media.

I myself never thought that turning out a surplus this fiscal year would be possible. However, I have my own reservations about the size of this year's deficit. The deficit could have been a lot smaller. But right now, it's more important to keep the coalition at bay than to whine about the budget.

Budget day jockeying

2009-01-27T22:41:00.000-08:00

The NDP and Bloc Quebecois have demonstrated why they must never get their hands on Canadian government money.

My best guess about the Liberal Party is that they'll huddle together to manufacture the best reasons to vote for the budget that will make them look good at the same time. That sounds exactly like what Michael Ignatieff had been doing all day today.

Having a Conservative government is obviously better than a coalition government, to conservative-minded people. However, I can't say that this budget is a principled conservative one.

A sad state of affairs for law enforcement

2009-01-26T17:22:00.000-08:00

After the Vancouver RCMP was let off the hook for tasering someone to death in the YVR Airport, we have this. Assaulting ethnic minorities in a highly targeted manner.

It's nothing less than ironic that these mind-bogglingly arrogant organizations (the RCMP and the VPD) that boasts of bureaucratic clusterfucks of screenings and tests and lie detectors before hiring anyone have such crown jewels in their ranks in recent days.

I'd like to think that I'm conservative. I want to believe in the law enforcement establishment. But these days it seems like the cops are more interested in dishing out violation tickets than fighting crime, and the idiots in the provincial government are more interested in punishing people who just happen to want to give money to beggars than cracking down on drug dealers. Okay, that time when they busted a gang stronghold and uncovered a .50 caliber sniper rifle was pretty sweet. But that's about it for the police these days.

I think the biggest problem is that police officers who commit crimes are not held to the same standard as regular criminals. The assaulting cop from New Westminster is still being paid. This needs to change. Crime-committing cops are no different than criminals. And they must have their asses kicked. That's what law and order is about.

Because it's totally badass

2009-01-26T17:15:00.000-08:00

Wear a pink shirt and stop bullying!

... Is that the best that Vancouver can do?

Okay, on a more serious note...

Bully victims are like rape victims. A lot of them don't report to the appropriate sources of help, even if they can. The best way to minimize bullying (it probably won't be eliminated) is for school staff members to be proactive. Go out on a limb to take note of any incidence of bullying, and get on it at the first instant.

And, of course, don't even tell anyone that being bullied is a character-building experience. Because that might result in you being shot.

So, $64 billion deficit

2009-01-23T19:52:00.001-08:00

Blame George Bush (for the bailouts). Blame Barack Obama (for the even bigger bailouts). Blame Canada (for having a socialist party).

And yeah. The Conservatives do take some responsibility too. But seriously, the Conservatives alone could barely do anything about it.

There will always be an eternal imbalance between the government and the governed, regardless of the type of government:

If you owe money to the government, they give you shit, and then some, until you pay back on time.

If the government owes you money, however, good luck. You ain't gonna get it back (unless the government incurs deficits due to TAX CUTS). At least not with the government running $64 billion deficits in the next 2 years. WITH NO TAX CUTS.

My old boss told me this (and he's not necessarily all that right wing, to be honest). It's a pearl of wisdom I will never forget.

Economic recession, in a nutshell

2009-01-16T20:12:00.000-08:00

I've been laid off this Tuesday. No hard feelings with the company.

Today, I found a new job, which I will be starting on Monday. Even though I could probably sit on my five-figure bank account and do nothing for a year until this recession blows over.

The moral of the story?

If I can do it, leftists have no excuse asking the government for bailouts / welfare because of "these economic bad times."

And now, more SDA

2009-01-16T20:00:00.000-08:00

This deserves a separate blog post because I'm a UBC alumnus (Department of Political Science).

For all intents and purposes, the Ubyssey is a pinko-commie lefty rag. But since the presidency of UBC is currently run by a true-bred Trudeau crony of a Liberal, then maybe the politics of the Ubyssey had become similarly reflected, and hence this distancing from Michael Byers.

In any case, I refuse to believe that there is a principled motivation behind this particular barrage against Michael Byers, even though I hate the guy myself and was very relieved to see him finish a distant third in the federal election.

Congratulations Small Dead Animals!

2009-01-16T19:49:00.000-08:00

And to celebrate the occasion, here are some gems from the recent SDA:

Do as Obama says, not as Bush does - even though they're basically doing the same thing. Choke on a fucking pretzel, Obama bin Lyin'!

Dion exceeds expectations throughout career

2009-01-10T23:26:00.000-08:00

If anyone were to say "Dion exceeds expectations throughout career" for any reason, in any context, in the year of 2009 (which is in a completely different universe than 2006, 2007, or even 2008), they would probably be the laughing stock of whoever hears such utterance, and then immediately punch themselves in the face for such insurmountable idiocy.

But you know what? that's what they said in December 2, 2006, as part of a media frenzy on finding every reason every journalist could find to explain why Stephane Dion may be able to replace Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada. The headline of the article says just that: DION EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS THROUGHOUT CAREER.

Wow. How times have changed. I almost feel sorry for Stephane Dion. Well, I actually do feel sorry for him. Not that he didn't deserve to be pulverized in the polls (he does in every sense of the word), but seeing someone from so high brought so low always makes you wistful.

And it also speaks volumes about the state of political journalism in Canada. They can't just give you information, they must also dress it up in thinly veiled partisan fellatio. Sometimes this is just a matter of freedom of expression (like recent portrayals of the Israel-Palestine conflict from left and right wing media outlets). But sometimes, it crosses into the realm of sheer incompetence (which, up to a point, should not be polarized by partisan interpretations). And the worst part is, all these mainstream media fuckers are now speaking of Stephane Dion as if they never uttered a single word of compliment about him in the past - as if, dare I say, they never even entertained the thought that they are just as incompetent as Stephane Dion himself in their jobs (and that is perhaps the most outrageous part of it all). Wouldn't you just love to walk up to whoever the fuck wrote the article entitled "Dion exceeds expectations throughout career" and ask them, "Hey - hey you! Yeah you, fuckwit! So, uh, you get paid to be a dumbass or what?!" Because I would be very much attracted to such a career.

Last but not least, all this reflection on Stephane Dion shows that while we, as conservatives, should not take things for granted, we certainly have the capabilities needed to crush Michael Ignatieff's political honeymoon like a fruit fly! This may be the only suitable occasion to channel Barack Obama, but here goes:

YES WE CAN!

Come hell or high water!

2009-01-09T18:01:00.000-08:00

If this (h/t Mesopotamia West) is true, then forget policy. Forget the Next Great Prime Minister, where everyone gets to pretend, for a moment, that politics is not a massive cesspool dominated by wankers and skanks (of both left-wing and right-wing streaks, to be fair). In fact, forget any semblance of civility. If the Liberals are running even with the Conservatives in the polls, the next budget will not pass regardless of what's actually in it.

The Conservative strategy now needs to be extended. Not changed. Extended. The budget should still be a sincere effort to engage the public. However, if the budget does not pass (and if these numbers hold up, it won't), the Conservatives need to rally for the right to hold an election. TV ads. Radio ads. Telemarketing calls. Whatever can deliver the message to the public that changing the governing party within a sitting Parliament without consulting the electorate is out-and-out immoral.

If the Governor General allows an election, then a campaign plan needs to be in place. Last campaign, the concerted drive against Stephane Dion worked because it was simple like Occam's Razor, and the general gist of it was true. The finished product for the next campaign should be along the same line. However, the next campaign will be dominated by different issues. There is, obviously, the coalition. Hammering on the coalition repeatedly will yield certain advantages, but risk alienating Quebec. Therefore, the next campaign needs to target the coalition idea while avoiding regionalism-related overtones.

Over the course of the previous prorogue (and pretty much the previous election as well), all of the opposition parties had demonstrated that they will band together and manufacture priorities and policies on the fly for the sake of power. Therefore, it means that they do not have a principled vision of how they want to see the country advance. And that is probably the most poignant criticism the Conservatives can level against all the opposition parties: neither the Liberals, New Democrats, nor the Bloc Quebecois has a vision for Canada. And this should be the central theme of the next campaign. A successful Conservative campaign in the next election should involve referring to all the opposition party leaders as part of the coalition at every turn, defining the coalition as a clueless mess that does not have a vision for the country, all the while avoiding such insinuations as "the coalition will tear apart the country" or things along that line.

Then, there needs to be policy. I'm not entirely certain what the Conservatives can do differently from their previous election platform that would make an impact, because asking voters to listen to policy talk three months after the last election is only going to result in cynicism and voter fatigue. But one thing is certain: hold on to conservative principles, because Michael Ignatieff is obviously trying to chip away at the Conservative Party's support base.

Pleeeeease... Pleeeeease let me back in Oshawa...

2009-01-07T22:43:00.000-08:00

That was the first thing I thought of when I read this piece of news.

When news of the "Israel = Nazi" spat came out, I honestly wasn't expecting him to retract on that, because - you know - the Canadian mainstream media being what it is, Israel probably can't expect too much love. But hey, I'm certainly not complaining about this development! There's some hope in the mainstream media yet.

Sid Ryan had always came across to me as a predictable hyperventilating megalomaniac (hey going up the union food chain is a lot like lying to a hot chick in a club about your income and social status). If he's not busy invoking Godwin's law, then he's busy obsessing over the Canada Health Act, and then if you ask him if he would ever vote for the prime minister that actually passed that damnable socialist trash heap known as the Canada Health Act, he'll probably go Godwin's law on you again, along the lines of "Brian Mulroney and anything conservative sucks! But the Canada Health Act is the greatest thing since sliced bread! And if you can't grasp that, you're a fucking Nazi!"

I was very grateful when the citizens of Oshawa kicked him out of Parliament, but this particular incident simply reinforces the appropriateness of that decision. God forbid he ever goes back to Parliament again.

Solving today's problems with tomorrow's disasters

2009-01-07T22:14:00.000-08:00

I generally hate banks. But for once I'll say something in their defense: if banks don't want to lend money, then don't force them.

Statistically, 80% of all new businesses fail, and that probability is likely higher in a global economic recession. This is but one of the reasons why banks say no a lot. And in all fairness, most of their reasons for saying no are sound. They want return on their investment. This may be a tired old line that adds a bitter touch of materialistic and pragmatic greed to the capitalist world economy that we know today, and there may be many stories about businesses (such as Alienware, which is the first example that computer gamer nerds like me think of) prospering after being refused a bank loan that would have really helped, but this is what happens when banks lend tons of money and don't get sufficient return on their investment:

- Japanese asset price bubble (1990)
- US savings and loan crisis (1990)
- Thai baht / East Asian financial crisis (1997)

and... wait for it wait for it -

- subprime mortgage crisis (2008)

I'm all for eliminating ATM fees and all the bank account / credit card fees of Canadian banks and improving service in general, but dubious lending practices are not something to be trifled with. Next time, don't lend money for people to buy houses with - when they can't really prove that they can pay up.

I know the federal government is always looking for a scapegoat to blame the economic recession on (or prolongation thereof), but blaming it on banks for not lending money is honestly the stupidest idea to come out of that avenue.

I guess what I've been trying to say recently is that the world cannot expect to always be in economic booms, and trying too hard to manufacture a boom can and will backfire.

So, the recent Israel-Palestine stuff...

2009-01-04T17:40:00.000-08:00

In the context of foreign policy discourse in the western world, i've always thought of the subject of Israel-Palestine relations as that rodent on top of Kate's blog. The topic is regurgitated so many times it's like a rodent being run over by an 18-wheeler several hundred times.

But I guess it's doesn't hurt if I talk about it once in a while, especially in light of Israel's recent insertion of ground troops into Gaza.

I've always been a supporter of Israel. Despite all the Palestinian civilian casualties that have resulted from Israeli military action, the fact is that Palestinian militants have far more whacked out political / ideological / religious beliefs than the Israeli mainstream. But I'm not naive enough to believe that Hamas will be dismantled in the near future or that a peace accord will be hammered out, giving Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The best that can be said about the whole Israel-Palestine situation is that neither side can expect the other to just sit there and do nothing.

That being said, I was a bit surprised at Israel sending ground troops into Gaza. If it were me, I would probably just send some Apaches and fire another volley of Hellfire missiles into suspected terrorist strongholds so that I can go back to the Israeli population and say that I did something in response to all those rockets from Hamas. Sending ground troops into Gaza will most likely do more harm than good, because you wouldn't necessarily stamp out terrorist activities any more than usual, and of course, world opinion piledrives on you. So if it was me, I probably would not have sent ground troops into Gaza.

But who knows? George W. Bush's surge in Iraq did have results. Maybe all the ground troops in Gaza will too.

The art of renewal

2009-01-04T16:28:00.000-08:00

In all honesty, I'm a bit surprised at just how unpopular John Tory had become, even within the rank and file of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Once considered ten times more popular than Stephen Harper in Ontario, rallying cries to replace John Tory - from federal and provincial Ontarian Conservatives - as head of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, are now louder than nationwide calls to replace Stephen Harper as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Okay, he chose to die on the hill of religious school funding, but I was always under the impression that, because he's a certified "moderate," the Canadian media and population in general will always give him a free pass even if he has an extramarital affair with a donkey - well, maybe that kind of privilege in Canada only applies to leftists.

The big question facing the Ontario PCs is not whether John Tory needs to be dumped (he does). However, before dumping Tory, the party needs to be ready to address the following issues: how should he be dumped? Who should be his replacement? What should be the new Ontario PC strategy heading into yet another Ontario Liberal majority?

Even in times when leadership change seems desperately needed, a botched leadership change can and will do more harm than not having one at all. This was especially true of Paul Martin's downfall. After the historic (and somewhat comical) federal election of 2006, the Liberals lost to a Conservative minority government, and I can tell you right now that even I was not expecting the Liberals to do even worse than Paul Martin in the next election. The Liberal Party is entitled to govern, if Canadian history is any indication, so I was thinking that next time around, the Liberal Party can replace Paul Martin with a lawn chair painted red and 30+% of Canada would still vote for it. Hey, it takes serious dedication to be worse than a lawn chair painted red, and the Conservative Party likely wouldn't see that again.

But Paul Martin's successor actually demonstrated that it is indeed possible to do worse than Paul Martin. What does this mean? This means that we get to laugh at them. But more importantly, we must learn to not repeat their mistake if we know what's good for ourselves. This is why certain members of the Blogging Tories (whom I will not name here, out of consideration for them) who have advocated for the removal of Stephen Harper as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada for no other reason than "er I don't like Stephen Harper so the next leader might be better" need to SHUT THE FUCK UP. I guess every party has to deal with its fair share of blathering idiots.

As we think about how the Ontario PC Party should be renewed, we can also think about the same thing for the ADQ and the Conservative Party of Canada. Right now, media and punditry indicators seem to put the Ontario PC Party and the ADQ as being in most dire need for renewed leadership. And, right now, both parties are short on big names who have been around the block in politics. So the safest strategy is to get a sincere (i.e. able to speak to voters), tough (i.e. able to fend off political rivals), and diligent (i.e. knows his / her policy issues) backbencher without much political baggage to slowly start rebuilding the party. In all likelihood, the next Ontario PC or ADQ leader will not win the next election (and for the ADQ, probably not even official opposition status), which is why they need someone who is sincere, tough, and diligent because they will need to tough it out in the opposition benches for some time. And the next party platform should be built by consensus from the grassroots, as opposed to the aimless autocratic Green Shaft of Stephane Dion.

None of this work will be a walk in the park for the Ontario PCs and the ADQ, but if they want to benefit from a leadership change, they'll have to get all of these precautions in place.

Last but not least, although I oppose replacing Stephen Harper as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada right now, it doesn't hurt to think one step ahead in politics. I hope to see Lisa Raitt as Harper's successor. That's right. This blog of unsolicited political ramblings and so on supports Lisa Raitt as next leader for the Conservative Party of Canada.

A month of Liberal posturing

2009-01-02T19:31:00.000-08:00

First thing that Iggy said after the prorogue was that he'll wait until he sees the budget before deciding whether or not to vote it down and bring on the coalition. Now, with the budget about halfway fleshed out, Iggy is repeating the same thing.

If there is anything more tiresome than recession-induced consumerist panic, it's this completely insipid Liberal posturing. Is Iggy trying to:

- Distance himself from the coalition in a conciliatory way?
- Reconcile with the coalition in a cautious way?
- Distance himself from the Conservatives in a conciliatory way?
- Reconcile with the Conservatives in a cautious way?

Wait that's too confusing. Let's try this.

Is Iggy trying to:

- Have his cake and eat it too?
- Put his money where his mouth is not supposed to be (such as his ass)?
- Campaign from the left and govern from the right?
- All of the above?

Holy shit. And this is the reason that he's seen as a more formidable opponent against the Conservatives than Stephane Dion? But who am I to judge the Liberal Party of Canada or the Mainstream Media Party of Canada, really?

Tax cuts and consumerism

2009-01-02T18:13:00.000-08:00

I have to say I'm a little tired of hearing about tax cuts this and tax cuts that in the upcoming economic stimulus. The only silver lining is that the tax cuts being considered are within the $30-billion deficit frame.

All I'm going to say is, in the Canadian economy, tax cuts are good optics but phony policy.

The biggest reason that tax cuts are being floated around is to boost consumer spending. And that results in a philosophical imbalance of the government and consumers' roles on an economy. The previous Conservative fiscal update was all about cost-saving, and that's all well and good. The opposition didn't have a problem with cost-saving per se (or at least they didn't admit such). They flipped out over the fact that there was no stimulus package (or so they said). But if consumers like me want to scrimp and save in these economic tough times, then God forbid, the government must toss money into a giant bottomless pit until people once again spend through their collective nose to sustain this mindless consumerist society. And worse yet, you're not allowed to say any of that to the mainstream media. Well, unless you're Brian Gable of the Globe and Mail.

The most effective consumption tax cuts right now would be axing taxes on cars, like I said. But that's a no-brainer. The same policy is advocated by professional economists like Dale Orr of IHS-Global Insight. Even then, however, the tax cuts are not intended to be a lifeline for the economy. Tax cuts or not, the auto sector needs to be seriously restructured - as in, bailout-free restructuring (sad news hearing about the auto bailout going through in the US too).

Aside from that, any additional tax cuts aiming to jack up consumerist mentality are, more likely than not, going to be a waste of money. I heard it worked out real well for post-economic bubble Japan - well, okay, no, not really. Also, I want to make the distinction between economic conservatism and consumerism: there is nothing wrong with lowering taxes, but no economic philosophy should be used as a means to an end for sustaining consumerist culture.

At the end of the day, I can only hope that the deficit will not exceed $30 billion.

Happy New Year

2009-01-01T11:03:00.001-08:00

Now, back to the fate of democracy in Canada.

Halftime partisan musings

2008-12-28T01:49:00.000-08:00

The malaise between Christmas and New Year is always a bit slow. But some things bear reminding.

Will Canada see its first white Christmas since '71?

Yes.

Take that, global warming / climate change / whatever the ecofanatics decide to call themselves these days.

Christmas Eve post

2008-12-24T14:52:00.000-08:00

Christmas is the season to forget about partisan rancor and so on. Or at least that's how it is on my calendar.

So Merry Christmas!

That's more like it

2008-12-18T23:40:00.001-08:00

Orderly bankruptcy for the auto sector.

The question is, didn't Bush support the auto bailout before?

Viable budget strategy?

2008-12-18T23:26:00.000-08:00

It's quite clear the upcoming budget is a campaign in itself, and the Conservatives are running it like the 2006 election. Releasing budgetary details now is a good step. Somewhere between New Year's Day and the end of January, all of the important treats in the budget should be released to the judgment of the voters and the predictable wrath of the opposition. The passage of the budget will not be determined by how well the Throne Speech was written or anything else that happens in Parliament, but rather, the public mood about the budget. I would probably release most of the budget by mid-January and let the polling companies and public opinion do the dirty work of arm-twisting the opposition into submission. That way we avoid all the uncertainty of the fiscal update. During the fiscal update, no one knew exactly what the public thought about Coalitiongate or the vaunted buck-ninety-five. It wasn't until prorogue was granted that the Conservatives clearly exceeded even their own expectations (and mine as well). That was the only excuse (a depressingly pathetic one, especially in a modern democracy like Canada) that gave any semblance of legitimacy to Coalitiongate. This mistake should not be repeated in the budget.

That being said, this strategy will only work if the majority of the public likes the budget.

The atmosphere is so tense that the atmosphere probably just strangled itself.

Budgetary details taking shape

2008-12-18T22:42:00.000-08:00

First, I have to say, I prefer a $20 billion deficit over a $30 billion deficit. But if the coalition has its way with a $30 billion stimulus, it would cause a ~$40 billion deficit for the year (if we still assume that recession-driven revenue drops will cause a $9 billion deficits without any new spending or spending cuts). That being said, I'm still of the opinion that Harper could have been more conservative without coming across as too austere.

The budget policies released are pretty safe so far. No-brainers include re-training measures. Infrastructure / housing spending is the most predictable item so far. I know that most conservative-minded people don't like it, but if you want the government to stimulate the economy for you or create jobs for you, then infrastructure spending is the most surefire way to create jobs and pump money into the economy at the same time. Sad but true.

More money for EI just screams of welfare state, but it's probably a good idea for a temporary stimulus. The money would go to people who have worked previously and would most likely spend the money (thus pumping more money into the economy) because they more likely than not have immediate need for additional income. Add that with tax breaks for consumers and the economy will definitely be stimulated to some degree while guaranteeing some financial relief for people who need it.

A particular worry is what kinds of tax breaks the Conservatives are planning for and how much they will affect the fiscal health of the country in the long run. If the tax breaks that they are presenting are anything like the GST cuts, then Canada will probably end up less fiscally secure even after the recession is over. The GST cuts aren't a bad idea, but the Conservatives haven't been axing spending as much as they've been axing surpluses. Hopefully that will change as they win a majority. Hopefully they will win a majority.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to give tax credits for troubled sectors like cars. It's probably one of the few policies that a principled conservative can offer to the auto industry without resorting to such sleazy things as bailouts.

Hello Conference Board of Canada!

2008-12-16T18:54:00.000-08:00

Whoa there is actually a think tank in Canada that holds almost exactly the same opinion as I do on what constitutes an appropriate stimulus package for the next budget.

Here was me on December 5:

Summarily, I prefer the stimulus package to be within the range of 0.5% to 1.0% of GDP, which would be in the range of $6 ~ $12 billion.

...

Our deficit for the next budget should not exceed $20 billion.

And here is the Conference Board of Canada today:

The federal government should provide temporary fiscal stimulus of up to 1 per cent of Gross Domestic Product - $10 to 13 billion - during 2009, the Conference Board recommends in a new briefing, Fixing the Recession: Policy Guidance for Canadian Leaders.

...

“Action of this magnitude would create a total deficit in fiscal year 2009–10 of $20 billion or more, but that is a price worth paying for a faster recovery and a return of consumer and investor confidence,” said Hodgson.

Of course, they didn't advocate the quirky Stephenbucks idea that I brought up (hey that's what blogs are for - so that people can mouth off on quirky ideas), but this is probably one of the most fiscally conservative recommendations regarding the much-anticipated economic stimulus you will see in the mainstream media. I actually thought I was draconian wacko compared to most for advocating to hold the next fiscal deficits at $20 billion. It's rare enough for anyone to be worrying about budgetary deficits in an economic recession in the first place. Well, it's either that, or no stimulus at all. But that wouldn't be right, because the Conservatives already promised a stimulus.

So, if I ever seek an office-type job in the future, I know where I want to stick my resume.

That's our Prime Minister!

2008-12-15T19:41:00.000-08:00

The FIRST post-prorogue Harper interview that I actually thoroughly enjoyed.

A lot of times it's easy for political discussions to become so entrenched in obsessions with tactical expediency that we lose sight of basic philosophical and moral values that should be the foundation for what we judge is right and wrong.

Coalitiongate is one such mess. What are the main criticisms against Stephen Harper's fiscal update? He poked the opposition in the eye. Backed them up against a wall. Pushed them too far. There are a million ways to say it, but it boils down to the same thing. Oh and I have a criticism about the fiscal update myself: Stephen Harper pulled the very idea of a fiscal update straight out from Stephane Dion's ass! We wouldn't be in this mess if you didn't do that, right Mr. Prime Minister?

But these are just criticisms against his strategy, or the timing of his strategy. No one - not the opposition, not the loonie leftist media critics - dared criticize the morality behind the fiscal update. Look at Stephen Harper in the eyes and say that it's morally wrong to cut public subsidies to political parties or morally wrong to prevent unions from striking when economic times are bad. Whatever arguments the opposition could come up with against his actual policies were frivolous at best (Jack Layton insinuating that public financing of political parties is a necessary element of democracy? If cows fly!). Hence the opposition used this as their primary reason for banding up into a coalition: no stimulus package!

To make the state of political discourse even more ridiculous, the opposition decided to wiggle their way out of an election, because some fossilized document known as the Canadian constitution technically allows it. The same fossilized document that had become so unwieldy that "organic conventions" had to pop up every few years to maintain its relevance in modern democracy because people are too lazy to amend or rewrite it. Next up, we will be telling you to smoke and commit adultery because that's technically legal too (I believe this point had already been raised during the speeches delivered for the anti-coalition protests).

And to top it all off, this is actually okay to a lot of people, because, uh, Harper, uh, lacks political expedience. And yeah I got nothing.

Canadian democracy will lose its heart completely if the Prime Minister isn't even allowed to go on TV and say with a straight face that there was NOTHING MORALLY WRONG WITH HIS POLICIES. I mean for fuck's sake, the Conservative Party isn't even allowed to openly muse about winning a majority during an election cycle. Or ever. And people have the nerve to pan the Conservatives for not winning a majority! Now, the Conservative government had been pressured into bailing out the forestry and mining industries on top of the auto industry, and appointing unelected senators so the coalition doesn't jump the gun (I personally believe that the Senate appointments were a compromise that Stephen Harper did not have to make, but that's besides the point). How many more compromises must we make?

The main moral duties facing the Conservative government right now is to do what they promised and act in the best interests of the electorate. If they moved the budget up to late January and promised a stimulus package, they should work on a sincere but conservatively principled stimulus-budget - one that should be more fiscally responsible than what the coalition would offer. If the electorate doesn't want a February election (and presumably they don't), then try to work with the opposition parties to pass the budget regardless of how high the Conservative Party is in the polls. Therein lies the challenges that lie ahead in the near future. The Conservative Party is in no shortage of innovative options for a stimulus-budget, but, if we want the budget to pass, our real challenge is to write a budget that speaks to both the voters and the opposition, because, thanks to a bunch of desperate elitist numbskulls hijacking the policy process, it's no longer enough to make policy for the people. We have to tailor policies for the politicians too. And, as evidenced by most of the recent polls, the opposition has clearly demonstrated that they will support the shittiest ideas loathed by a clear majority of Canadians no matter what happens, because it's their way of saving face, although there are recent signs that they are softening their tone.

All I can say is, come what may in January, the Conservative Party should always try to hold on to their moral values (or what little of it they can still hold on to), like Stephen Harper mostly did in this interview.

Nice reflexes, Mr. President!

2008-12-15T19:34:00.000-08:00

Especially considering than George W. Bush is nearing 60 years of age. But if I were him I'd probably catch the shoe and throw it back at that bastard, especially since we're talking about a lame-duck president for which public opinion no longer matters. Besides, Arabs believe strongly in an eye for an eye right? HA!

As for the shoe-hurling idiot who was once kidnapped and roughed up by Iraqi insurgents but chose to blame the United States for it - who the hell rescued you from those gunmen and why did they even bother? A true idiot if I've ever seen one.

EDIT: so Bush is 62 now? Wow. I had been under the impression that he was still nearing it.

The Chicago Boys

2008-12-15T19:21:00.000-08:00

First New York, now Illinois. Despite the Democrats holding the majority of gubernational positions, the biggest gubernational scandals of 2008 all came from the Democrats.

I've never known much about Chicago, other than its title as the Windy City and, of course, Michael Jordan. But political corruption? Hells if I know.

However, I am to understand that the attempt to sell Obama's Senate seat is one of the most sensationalist scandals to come out of Chicago in a long time.

What does this mean for Chicago? A Republican governor next time? Republican sweep of Illinois in the next presidential election? Maybe. Reform? Well, from what I've read, Chicago has had a long history of corruption from both the Democratic and Republican camps. So I'm not too inclined to believe in miracles. But who knows?

By the way I noticed several conservative blogs doing this

2008-12-13T14:42:00.000-08:00

So what the hell.

Ta-da.

Jennifer Aniston. 40 years of age.

There are only two showbiz cougars that I drool over. Well, it used to be one. Now there's two. The first one being Michelle Pfeifer.

Most of the other household cougar names, like Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Madonna, etc, I find them a bit meh.

But Jennifer Aniston truly exceeds expectations.

Oh lookie here

2008-12-13T12:02:00.000-08:00

In all fairness, the Globe and Mail did endorse Stephen Harper for Prime Minister. But now it's like the Globe and Mail is in Paul Martin mode all over again. What has Iggy done to deserve the descriptor "strong"? By hijacking the Liberal leadership without any due democratic process? By schmoozing it out in Parliament?

Which makes me glad that this is the only thing that the Globe and Mail's very own cartoonist has said about Iggy so far:

There's one thing that the Conservatives must understand: Canadians are taking a new look at what it means to vote Liberal, to vote NDP, to vote Bloc, to vote Green, or even to vote Action Party or Marijuana Party or whatever. No other factor can provide a logical explanation for why the Conservatives have surged so high in the polls, because, in contrast, the Conservative Party is that oasis in the desert that offers the electorate the certainty, consistency, stability, and principle that every other party in Parliament have all but abandoned. It is incumbent on Stephen Harper and all the Conservative MPs to maintain and strengthen these qualities of the party. If the party replaces its leadership now, the emergence of the new leader will spell even more uncertainty in the political landscape in Canada. That is not what the people want, and that is certainly not going to manufacture any political advantages against the opposition even if we don't think about the voters at all (leave it to the opposition to not think about the voters and not care about due democratic processes). In the very least, it would be nothing less than utter stupidity to hope for a convention bounce if the Conservatives were to replace their leader now.

No one is perfect. Neither is Stephen Harper. Everyone is free to voice their opinions on what he should do better on. But, for all his perceived faults, replacing him now will be a disservice to the Conservative Party and to the Canadian people. I could have sworn that the Globe and Mail is secretly trying to do just that: doing a disservice against the Conservative Party and the Canadian people. Self-respecting Conservatives must not allow this to happen.

Bailout Schmailout

2008-12-13T11:57:00.000-08:00

Auto bailout approved.

BUT! The money won't flow until the American side of the bailout gets underway.

Here's to hoping that the American bailout never sees the light of day. You can do it, Republican Senators!

Really?

2008-12-10T23:21:00.000-08:00

Last paragraph:

Most economists say in order move an economy, fiscal stimulus needs to be at least one per cent of the value of the country’s annual gross domestic product. For Canada, that would be about $16 billion.

That's worrisome for our deficits.

So, how's that Super Mario?

2008-12-10T22:52:00.001-08:00

Although I support the ADQ and even wanted the federal government to endorse them during the Quebec election, I can't really say they didn't deserve the loss.

The question now is where the ADQ will go without Dumont. Well, that's actually two questions combined into one. We're obviously interested in whether the ADQ will sink into oblivion like the Union Nationale or make a comeback. At the same time, we're also interested in what kind of policy directions the ADQ will be embarking on without Dumont.

So now that Iggy is crowned Liberal boss

2008-12-10T22:30:00.001-08:00

Does that mean that the Liberals are operating on the possibility that they would have to face an election if they vote down the budget? Because, quite frankly, they wouldn't need to if they think they can reliably hijack the government without an election after they vote down the budget.

It's a pretty important question. Right now we're in political style limbo where an unelected official theoretically gets to decide whether we're allowed to have an election. This right must not be taken for granted, and it must be secured by screaming at the top of your lungs.

And for a moment there Dion is looking like a multi-headed hydra. Are we really making history here? A Francophone Liberal leader fails to become Prime Minister during his leadership tenure? Well, we're already making history with Coalitiongate.

Good ideas for the next budget

2008-12-07T22:47:00.000-08:00

A discussion from Secrets of Vancouver.

Tax holidays and axing the gun registry are great ideas for the next budget.

Speaking of which, axing the gun registry will almost certainly be politically safer than axing the CBC. Great move Springer.

Dan Tappin gets points for advocating the politically impossible.

We interrupt our feverish Canadian political coverage with some Australian stuff

2008-12-07T01:24:00.001-08:00

Holy shit who'd-a thunk that Australian socialists would be the ones pioneering internet censorship? More background information here.

This isn't just just Net Neutrality, mind you. This is hardcore harsh-lame grumpy-old-curmudgeon style censorship courtesy of your stereotypical grandparents, undiluted. I thought the US was the unsavory social conservative wasteland that everyone loves to mock back when George Bush was in power.

This sounds like something straight out of the playbook of the Iranian Mullahs. I guess it's no wonder why Canadian socialists like Robert McLelland has a penchant for accidentally endorsing another round mass murdering Jewish people and fawning over the "democratically elected" Hamas. Then again, though, the censorship plan was the Labor Party sucking up to the Australian Liberal Party, so maybe it's the Australian Liberals that's fucked up in the head.

And you wonder how there are so many nude beaches in Australia?

Courtesy of Hypersexual Girl (that's right - read her blog at your own risk)

Rallies by the numbers

2008-12-07T00:52:00.000-08:00

Whenever there are mass demonstrations going on, the most accurate reports tend to come from the MAINSTREAM MEDIA (God forbid). Hate to say it but it's true.

In the end I decided that an aggregate summary from CTV, Globe and Mail, CBC (I think there's a point where reasonable conservatives have to admit that although the CBC unfairly gobbles up government money, it's not really all that bad in terms of the quality of its coverage), and the National Post would present the most accurate information of the rallies.

So this is the lowdown:

Pro-Coalition:

1500~3000 in Toronto
1000 in Montreal
EDIT: 1000~1500 in Vancouver (courtesy of Canada Press and Georgia Strait)

Anti-Coalition:

3000~3500 in Ottawa
2000~3000 in Calgary
500 in Toronto
200 in Fredericton
150 in Victoria
150~200 in Halifax

Other rallies were held in other cities, but these are the numbers that have been reported. I mean, come on, if there are no numbers for Sudbury, why should I care?

I'm actually fairly surprised by the strength of the anti-coalition rallies. I was originally predicting a larger pro-coalition turnout. But it seems that, with the numbers that the MSM is reporting, the anti-coalition side is running away in this more or less unofficial Saturday race of who can get more people out. Naturally, my support goes out to those who braved the winter cold to demonstrate support for our cause.

Unless, of course, you throw in Erin Sikora's out-of-the-blue claim that 1500 people rallied for the coalition in Vancouver. I call bullshit on that one. I scoured the Vancouver Sun, the Province, 24 Hours, and Metro, on top of CTV, the Globe and Mail, CBC, and the National Post for any information I could find on any rallies in Vancouver and found nada. If there was a 1500-strong rally in Vancouver that would have been splattered across half of the MSM.

Either that, or she typed in an extra ZERO by mistake. I was too busy for most of the day at work to know how the rallies went in Vancouver.

Why is this important? Size matters, and this time, in a totally perverted way, and in more ways than one.

No no no... it's just a rough indicator of public opinions and how the media is reporting them. It's useful to know when gauging the public mood.

Don't get too carried away, though. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the coalition, or what you see in the polls or rallies, what matters, at the end of the day, is that you honestly believe in what you believe in, and that you're honestly working to improve the political situation in Canada.

EDIT: so I got it from Secrets of Vancouver that Canada Press is reporting over 1000 at the Vancouver pro-coalition rally. If Canada Press is reporting it then I consider it reliable. Wow. It would appear, then, that the pro-coalition and anti-coalition sides are roughly evenly matched at this point.

Are there any politically safe spending cuts?

2008-12-06T13:39:00.000-08:00

You know, I'd love to say that there is, but right now I can't think of any. I'm using a pretty conservative (i.e. more cautious than partisan right wing) definition of "politically safe," because after the buck-ninety-five thing a few weeks ago, all bets are off.

The closest candidate I can think of right now is axing the CBC. If there is any particular near-$1 billion chunk of cash in federal spending that can be rightfully considered as "dead weight loss" in economic parlance, it's that near-$1 billion chunk of cash that yields no more social or economic value than Hockey Night in Canada (I mean, hockey is pretty important in Canada, but friggin' social or economic values?). Even if it does, it sure is a lot more harmless to cut than health care or education (leftist favorites).

The main concern, of course, is that the move will be interpreted by the opposition (and probably a good chunk of the media) as another uncivilized punch in the face against the goodwill that was supposed to have been provided by the prorogue.

And at the end of the day, I'm just not sure how much voters care about deficits and debts. We're in an economic recession. Deficits for fiscal year 2009 are projected to be around $9 billion even if the government doesn't introduce any new spending. But Trudeau piled up huge debts during his tenure and no one cared. So did Brian Mulroney. As it is, I'm thinking that if we present a stimulus package that is half or one-third the size of the opposition coalition's $30 billion deal, that will already rile up the opposition. But that is a fight I'm willing to take a stand on. Axing the CBC? All I'm going to say is, my heart says it's worth the fight, but my brain says no. And if I'm actually having these concerns, then it probably means that axing the CBC, the spending cuts that I personally consider to be the most prudent spending cuts we can make in an economic recession, isn't "politically safe" as I've defined that term.

We live in tough times.

So what should be in the next federal budget?

2008-12-05T16:31:00.000-08:00

The Conservatives explicitly promised a stimulus package in the next budget. That package will probably be the center of gravity for all political action in Canada once Parliament returns. So, what kind of stimulus package should it be?

The first thing that self-aware conservatives should realize is that it's pointless for them to out-spend leftists. So if the coalition promised a $30 billion stimulus package, there is no point outdoing them with a $40 billion stimulus package. In the previous election, the Conservatives promised a total of $6 ~ $7 billion in various tax cuts / spending measures. As of fiscal year 2007, the Canadian GDP stands at $1.271 trillion in purchasing power parity terms. Summarily, I prefer the stimulus package to be within the range of 0.5% to 1.0% of GDP, which would be in the range of $6 ~ $12 billion. Size matters. Just not in the way you think (perverts).

So, what exactly should be in the stimulus package?

Personally, I prefer seeing the idea of Stephenbucks, or Harperbucks, or Stevebucks. I have to admit to liking the name Stevebucks better, knowing full well that Harper dislikes being called Steve. Woe is me. For now I will call it Stephenbucks.

Ralph Klein and Gordon Campbell have all done it before. The Alberta government mailed $100 in Ralphbucks to all Albertans because Alberta was flush with cash at that time. The BC government mailed $100 in Climate Action Dividends to all BCers to placate them on the carbon tax issue. An economic recession is a perfectly legitimate reason to give all Canadians $100 in Stephenbucks. It speaks to conservative and populist principles, it captures people's attention because it's easy to understand and appreciate the economic benefits of this policy, and, at most, it would not cost more than $3.3 billion (the total Canadian population being 33 million). You can tweak with the cost and scope of Stephenbucks. For example, you can give Stephenbucks only to Canadian taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year (or whatever income ceiling you feel like using) as opposed to all Canadians to cut down on the costs of Stephenbucks and reach out to leftist income-equality sentiments. You can make Stephenbucks $200 instead of $100. The list of things you can do goes on. The point is, the idea of Stephenbucks is a very politically attractive and economically efficient way of immediately stimulating the economy.

Second, there should be infrastructure spending. While Stephenbucks will have immediate benefits, it won't necessarily create new jobs. But infrastructure spending will. This is also a chance to reach out to the opposition, because they're all big on infrastructure spending. The infrastructure spending can be tactically targeted on certain provinces (especially Quebec) to enhance certain federal-provincial relationships. But if inappropriately used, it can fuel inter-provincial antagonism. Right now, I think Ontario, Quebec, and the West should each get about 30% of whatever infrastructure spending there will be, and then the rest goes to the Maritimes. It's just some random numbers I came up with on the fly, so don't ask me to justify them. But, I do believe that provincial factors will be front and center in any infrastructure spending measure in the upcoming economic stimulus package.

One other un-conservative thing I'd like to say is that I don't think the stimulus package should contain any more tax cuts than what the Conservatives have already promised in the last election. Tax cuts are politically difficult to reverse, and in economically uncertain times, tax cuts will increase a government's inability to fulfill future fiscal responsibilities. Stephenbucks and infrastructure spending are all one-off spending measures that do not create long-term structural problems for the country's fiscal health, so that's what I think we should stick with in this economic stimulus package.

Other than that, the government should hold off on all other new spending increases for the time being. They can probably bring in a few of the spending / tax cut measures they've promised in the last election, but as it is, we're already in deficit financing mode. Our deficit for the next budget should not exceed $20 billion. Normally I would say that it shouldn't exceed $10 billion because that's roughly what TD Bank projected, but the government is under pressure to provide a stimulus package. Wherever spending cuts are politically safe, do it.

Here's to hoping that the budget will pass when it comes.

So now that Parliament is prorogued...

2008-12-05T15:59:00.000-08:00

One thing on the minds of so many people (especially the Conservatives) right now must be: with the Conservatives so high in the polls, should they have asked the Governor General for an election instead of a prorogue?

From what I know of Harper, I think he will probably prefer a prorogue. There is a method to this man's madness, in that, he doesn't always call an election when he's high in the polls. Back when the environment was all the rage, Stephen Harper single-handedly replaced rising Liberal fortunes with a Conservatives surge into majority territory. But he didn't call an election. Instead, he called an election when the most recent polls at that time showed a Liberal-Conservatives deadlock. Odd but true.

I think, ultimately, Stephen Harper had never been a "Diefenbaker majority" or "Joe Clark majority" kind of guy. Oh wait. Joe Clark never won a majority. Instead, Harper will always try to get some things done with a mandate before calling an election, because he has a unique appreciation of a certain responsibility of publicly elected officials: getting things done, as opposed to winning the most votes. But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe he regrets the decision now that he's so high in the polls, and that he regretted a lot of decisions he had made all along.

Speaking for myself, I would not have been so sure whether the Governor General would grant an election instead of a prorogue, since public opinions (as indicated by the polls) were largely unknown at that time, because most of the polls weren't even released yet. So I would probably have asked for a prorogue were I in a position to make the choice. Besides, calling an election in this kind of situation means that everyone would go into an election with their pants down. The opposition got into a coalition that they probably never thought they would get into when the last election was held, and the governing party was probably even less prepared for this possibility. It would likely end up being a depressing election of epic aimlessness and chaos. Philosophically, it won't necessarily be an election that is worth voting for.

Now that we have a time-out, the priorities for the Conservative Party are as follows:

- Drafting a principled budget
- Rallying for THE FUCKING RIGHT TO HOLD A FUCKING ELECTION IF THE BUDGET FUCKING FAILS (whew typing that out feels good)
- Planning for an election

Time-out does not equate with vacation in this situation. The above three tasks must be done, and done well.

Coalitiongate: in pictures

2008-12-05T15:41:00.000-08:00

My favorite, however, is this one:

This isn't exactly a flattering portrayal of Stephen Harper, but it is probably the most succinct and accurate summary of his most defining qualities as Prime Minister. He is a leader that delivers a punch, for better or worse. That quality had arguably taken the Conservative Party to new heights or new dangers. At the end of the day, however, it is a quality that I will choose to respect. Strength and determination is, after all, a primarily conservative quality.

Coalitiongate: in polls

2008-12-05T14:55:00.000-08:00

Usually, what I choose to believe in has nothing to do with how many other people agree with a particular view. This is because I'm not a popularity whore. But for once in my life, I would like to say that I feel truly - truly - fortunate to be opposing the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition deal - with the majority of Canadians.

COMPAS:

51% support Conservative
20% support Liberal
10% support NDP
8% support Bloc Quebecois
6% support Green

Ekos:

44.0% support Conservative
24.1% support Liberal
14.5% support NDP
9.2% support Bloc Quebecois
8.1% support Green

Ipsos-Reid:

68% of Canadians oppose coalition

46% support Conservative
23% support Liberal
13% support NDP
9% support Bloc Quebecois
8% support Green

Strategic Counsel:

58% of Canadians oppose coalition

45% support Conservative
24% support Liberal
14% support NDP
10% support Bloc Quebecois
8% support Green

Actually this deserves a post in its own right

2008-12-03T16:45:00.001-08:00

Even in coalition-happy governments, you don't just switch from one governing party to another without an election. Imagine the Italian government going from Olive Tree to House of Liberties without an election, or the German government going from SDP to CDU in the same fashion. It's possible, but it's bad form for democracy.

Take that, coalition people.

24% undecided?

2008-12-03T16:12:00.001-08:00

That is a lot of undecided voters.

Just to be sure, Canada's constitutional monarchy system allows a lot of things to happen. For example, a party can theoretically govern for 20 years without ever approaching the Governor General to request an election. And if the Governor General wants to, he / she can just sit back for 20 years. This is why the argument for a coalition-on-the-fly will always be there. What kind of system is this? A pretty fucked up one, basically. So, a lot of other elements are thrown in to make Parliament more democratic in the modern context. It just won't be as efficient as fixed election dates.

In practice, the Governor General ends up doing what the majority of people want most of the time. When people have voted in a Prime Minister, the Governor General doesn't name somebody else as Prime Minister, even though that can theoretically be done. I can tell you, right now, that if there is an authoritatively scientific poll that came out that indicated that more than 70% of the Canadian population wants an election right now, there would be no argument about the legitimacy of any coalition deal in the opposition. And, if I was the Governor General, I'd be looking at these polls very closely in formulating my decision.

And if I see a poll where 32% of people want an election immediately, 35% support a coalition, and 24% are unsure, then I'm going to be thinking to myself, "Holy shit what do I do?"

Okay maybe I'm putting it politely. What does unsure mean in this context? "Okay I know what's the right thing to do but I just don't like the Conservatives that much."

If you believe in the right thing to do, you of the 24% undecided should really speak up in the coming days. After all, even in coalition-happy governments, you don't just switch from one governing party to another without an election. Imagine the Italian government going from Olive Tree to House of Liberties without an election, or the German government going from SDP to CDU in the same fashion. It's possible, but it's bad form for democracy.

Well

2008-11-30T23:25:00.000-08:00

I've always thought that, one day, the opposition would form an "Anything But Conservative" coalition just to remove the Conservatives from power. Because, basically, in various public or private capacities, all the oppositions parties currently in Parliament are just opportunists who will whore themselves out for each other, or just for anything, really. We saw this with the Green Shift, the backtracking on the Green Shift, Stephane Dion's fling with Elizabeth Mays, and Jack Layton going on record to oppose the carbon tax.

And it's true that 62% of the country didn't vote for the Conservatives. So if the opposition wants to form a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition, there's some legitimacy to it. I wouldn't be surprised if they form the next government.

So where does this leave the Conservatives?

The Conservatives rose to power arguably facing greater political obstacles than any other governing party (namely the Liberals). They were not allowed to publicly muse about winning a majority. They faced a once-impossible fight in Quebec. And they came through.

Should the Conservatives be relegated to opposition in the coming months, it's these principles that we should all hold on to. Voting Conservative had never been about holding on to power. I voted Conservative because I believe I voted for values such as humility (not bragging about majorities) and perseverance (march into Quebec no matter how low you are in the polls), and because I believe I voted not just for a brand name, but for an all-encompassing way of life. As a matter of fact, however, I also believe that the Conservatives are not perfect. They totally screwed themselves over with their handling of Chuck Cadman and Bill Casey, but that's another story entirely.

This incident though? It's no fault of theirs. The opposition can't be bothered to raise money in their own right so they form a coalition to hijack the policy agenda. Boo hoo on them.

Whatever happens, though, let it come. I believe that the Conservatives have done the right thing with a fiscally conservative economic update. Where it takes them is unimportant.

Do you know where this is going?

2008-11-25T22:35:00.000-08:00

Bailouts and more bailouts.

You know what happens when you keep going leftward as a conservative?

Ask anybody in Canada; "Is your support for the Canada Health Act inversely proportional to your willingness to vote for the Progressive Conservatives of the Mulroney era?"

If their answer is "YES," that person is a shining example of why you should punch a leftist in the face before you work with one.

That's how it is in Canada. And the US.

Can't really say I sympathize Mulroney's fate though. He was never quite a committed conservative.

Really?

2008-11-21T15:09:00.000-08:00

You're still hiring?

I could've sworn I would never have guessed that if I didn't see this piece of news.

Last year I applied for about five military jobs. Nominally, all you need is high school graduation for a military job (and I was a university student at that time - I'm set to pick up my graduation papers on November 26). But the application process is mind-numbingly bureaucratic and convoluted. I have to say, the kinds of people that the Canadian Forces need out in the Afghanistan battlefields are likely also the kinds of people who wouldn't be impressed by the sore thumb of an application process in the Forces.

And of course I wasn't good enough for any of the jobs I applied for. Either that, or the military jobs that I would be qualified for are all out east.

Then I went to a job fair that had a Canadian Forces booth. I talked the military booth lady, and she told me to browse the Canadian Forces website, which I did, and found nothing.

This is why I'm in rebar. You call the office any time they're open, arrange a start date, show up on said date, and off you go. No interviews, no resumes, and no references (did I mention I fucking HATE interviews?). You just need to be able to carry 100+ pounds of steel on your shoulder across hazardous terrain (such as grids of metal bars suspended anywhere from 0.75 inches to 6 foot above ground, or stairs, jagged rocks, or whatever), play your wire like a guitar string (always awkward for greenhorns), and be prepared to do all of the above right under a blistering 30 degrees Celsius or a freezing -30 degrees Celsius (I heard this kind of thing only happens to rodmen in Alberta - good thing I'm still in BC). I mean, I don't want to paint an overly optimistic picture of the construction trades, especially not rebar. It's not a job for everyone, but it's the job for someone who hates interviews with every fiber of his being, like me.

So yeah about that military job... good luck Canadian Forces. I'm obviously living in the wrong place or not good enough for you.

The new Parliament

2008-11-19T21:50:00.000-08:00

Same as the old one. Very satisfying to see. I guess a good old Conservative partisan will take this opportunity to deride how Stephane Dion will now be unable to fit the phrase "No More Free Rides" somewhere into his middle name, but I never once ridiculed him for passing up a confidence vote. Having a whole chamber of MPs laughing at what he's doing for the survival of government is unbecoming of people who are taking care of this country.

That being said, as logic dictates, winning a mandate is always only the beginning, especially if it's a minority mandate. The opposition must continue to be confined in outer space in order to get things done. Confined in outer space, I say!

Meanwhile, in Vancouver...

2008-11-16T19:30:00.000-08:00

I once read a Province article about David Plant, some guy who was brought in by Sam Sullivan to solve some problem in the city government (and I don't even remember what that problem was). All I remember from that article was Plant talking about his history of going to offices.

"I've been to those offices." He said. Those offices - those offices where you go in and wrangle with provincial government officials and hopefully come out with money in hand for the city government. Not an entirely pleasurable experience, according to Plant.

"I'm here to help." He said.

Really, that's all that there is to city politics in Vancouver. Who can carve out more filthy lucre from higher levels of government? Or, at least, who seems most capable of doing that. The city government is where nobody ever thinks about rolling up their sleeves and solving problems themselves.

But I still voted for the NPA. They identified me as a potential supporter and called me. I thought it would be dishonest of me to not vote. Can't say I was as excited about it as voting CONSERVATIVE though.

So anyway, congratulations Mr. Robertson. Have fun as mayor and stay the fuck away from me.

Bailout this, bailout that

2008-11-15T01:05:00.001-08:00

Auto industries sure do get a lot of love.

But where's the love for construction trades? It's one of the most financially unstable and physically dangerous industries in the world.

We keep having to lay people off, and then the people not laid off yet often work 4 days a week because there's too little work to go around. Just today, we found out that the attendance bonus policy had been canceled for full-fledged journeymen.

So where's my bailout? No wait. Don't give me a bailout. And don't give anyone else a bailout either. That makes life a whole lot easier. And fairer.

Conservative environmental brouhaha with Barack Obama

2008-11-11T22:58:00.000-08:00

I'm guessing the outcome will be like this:

Both sides enact similar policies. But the Conservatives will formally reject Kyoto-style targets while Obama will nominally endorse it, because he, as a classic leftist, is a douchebag who likes to have his cake and eat it too.

Opposition parties will bite on that nominal support and pound the Conservatives until the sun don't shine.

This is when Conservatives must be careful about what to get into a dogfight with the opposition on. Competing with the opposition on who can kiss more Obama ass is going to end up in a Conservative loss, because, well, er, OBAMA IS LEFTIST AND WE'RE NOT. END OF STORY.

doing your homework

2008-11-09T17:52:00.001-08:00

When should the Republican Party start thinking about how to win back the government? Now.

Barack Obama is a historic president. His race probably has something to do with it, but more than that, it's his fund-raising capabilities.

Philosophically, how should we interpret a politician who has raised a lot of money? Is he / she a sleaze bag who just happens to have the right connections, or is this an indication that he / she has popular support that is proportional to his / her money? If you lean towards the former interpretation, you're probably a communist. Suffice to say, when your opponent is raising more money than you at every turn, you better be careful. We saw this in the 2008 primaries. Democrats were out-fund-raising Republicans by a rather large margin, but the Republicans just couldn't get energized about the whole thing. But in their respective primaries, we saw some similar trends. Politicians who happened to have the most money tended to come out on top, like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney early on. Very few people had been able to break this pattern, but we do have one, and that person is Republican. His name is Mike Huckabee. During the Iowa primaries, Huckabee was out-spent by Mitt Romney by several magnitudes, and won anyway. John McCain greatly admired Huckabee's stunt, but, in the end, he was unable to emulate the Huckabee magic all the way to the finish line. The same is true for Rudy Giuliani, who I supported myself during the primaries.

If the Democrats are going to continue to out-fund-raise the Republicans in the next four years (and I don't see any reason why they won't), Mike Huckabee - or whatever it is that he's capable of - will be an important part of the winning formula. I still find Rudy Giuliani's policies to be most closely aligned with my own political views. But what the Republicans need right now is someone who can really rally the troops around, and that, unfortunately, does not just come from your policy advisers. We need someone who can go up to a constituency with nothing but a fistful of dreams and rally them around like you will not believe. Huckabee's perceived problem is that he was a one-trick pony whose trick only worked on evangelical Christians as his campaign petered out in the late stages and he ended up kissing some Confederate ass, among other thing. But ultimately, we need to think of ways of broadening this appeal to other blocs of voters as well. It may come from Huckabee himself. In political terms, he's still a kid. He has time to grow as a politician. Or, it may come from someone else. Either way, we need to think about ways of beating $10 with $1, so to speak.

That doesn't mean we should abandon our fund-raising aspirations. For possibly the first time in American history since the invention of television, more people watched the vice presidential debate than the presidential debate itself in a general election. Who made that possible? Sarah Palin. And let's not draw attention to the fact that she drew bigger crowds than McCain. If there is any hope for the Republicans to re-energize their fund-raising apparatus, that hope will come from Sarah Palin. He vice presidential campaign was hardly a smooth ride, but she did not finish the race as a spent force like McCain. And, whatever criticisms the McCain camp has against her, Sarah Palin, like Mike Huckabee, is still young (and hot), and has the time to develop into a superb stateswoman. The big question for her is, now that we have seen her in a national vice presidential campaign, how well will she hold up in national intra-party primaries? That's a totally different ball game too. While I won't be making any predictions, I certainly think she should at least give it a shot.

Then there's George Bush. The Republicans have been whipsawed like never before as George Bush's approval ratings went down. Do you expect to win an election if you reply with "I don't know" and run away from the reporters whenever they ask you something about George Bush, like a Republican congressional candidate that I won't name? No. You can't hide from the past forever. While this quasi-adage of sorts is true for many personal relationship issues, it is - even truer in politics! The Democrats will continue to hammer away at you until you learn to come to terms with your past as opposed to running away screaming like John McCain in this election. During what I believe was the last question of the last Republican primaries debate held in the Ronald Reagan library somewhere in California, the candidates were asked who they thought Ronald Reagan would endorse. To my non-surprise, most people responded with cookie-cutter bull (including Rudy Giuliani, unfortunately). One guy by the name of Mike Huckabee, however, said that he could not speak for Ronald Reagan. He was not trying to be Ronald Reagan, nor should anyone else try to be. How hard is it to say that? Of course it's normal for someone to try not to be a George Bush copycat. But that's only part of the equation in being yourself. If you let other people define your agenda like the Democrats did, you're not thinking about how to be yourself. And you will lose people's confidence because of that. The Republicans need to learn how to come to terms with the Bush presidency and find their voices again before they can become winners.

Last but not least, there's policy. Policy is a murky area of campaigning, because anyone can make any kind of promise at any point in time. Just ask Mitt Romney about abortion or gay rights. Serious policy credentials can only be built up by genuine conviction, and the Republicans are certainly not lacking in this area. One of the most unique policy heavyweights in the GOP is South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. This guy once brought a pig to the state legislature to protest the pork barrel interests of both Republican and Democrat legislators alike. While Sanford is unlikely to run for president, it's something that can certainly inspire small-government conservatives. Then there's Bobby Jindal. I guess George Bush did such a bad job with Hurricane Katrina that Louisiana had to replace the Democratic governor with a Republican one. Right? Anyway, if there's anyone else in the Republican ranks with serious credentials in managing major issues with principled conservative approaches, it's Jindal.

Social conservatism probably helps, but only to an extent. We know that black people voted against gay marriage in California in a more than two-to-one ratio, but the Republican Party probably isn't going to get more black votes any time soon no matter how many constitutional gay marriage bans they promise. End of story. It's the bread and butter issues like the economy and disaster management that will really make people think about who they should vote for.

These are the things we need to think about, and this is the kind of dialogue we need to have among conservatives, in order to wrest the levers of governments from the Democrats. When should we start thinking about them? Now.

A defeat we've been waiting for

2008-11-04T22:31:00.000-08:00

Ever since the 2006 US midterm elections, the writings on the wall had been clear. First, Bush had already governed for 8 years. Getting another Republican into the White House is difficult at best, considering the last time the Republicans enjoyed 12 years straight in the White House was with Ronald Reagan, and then Bush Sr. on Reagan's coattails. Then, the Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2006. The Democrats out-fund-raised the Republicans at every turn from the primaries to the general election. And, quite frankly, a black president is a powerful idea in the US. Barack Obama would give George Bush a run for his money if he ran for the Democrats in 2004.

Now is a good time to start thinking about how to go forward from this point on. More on that later.

Make or break!

2008-11-03T21:30:00.000-08:00

Election eve. In the US.

First off, I have to say, it is understandably easier to find Obama supporters in the Conservative Party than in the Republican Party. But, if there is one place in Canada where you should not be tooting Obama's horn, it's the Conservative blogging army's quarters. If you do, expect to take flak for it.

One Obama supporter I can respect is Fred at GayandRight. He does categorically support Obama, but he only mentioned it passingly. Once, I believe. This shows that he understands that his personal preferences should not derail the overarching conservative cause. All the other people kissing serious Obama ass is just... I don't want to talk about it.

I will hold off on my overall thoughts on the US election until the results are in tomorrow. For now I will just say: God Speed, Senator McCain.

and of course, thank you for 8 years of service, President Bush. But hey, Chuckercanuck and a gay libertarian George Bush supporter says it better than me.

whiners

2008-11-03T21:20:00.000-08:00

Ah. Equalization. Do not touch with a 20-foot rebar.

What the hell. Let's touch it with a 20-foot rebar anyway.

If the government wants to have a balanced budget next year (or just a reduced deficit, if we lower our expectation to that), trimming down on equalization payments is probably going to be necessary. Not much to say there.

But the main purpose of this post is to point out the whiners.

Way to go on finally becoming qualified for equalization, Ontario. Are you proud now or what, Dalton?

The biggest whiner, however, is the usual suspect.

Quebec Finance Minister, Monique Jerome-Forget, said she has already told Flaherty that "given the current situation, we cannot cast aside our responsibilities at either the provincial or federal level."

"We have to be very pro-active as governments. I believe very, very, strongly that the situation now requires very active measures to counter the important slowdown, especially in terms of exports to the U.S."

Would you like a bucket of vomit to go with your greed, Mme. Jerome-Forget? It is so fitting for your thinly disguised attempt to shortchange the rest of Canada. Once again.

Now is the time

2008-11-03T20:56:00.000-08:00

To see if Charest can be bitch-slapped in the Quebec election.

For him to call an election right now while all the other parties are scrambling to avoid one is, quite frankly, despicable. What's even more saddening is that the ADQ does not appear ready for an election.

All I can say is, the Conservatives didn't go into Quebec with high expectations. But they were prepared to make a case. We saw the same thing from the ADQ in 2007. Now they need to refine their effort. Made-in-Quebec health care. Deficit removal. How will these things be done? The details have to be fleshed out.

The Conservative platform offers some hints. The Conservative platform offered less than $10 billion in new spending, in stark contrast with the $22 ~ $54 billion spending plans thrown around by the Liberals, NDP, and Greens. The possibly upcoming Quebec election will probably see both Charest and the PQ scrambling to pork barrel their way to victory. Going Conservative on them is a great way to contrast the ADQ from politics as usual.

However, the Conservative platform wasn't just about tight-fisted spending. There was something for everyone. Diesel tax cut. Money for manufacturing. Tax credits for Red Seal trade apprentices who manage to graduate. A made-for-Quebec regime of focused and fiscally disciplined investments is what the ADQ should focus on. Charest is calling the election on the economy, so while it's all well and good to trump up constitutional aspirations, the ADQ can't afford to not tackle economic issues head-on.

Although I've said that the Conservatives owe the ADQ an endorsement in the next Quebec provincial election, the ADQ has to win it on its own right.

this is my riding

2008-10-25T16:45:00.000-07:00

and i'm going to volunteer in the next election because of this bullshit.

a preliminary 779-vote victory for Ujjal Dosanjh turned into a 33-vote victory after validation from a returning officer, and THEN - and THEN - a federal judge decided to not count all the ballots in an automatic recount?

we must defeat Ujjal Dosanjh by a crushing margin in the next election.

curiouser and curiouser - and the mystique of francophone Liberal leaders

2008-10-21T22:48:00.000-07:00

i had a feeling that Dion wouldn't go without a fight. (but... enlisting the aid of David Orchard? he just got hammered in the federal election too)

when the election kicked off, the last Nanos poll at that time had the Liberals leading the Conservatives at 35% v.s. 33%. then, what a difference a few weeks made. the Conservatives were in majority territory. then, what a difference a televised debate made. the Liberals bounced back. of course, they still ended up with the worst popular vote since Confederation.

but this only serves to illustrate that if Dion stays on, he'll have more than half a year in the media spotlight. and, if a few weeks is a lot of time in an election, then Dion might be able to more than recover over half a year. he may have made a sore loser of a speech. he may be a shameless snob by holding on to the leader's throne for another ~7 months. he may be all that turns people off in politics. but, as the recent election has demonstrated, Canadians are just dying to ogle all over him for any stupid gimmicks he has up his sleeves, even though the country elected Harper as prime minister. therefore, it is entirely possible that Stephane Dion may regain lost grounds a thousand times between now and May, even if it's for completely undeserving reasons.

and last but not least, if he does quit in May, it would make Stephane Dion the only francophone leader of the Liberal Party of Canada to not have been elected prime minister.

i knew something was fishy when the media said that Stephane Dion was "widely expected" to announce his resignation on Monday but couldn't put the confirmation nail in the coffin.

all i can say is, we must still be very careful about the dark shadows of Stephane Dion.

*ominous music playing in the background*

Quebec questions

2008-10-18T22:53:00.000-07:00

because the Conservatives were kind of stung in Quebec and because this ties in a bit with the majority objective and everything.

okay so something went wrong in Quebec. but it's not because of a dislike of Conservative policy. Quebec had long been the most anti-war province in Canada, and that didn't hurt the pro-Afghanistan Conservatives. during the Boeing-vs-Bombardier contract pissing match between Manitoba and Quebec, the Conservatives put the foot down on Jean Charest's Quebec Liberals and Michael Fortier and handed it to Manitoba. how's that for a Quebec meltdown?

and now you're going to tell me it's over arts and culture and young offenders? it doesn't make sense.

one thing does make sense: Gilles Duceppe spent most of the campaign blaming and labeling the Conservatives with all the negativity you can think of. the Conservatives did little to fight back at the national stage. Stephen Harper spent the last few days playing up a confident image that Quebeckers will see through Gilles Duceppe's character attack. that's it. wait. that's it?

now i understand what would happen if Stephen Harper went back at Gilles Duceppe in a 100% tit for tat manner: he would be haunted with media portrayals of scary angry firebreathing right wing nutjob. again. or maybe those vestiges never really went away amongst certain partisan circles.

that's what attack ads are for. they worked great against Stephane Dion. now we need an army of them against Gilles Duceppe. and, at least, to my knowledge, we don't have them.

now these ads definitely shouldn't be puffin-pooping-on-shoulder kind of attack ads. but they need to call out Gilles Duceppe for what he is: a reactionary attack dog pol pandering to lowest-denominator politicking and offering little in the way of new ideas for Quebec as a province.

also, Harper's last few major speeches in Quebec suck. Quebeckers are intelligent, Quebeckers will see through Gilles Duceppe's character attack? that sounds arrogantly patronizing. his Occam's razor on the final campaign day was much better: WE NEED EVERY VOTE WE CAN GET! why not just say that in Quebec as Harper serves up baked beans or whatever else they consider a populist delicacy in Quebec? the Conservatives won over Quebec in 2006 by being sincere. or, in the very least, certainly not by artificially piping up expectations.

finally, even if it's arts and culture, Harper can at least mention that, back in the Chretien days, he was the only MP to be endorsed by the late Quebec literary great, MORDECAI RICHLER! even that wasn't mentioned.

now onto another issue. the Conservatives are already facing uncharted waters when it comes to Quebec.

there are now two non-separatist parties in Quebec's National Assembly. the Conservatives have been in somewhat of a limbo trying to manage its relationship with the ADQ and the PLQ. but with the ADQ being the official opposition in the National Assembly, their schism with the PLQ will only grow wider. can the Conservatives claim neutrality between the two? more to the point, will they benefit from being neutral about it or keeping the status quo of complete chaos? NO.

Jean Charest's PLQ owes an arm and a leg to the federal Liberal fortress in Montreal. this automatically means that there will always be a certain degree of irreconcilable differences between the federal Conservatives and the PLQ.

on the first minority government budget in Quebec history in more than a century, the differences between the ADQ and PLQ were readily apparent. Charest wanted to use huge federal transfers for tax cuts, while the ADQ wanted to use it to reduce the provincial debt. the budget passed with Charest slamming the ADQ for "caving in to the rest of Canada."

oh and let me get back on that budget. apparently, Charest is enjoying a 60-ish approval rating in Quebec at the moment, presumably because most Quebeckers are getting high on their tax cuts.

so... where did the money for the tax cuts come from?

and how did Quebec treat the hand that fed them? Okay let's be clear about this. Quebec snubbed the Conservatives by reducing their popular vote by 3%, and Jean Charest came off with a fresh shopping list of 13 more demands.

this is when i smack myself on the forehead and say that this relationship between Charest and the Conservatives is totally parasitic and will do more harm than good for the Conservatives in the long run.

and while Charest was busy snubbing the Conservatives during the last federal election, the ADQ had MNAs out in force campaigning for Conservative candidates, even though Mario Dumont said he wouldn't vote Conservative.

which brings me to this point. back in 2004, when the Conservatives were still in the wilderness in Quebec, Mario Dumont came out of nowhere to support the Conservatives. and now, Mario Dumont said he wouldn't vote Conservative in the federal election but still allow his party members to support whoever they want at the federal stage. now the PLQ will only continue to hurt the Conservatives, and if the Conservatives continue their aimless approach towards the PLQ and ADQ, it might eventually alienate the ADQ as well. and then, the Conservatives would have no allies in Quebec provincial politics.

what this means is that the Conservatives owe the ADQ an endorsement in the next provincial election in Quebec (possibly next spring?), no matter how badly they end up in the polls. the ADQ, for its part, needs to shore up its policy muscles, but that's another topic for another day. the point is, a Conservative tilt towards the ADQ is inevitable in the long run, and, on an interpersonal level, in terms of how much the ADQ has given, the Conservatives owe them an endorsement.

the Conservatives, incidentally, suck on some interpersonal relationship issues. such as and especially the Chuck Cadman and Bill Casey file. but it would be a travesty to mess up their relationship with the ADQ.

LATE EDIT: apparently Dumont did vote for the Conservative Party. it was just that he didn't officially endorse the Conservatives and also allowed the rest of his party to support whoever they wanted.

mighty mouse minority

2008-10-15T22:24:00.000-07:00

have i really been away for over 8 months? long enough for an election to pass by me?

don't get me wrong. i voted. but i missed out on all the blogging fun!

nevertheless, this Conservative minority is sure an interesting one. pundits have only been discussing 2 outcomes during the election: a return to the previous minority, or a Conservative majority.

and then out comes this particular minority. which is not quite like the previous minority but obviously not a majority either.

after all is said and done (and there are certainly a lot of ways to spin this minority whichever way you want), one thing remains true: this minority is going to be a mighty mouse, just like the last. except, like, a bit mightier, maybe.

the past 2 Conservative minorities are a bit like Barack Obama cornering Hillary Clinton's big state primary wins with primary wins from all the other smaller states. the Liberal electoral strength is gradually being skinned down to its big city fortresses, while the Conservatives are developing broad-based appeal in very unexpected ways. in 2006, when pundits predicted that the Conservatives would have to win 90% of the seats in Ontario to win 10 seats in Quebec - BANG! here comes a Conservative minority with 10 seats in Quebec. okay, a majority with 10 seats in Quebec would be better, but hey this is good too. after all, the Conservative strength in Quebec is probably what kept them in government for so long.

in 2008, the Conservatives captured an Arctic riding and built up an 8000-vote knockout punch in the only riding in Canada where visible minorities (in this case, Chinese people) statistically outnumber non-minorities in the last riding census, and of which have been held by the Liberals in the last 2 elections. meanwhile, every other riding with large Chinese populations have greatly increased Conservative presence. Vancouver South nearly kicked out Ujjal Dosanjh. Burnaby Douglas nearly kicked out Bill Siksay. even Vancouver Kingsway was turning into a quasi-3-way-race. even i can't explain where these Chinese votes come from.

sometimes you wonder, with these kinds of breakthroughs, why aren't the Conservatives in majority yet? okay let's not be too hasty. the NDP won a seat in Alberta and held on to their Quebec seat. are they gonna govern any time soon? hmph.

and... oh right. Quebec, arts and culture, youth crime, blah blah blah.

well, don't let that diminish the significance of what the Conservatives have accomplished. quite fascinating.

closure (even if it's 3 days after Super Tuesday)

2008-02-08T19:32:00.000-08:00

well, it was good while it lasted. not surprised to see that Rudy himself saw it coming too. don't really like him endorsing John McCain right away though.

the Republican debate

2008-01-26T00:24:00.000-08:00

is much more boring compared to the Democratic one. but it's good to see Rudy carrying on as dignified as ever. the others can afford to be dignified. but it's exceptional for Rudy.

is my blog being stalked?!

2008-01-23T18:58:00.000-08:00

the obnoxiousness of online-savvy Ron Paul fans never cease to infuriate me.

go to hell Ron Paul supporters.

and i thought my previous post was negative.

it's really not fair

2008-01-23T17:07:00.000-08:00

Rudy Giuliani had been focusing on the economy in Florida ever since the Michigan primaries. other candidates swagger in after South Carolina and claim that they're more qualified to talk about the economy, when Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican presidential contender whose tax plan has been introduced to Congress as we speak. in fact, out of all the policies that sprung up so far in the 2008 Republican presidential race, only the Giuliani tax plan has been introduced to Congress.

and what do the polls say about the man who is more ready to be president than any other candidate? there's no justice.

well, i try not to be an idiot. when polls come out, i know better than to ignore them, even if i don't like the results. but, i really don't like the results. this is truly a moral defeat for people who can't take credit for their hard work.

ok i am a delusional idiot. i shall ignore all the scientific polls and keep myself happy for 1 delusional day over this nonscientific poll:

screenshot was captured just a few minutes ago on the Larry King Live website. thank you O brave Giuliani supporters. didn't know you still existed. i hope these people are genuine supporters anyway, and not campaign agents (as that is possible... Rudy don't tell me you've been up to no good...).

yeah and then on the 29th my stomach will feel like it's going through an organ grinder.

sigh. i think this will be my most negative blog post on the 2008 Republican primaries yet.

when did McCain also support cutting the corporate tax by 10%?

2008-01-23T13:00:00.000-08:00

just wondering.

compared with the blistering Democratic debate in South Carolina

2008-01-23T00:47:00.000-08:00

the Republican campaign in Florida is much more civil. but what does this mean for each candidate?

McCain is the front runner. he can afford to be nice.

Mike Huckabee always campaigned as Mr. Nice Guy.

Romney and Giuliani are harder to explain. they have incentive to use attack ads. and Romney did so religiously in Iowa and New Hampshire. so why is he ditching it now? actually i don't care.

Rudy is the guy who is in the most dire need to win Florida. and he's surprisingly respectful about his campaign message. he did go after McCain, to some extent, but it pales in comparison to what the Democrats are doing to themselves.

why is that?

well, far be it for me to speculate, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. we are, after all, people in the same ideological tent. even assuming that Rudy is gonna lose Florida, going down with grace is better than without.

wait. why am i even assuming that? well, it's possible. at the end of the day i hope everyone can say that they stood for something.

just try not to be afflicted with stomach cramps just by reading the news about Florida. that actually happens to me.

the only truly good news for Rudy after Iowa

2008-01-20T22:15:00.000-08:00

saying that "there's still no clear Republican front-runner after South Carolina" doesn't count. that's not good news.

but this one contains one smidgen of good news that's very easy to miss.

most of the video is campaign spin, but David Dreier made a blurb about Rudy Giuliani raising $1 million more last week. if that's true, that is quite impressive, considering the current phase of the primaries cycle and the position that Rudy found himself in after Iowa. if all of that money came from Florida, he has a good chance of beating McCain.

on the policies of Rudy Giuliani

2008-01-20T02:45:00.001-08:00

i've never talked about my opinions of Rudy Giuliani's policies in depth. and with all the preceding primaries and caucuses over, Rudy Giuliani's policies will be under a reasonable degree of scrutiny in Florida, so let's talk about it - without worrying about his winning prospects!

on Iraq

Rudy's Iraq policies have been lacking, just like every other Republican contender in the race. i'm as committed as any other rabid right wing extremist in continuing the democratization and stabilization of Iraq, but saying nothing more than that you're gonna stick with your guns, or that you support Bush's troop surge (most pro-war people should have supported it anyway), doesn't say much about how you intend to improve the situation. the theory is that while the Democrats were reluctant to criticize the Iraq war because security is improving, the Republicans are reluctant to talk about it because it's still a statistically unpopular war. however, i do believe that, if a man is going to campaign on his leadership credentials, he needs a clear policy platform on all the vital issues, and there's a point where he needs to step up to the plate, even for the most unpopular topics. additionally, with all eyes on the giant media state just before Super Tuesday, there's also a chance that a detailed policy platform on Iraq can really rally around people who are committed to battling terrorism, but are unsure who is the best person to lead the charge amidst all the media reports on the grim situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

what the US needs is essentially a larger army at a time when the US Army is more strained than ever and fears of a draft are looming. there's no quick fix to the problem, but it can be done. in 1990, there were 600,000 more active duty personnel in the US Army than today. and that was without the draft. however, tearing things down is always easier than rebuilding them, so what the US lost 17~18 years ago will take much longer to bring back. this certainly isn't helped by the fact that for every American soldier you put on the field, you need about 10~11 civilian staffers to take care of his or her logistical needs. but it can be done, if for no other reason than that it had been built from the ground up before. if we're going to bring back all 600,000 of those active duty personnel, it's going to take longer than the maximum term limits allowed for any American president. but it will also take strong leadership, and if there's anyone in the US who is campaigning on his leadership capabilities, then he had better be the one to lead the charge in this endeavor. if Rudy also wants to have his way with his giant tax cuts, though, the US Army expansions should probably done rather moderately.

secondly, civilian contracts in Iraq need more oversight. aside from all the bombings and deaths (that gradually reduced by the end of the year, of course), hundreds of thousands of AK-47 rifles and pistols also went missing. soon afterwards, the Department of Defense went scrambling to audit all of its Iraq contracts after numerous corruption charges were revealed. this indicates one thing that many people should have anticipated all along: the Department of Defense isn't geared towards handling large numbers of projects, as would be required in a democracy-building job such as Iraq. additional oversight capacity is needed to properly keep track of what's happening with all the money going into both civilian and military purposes in Iraq, and the State Department would be a good place to start. additional personnel, and perhaps a few (but not too many) new and specialized civilian agencies would be good ways of building up this oversight capacity. Rudy Giuliani has been focusing on his reputation for fighting corruption and the Mafia as the mayor of New York, which makes him the most qualified person to, for example, weed out the corrupt companies gobbling up contracts going to Iraq.

maybe i'm not in a position to say that it's good optics right now to talk about Iraq in such detail, but, personally i do want to see discussion on Iraq that goes beyond the usual talking points. we are committed to fighting terrorism, right?

on the economy

Rudy is offering the biggest tax cuts in American history, and a 1-page tax form. now, since the primaries are just echo chambers where competing interests try to out-left or out-right each other, Republican voters won't be asking much about how Giuliani is going to pay for it. but the mainstream media is going to. and he's only beginning to address those concerns.

so far, he has pledged to cut or cap government spending in certain areas. he also indirectly hinted that he may not get everything he wanted, but will fight for it. a bit of honesty never hurts. so far he has been performing well on this file. a minor issue i have is that i personally think that Rudy should engage the general public more actively about how he's going to pay for the tax cuts (so far i've only seen him address this issue if someone else brings it up first), as that is what the most sincere person would do. but ramping up talks on cutting government spending might not sit well with some people, so i understand the political reasons to avoid this issue. if he does become president and the tax cuts go to Congress (very big hypothetical there), the tax cuts will probably also be spaced out over a long period of time to stretch out the budgetary shocks of these tax cuts, but i'm not sure if we should be talking about that.

on health care

Rudy's $15,000 tax deduction for health insurance is great! he should be talking about it again in Florida! that is all i have to say.

on illegal immigration

the US is a worldly country. regardless of what you might hear about Americans moving to Canada just to escape the tyranny of George W. Bush, people from across the world want to enter the US all the time. this is something that it's going to have to live with. Florida, in particular, has many Cubans escaping the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. do we really want to say no to those people, the same way that Bill Clinton said no to Elian Gonzalez, after his mother sacrificed her life so he could find a better life in the US? i thought we got into Iraq to give Iraqis a better life! both George Bush and Rudy Giuliani have been on the sensible side of the debate by stressing that you can't just deport tens of millions of people while offering their own plans to improve border security and dealing with illegal immigrants who already crossed the border (i particularly like Giuliani's mandatory deportation policy for illegal immigrants who committed a felony), but that's just my personal view. apparently, being gung-ho anti-immigration like Mitt Romney scores you brownie points among Republicans. i'm not sure what Rudy should do on this file.

ok now i'm tired. i might talk about other issues later. but, when all is said and done, talking about policies that you believe sure feels good when you don't have to be concerned about whether or not they're popular.

the final countdown

2008-01-20T02:41:00.000-08:00

quoth the famous Europe song: IT'S THE FINAL COUNTDOWN! and trumpets blare.

this blog will focus heavily on Rudy Giuliani until at least January 29th and my incredibly stupid ideas on how Giuliani can best win Florida. i'm still a bit disappointed by Nevada though.

ack! forgetting my origins!

2008-01-12T16:19:00.000-08:00

living in Canada for 12 years has apparently fixated me to Canadian and American politics so much that that i've forgotten completely about the political affairs in my birthplace - TAIWAN!

i guess, after all my sadness about Rudy Giuliani, there's something for me to be happy about after all - pan-blue coalition sweeps to victory in Taiwan.

while i'm more or less a self-identified supporter of the pan-blue, i do try to be respectful of people's opinions in the sensitive world of Taiwanese politics. this is the developed nation that witnessed an attempted assassination on the president as recently as 2004, and as recently as 2005, people still jump up on stage and stab themselves after hearing about their preferred political party doing badly in elections. yeah, that's what Taiwanese politics can be like. so i try to not take things personally. that said, though, i've always supported the American military equipments that the pan-green had been trying to secure. in the very least, i think we should definitely get the Patriot III and the submarines. but the pan-blue apparently doesn't want the Patriot III and is lukewarm about the submarines... well anyway, the arms sale would certainly strengthens Taiwan's self-sufficiency, and also feed cash into the evil shady American military-industrial complex. this makes an EXTREME RIGHT WING demagogue like me very happy.

however, i do feel that the pan-green had been cajoling pro-independence sentiments to the point that it has come at the expense of the bread-and-butter issues that matter more to the people: economy, inflation, unemployment, and so on. refusing to have closer economic ties with China simply isn't helping the situation.

ever since Ma Ying Jeou got into the graft mess, i kinda stayed away from Taiwanese politics. that was another depressing time back then, one that i shouldn't have stayed away from. if you avoid something just because bad news pop up you're going to have a lot of difficulty with life! in any case, Ma Ying Jeou is practically the only non-DPP person who has any chance of beating the DPP in a presidential election, and after he was accused of graft i had a hard time believing that the pan-blue can make this kind of a comeback. but apparently Ma was quickly acquitted of the graft charges (unlike Chen Shui Bian, who's unlikely to ever be acquitted of his own grafts) and now pan-blue is kicking ass.

let's hope that the Giuliani campaign can stage this kind of a comeback too!

the finest hour (in American politics)

2008-01-12T02:06:00.000-08:00

Canadian politics is boring these days, as it always had been. barring a February election, that is. but forget about February. we're still in early mid January. and January is when it's busiest in American politics.

as a rabid right wing ideologue, i'm naturally more interested in the Republican race than the Democratic one, to the extent that, in any leadership race, introspection should always come first.

the Republican race, as far as i'm concerned, is turning out to be a very interesting race. the contenders present very different ideas and ways of doing things, like Mike Huckabee winning Iowa despite being outspent 15:1 by Mitt Romney, Ron Paul's anti-war rants and Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice principles, which are clearly out of place in the Republican Party, and, of course, Rudy Giuliani's unusual campaign strategy of ignoring every state before Florida.

i've been drawn towards Giuliani long before he declared his presidency, perhaps for no other reason than because i'm a pro-choice conservative, like him. i've long wanted a pro-choice and gay-friendly president to lead the charge in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who better than the mayor of New York during 9-11?

but now Giuliani's campaign strategy may be costing him the presidency. never mind that losing 3 out of 3 states hardly looks good on him, where he was once the front runner, CNN's most recent national poll has revealed that he's in third place. all of this isn't helped by his campaign performance. from what i've seen of him in public, his speeches - whether at a campaign stop or in a debate - are robotic at best or outright awkward. i might be a Giuliani supporter, but i don't give anyone free passes when it comes to judging people as fairly as i can. however, i will say that his speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention was a lot more lively and inspiring. don't know what went wrong since then.

and while all this is happening, he's still having strained relationships with his son and daughter.

nothing personal against other Republican candidates, as we have some very well-qualified and inspiring people in the field (i particularly admire McCain and Huckabee). but, for some reason, i really wanted Giuliani to win the Republican nomination and the presidency. it's not just because of our ideological similarities. over the past few days, i've been depressed enough to write this reasonably long-winded rant over the avalanche of reports of Giuliani's campaign troubles that i keep hearing about, to the point that i'm wondering if i'm taking the Republican race personally. taking things personally is something i try to avoid in politics, and as a Canadian, i certainly haven't been as emotionally engaged in any Canadian political affair as i have in this American Republican presidential race. but never mind that.

it's become official now that several senior Giuliani campaign staff members are forgoing their paychecks to make sure they have enough money to splurge on Florida, the state that can only be won with expensive TV ad buys.

there's something sad and yet inspiring about these people working for Rudy for free. not having enough money in a presidential race is an unambiguously inconvenient thing. but, isn't there something to be admired about these people making these sacrifices to stick to what they believe in, regardless of reward? just for comparison purposes, when John McCain was tight on money, he laid off staff; when Rudy Giuliani is tight on money, his staff keeps working for him for free. what did it take to build that kind of friendship? why couldn't Rudy inspire the Republican public in the same way?

either way, analytically speaking, the Giuliani campaign is getting more desperate by the day. but, on a sentimental level, there's something to be said, at least to me, about people who are increasingly being left behind by the public but continuously working for what they believe would be a better world, purely out of their conviction.

the most important thing, i think, for the Giuliani campaign right now is to not languish over their dismal failures. keep working for what you believe in, take this experience with you regardless of outcome, and be proud of it for life.

now like i said, i don't give anyone a free pass when it comes to judging people as fairly as i can, and to that extent, i hardly think that Rudy is a perfect man. but, if i were in Florida and in a position to do so, i would work for him for free too.

last but not least,

CAMPAIGN IN NEVADA TOO, RUDY.

AND TALK TO YOUR CHILDREN MORE.

'Tis the season to be (politically) jolly!

2007-12-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

Hugo Chavez loses dictator-for-life referendum.

What a relief.

an inconvenient truth

2007-11-30T16:57:00.000-08:00

coldest winter in 15 years. damn you global warming!

common ground

2007-11-28T00:04:00.000-08:00

what does the most conservative Canadian city and the most liberal French-Canadian city have in common?

movie piracies, apparently.

This past year, Hollywood studios threatened to delay film premieres in Canada because of perceived piracy issues, especially in Montreal and Calgary.

Conservative sweep in Montreal, here we come!

yawwwwwwwn

2007-11-27T23:58:00.000-08:00

this is why politics is the absolute ultimate irrefutable and [insert as many adjectives as you can] source of excitement in the country.

that, or the Conservative government is performing beyond expectations.

will i get this much national sympathy if i go on a killing spree in my neighborhood?

2007-11-27T23:52:00.000-08:00

just fucking die, scumbag.

what does it take to fire the douchebags in the Senate?

2007-11-08T20:03:00.001-08:00

it's not necessarily that i support abolishing the Senate, but, seriously, this is getting out of hand. we can't fire them even with a legislative mandate.

don't look at me

2007-11-01T17:44:00.000-07:00

if you find something hurtfully expensive while shopping at the Staples store on the corner of Georgia and Burrard, don't blame me.

blame the corporate level of the retailers.

but i do wonder how my district manager or the Staples director for western Canada (none of whom i've met before) would react if i talk to them about lowering prices. come to think of it, i'm not even sure who gets to set product prices in Staples or how the process goes. but i can always ask my general manager. like you'd care, though.

belated happy Halloween

2007-11-01T17:25:00.000-07:00

five months have passed without a word on this blog. and, statistically, not much has changed in Canada's political scene. the Conservative government is still intact! wasn't that, like, the biggest Halloween scare in Canada? EVER?!

this woman was turned away at a gay bar

2007-05-31T01:37:00.000-07:00

(click to enlarge image)

this only reinforces my secret burning wish that every male on the planet other than me is gay.

as to the actual controversy, i could care less.

maybe that's why they're the Quebec Liberals

2007-05-22T19:07:00.000-07:00

fiscal discipline. in jeopardy.

Think-tank urges Que. government to avoid tricks in budget
CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, May 22, 2007

MONTREAL - A Montreal economic think-tank is urging Quebec Finance Minister Monique Jerome-Forget to avoid using accounting tricks to hide billions of dollars of deficits when she brings down the provincial budget on Thursday.

The Montreal Economic Institute notes that Quebec's auditor-general estimated in an October report that the province had an accumulated deficit of $5.3 billion as of March 31, 2006 - even though the government was claiming to be running a surplus of $192 million.

Additionally, hospitals and universities were running deficits worth another $1.3 billion. Quebec is the only province that doesn't include such deficits as part of the government's general accounts.

"The population as a whole must be able to get a true picture of public finances," Paul Daniel Muller, the institute's president, said in a statement. "To achieve this, the government must do away with dubious accounting methods in its budget and financial statements that have enabled it to hide deficits."

The institute, which favours conservative policies, called on the government to bring the province to "true zero deficit" by reducing or slowing spending growth in a series of areas.

It suggests cutting back on subsidies to business, outsourcing more activities to the private sector, opening the door to more private involvement in health care and getting more able-bodied recipients off the welfare rolls.

The minority Liberal government has promised to forge ahead with a $700-million middle-class tax cut, financed by new money it will get from the federal government next yea. The Action democratique du Quebec and Parti Quebecois both oppose the measure.

the Mulroney administration was fond of overestimating their economic fortunes. that was when economic times were down. which wasn't entirely their fault. but that they chose to fudge their numbers budget after budget was inexcusable.

on the other hand, the ADQ doesn't offer an entirely appealing alternative. although i guess i can't blame them after Alberta went through with their huge infrastructure budget.

Quebec has a long hard road to fiscal salvation.

tied to what?

2007-05-20T14:37:00.001-07:00

after a long while, i'm still thinking about the BC MLA pay raise.

tying it to inflation is a bad idea. if all the jobs have their pay raises tied to inflation it would increase expected inflation, which would effectively cause unnecessary hikes to overall inflation. this wouldn't exactly be a problem at all times, but during a recession it could be devastating. making this rule apply for MLA salaries probably won't affect the economy that much, but unions will probably be howling with indignation at every turn thereafter about how their pay must be tied to inflation too.

the only rational way i can see out of this mess is tying MLA salaries to the real per capita GDP growth rate of the province, by using the dollar value of 10 years ago as the base year for calculating said per capita GDP growth rate. as an elected politician, your economic reward for being in that office should be nothing less than directly contingent to your performance in managing the economy of the jurisdiction that you represent. and inflation is not exactly a concrete indicator for these purposes.

this is to say that BC's MLAs should've gotten a pay raise anyway. just not 29% for MLAs and 54% for the premier.

where the fuck is a real right wing party when you need one?

2007-05-02T20:33:00.000-07:00

i coulda sworn the BC Liberals have just become the Ontario Liberals.

and that conniving scum Dalton McGuinty is still riding high in the polls after giving himself and his buddies a 30% pay raise.

seriously. what the flying fuck is wrong with you mindless idiots in Ontario? can't you at least give some credit to the NDP in the polls? now BC has to suffer just like you.

because honesty is the ultimate manifestation of manliness

2007-05-01T18:34:00.000-07:00

also, because my conscience is compelling me.
click link for pic.

(edit: couldn't get the picture to fit properly)

irony

2007-04-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

i just realized that one of my fluorescent light bulbs is - made in China!

haha!

...

ok not a very funny one.

about time

2007-04-29T02:33:00.000-07:00

Mario Dumont had some guts in endorsing the Conservatives back in election 2006, when they were still in the political boondocks. so, in a way, the Conservatives owe it to them to at least maintain some political cohesiveness between the two parties.

but recently friction is starting to show between them, as if there weren't enough before.

first, gun control. it's no secret that the Conservatives had long opposed it while the ADQ had long supported it. but this is negotiable. we can just chuck the gun registry into the darkest corners of the cabinet files (outright killing it is too politically costly, i think) and let it rot while devolving gun control jurisdiction to the provinces. that way, everyone get the gun laws they want. except the hardcore pan-Canadian gun control freaks. but hey, there's no pleasing everyone.

then, there's the thornier issue of constitutional talks. thanks Mr. Dumont - i really mean it, thanks. but what kind of wacko would want to start up constitutional talks in a minority federal government? you should know better. if Quebec starts pushing out budgetary surpluses under a Conservative-majority federal government, that might be more amicable grounds for constitutional talks. it's - oh - not that hard. but then i'm feeling so generous to the point of being delusional. on both counts.

anyway.

this is the first serious overture that Harper has made towards the ADQ. as much as we still have differences to sort out, this move is only long overdue. we can't forget people who were with us through thick and thin.

provincial budgets and sea changes

2007-04-29T01:12:00.000-07:00

most of the provincial budgets of 2007 have been tabled. there might be some uncertain times ahead.

first, the sea change in the west. after the election of Ed Stelmach as Alberta premier, we should have an inkling that maybe Albertans are starting to cool off to Ralph Klein and Preston Manning Reformism. but seriously, not even i expected this major a shift away from traditional Reform policies. that they still managed to pump out fiscal surplus is not surprising, however, considering that Alberta's surpluses in the past, which rivaled that of the federal surplus (and this should tell you how much provincial fiscal surplus per capita Albertans enjoyed during the Klein years compared to the federal surplus per capita), allowed for a lot of wiggling room. the significant question here is, how long will this go on? much like the federal Conservatives' defense about its own budget, Lyle Oberg said that the Alberta budget was intended to be a short-term solution. one can only hope so. it doesn't take the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to figure out that the year-to-year increases in spending cannot be sustained without incurring more debt eventually.

and hey, it's not like the rest of the west are getting any more conservative. BC is splurging on public housing and Saksatchewan is splurging on social programs.

but in any case, the age of Ralph Klein and Preston Manning's tight fiscal discipline might be on an irreversible path to being replaced by big spending schemes, at least for the short term. Saskatchewan, in particular, has to watch out: its last fiscal "surplus" is more or less artificial.

some bright sides exist: no tax hikes, for example. although there are no significant tax cuts either. except in BC. but probably only because it's in a position to do so. interestingly, this might make BC the most economically right wing province in the west in the next little while.

now, let's look at the Maritimes.

it turns out that Danny Williams didn't need that much cash to churn out a budgetary surplus AND the biggest tax cut in Newfoundland provincial history. maybe Williams is, after all, a hyperventilating jerk with bad judgment.

PEI is getting pretty comfortable too. probably only because it receives huge equalization cash - on a per capita basis.

the real success story of the Maritimes is obviously Rodney McDonald's budget. to turn from a mad-spending premier to the fiscal discipline exercised in this instance is nothing short of a miracle. and the Nova Scotia Liberals supported the budget, to boot. this probably isn't going to translate into electoral fortunes for the federal Conservatives, but economically, it's certainly a good thing for Nova Scotia in the long run.

somewhat predictably, the New Brunswick Liberals, without any provincial allies in the Maritimes, borrowed a page from the Ontario Liberals and became the second province to raise taxes in the last 2 years. just in time, too, as the New Brunswick PCs are still too beaten up to pose a serious threat against Shawn Graham. this might be a short-term thing, or we might be seeing a growing ideological rift in the Maritimes.

finally, we have the Ontario budget itself. it looks like the outrage over his betrayal on taxation is disappearing and they're prepared to live large on the health premium tax. meanwhile, i'm just not impressed with John Tory's performance. a genuine conservative would want to churn out budgetary surplus or at least keep the absolute amount of debt constant as opposed to just balancing the books, and then slowly reduce or phase out the health premium tax. that tax is pretty annoying, but i'm not sure if instantly axing it is a good idea. and then come clean about the fact that you're pretty much going to need some spending cuts. as it is, though, the only province that is exercising relatively tight fiscal discipline is Nova Scotia. all the other provinces are undergoing expansionary economic policies. McGuinty's policies only differ from that of other provinces in terms of taxation, but not on spending. and this is sad.

the big story from all this is probably the major ideological shift in the west. as if the rise of the ADQ isn't already putting Canada into unchartered waters, the west is becoming even more of a wildcard. meanwhile, the Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry continues to grow, and it'll be pretty interesting to see how future governments will handle their offshore revenues. it's hard to say where all this will go in the future.

can you imagine a TWO POUND TUMOR in a newborn baby?

2007-04-29T00:44:00.000-07:00

WOW.

cause and effect?

2007-04-19T21:54:00.000-07:00

would the Alberta PCs table this budget if the Conservatives haven't tabled theirs first? wow.

then again Albertans did elect Ed Stelmach in the first place.

sometimes it's necessary

2007-04-19T13:45:00.000-07:00

it's like, oh i dunno, Halle Berry going to the Razzies.

sometimes you need to do stuff like this. if you want to do something that people aren't going to like, you have to be prepared to take the punch.

they're still not our friends, but -

2007-04-19T13:28:00.000-07:00

the NDP has agreed to tougher sentences. (damn thing doesn't have URLs for specific articles, but what the hell)

i suppose politicians can be anything (the Conservatives have come a long way from the 1993 Reform wave to the Quebec nation motion) but i still expect the NDP grassroots to burst an artery about this. as long as it's tougher sentences it's good in my book.

oh and - NDP not supporting motion! for what seem to be pretty weird reasons. well, as long as there's no election looming i'm fine with it.

man, that felt hollow

2007-04-15T10:54:00.000-07:00

i'm now less angry at Elizabeth May than i was before. the whole thing still leaves a bitter feeling after comparing her initial reluctance to kick him out to her "KILL KILL KILL" on the Clean Air Act.

not to mention that this woman is someone who can and will employ the traditional media bias against the Conservatives to a T.

to use another example, here's May on the Clean Air Act v.s. May on abortion:

Clean Air Act:

"Saying that there's any hope of breathing life into this really appallingly bad legislation is confusing, and does appear to have given Harper new legs to say this bill is acceptable.''

abortion:

So I see it as a moral dilemma, and I don't see it as a clear-cut black-and-white.

to her credit, she knows very well that beating on anything Conservative like they're feckless ditch pigs clearly demonstrates the Defender of Canada (tm) in her, the passionate warrior who holds nothing back for a just cause. but... by taking a fence-sitting position on abortion, this is consummate sensibleness, as is evidently proven in her winning over the hearts and minds of sensible people like Andrew from Bound by Gravity. very well-played.

(for the record, i'm generally pro-choice)

i know that i'm supposed to get over the countrywide and planet-wide anti-Conservative biases sooner or later because it's just not gonna go away anytime soon. but sometimes... i can't stand it, really. seeing this woman (or her kind, more generally) anywhere in the news alarms me.