Update: Jason Cherniak responds. Apparently my post below was mostly crap, but at least one section did make Jason refine his thinking on one issue, so in that sense, my efforts were not wasted. My goal is always to get people to think about things, not necessarily agree with me. If I wanted people to agree with me, I'd just post anti-Bush anti-Harper messages laced with plenty of expletives on the rabble.ca message board. I still think there are unintended consequences bubbling under the surface of Jason's stated goal, and I still think he has to be careful of what other people might do to take advantage of what he is doing to advance their own agendas. But then I'm a conservative with my own hidden agenda, so of course I expect other people to be as devious and duplicitous as me.

Or is that slush funds?

From Jason Cherniak's blog:

Today I will obtain the final signature on the application to incorporate the list of Liberal Bloggers as an Ontario non-profit company. We have now approached the moment of no return, where I will begin paying the government to make this all official.

For those who do not know yet, this new organization has been created for two reasons. The first is to protect me from liability for what others might post on sites that the Liberal Blogs list will link to. The second is to create an organization that can receive donations and then spend excess money to help the Liberal Party.

Spend the excess money to help the Liberal Party? Like donations? Subject to the limit of $1000 per year for a corporation?

Well, after a flurry of comments such as this one...

Am I the only one who finds it odd that Chermiak [sic] decided to redirect blog donations to the Liberal party?

Aren't you just setting yourself up to be a fundraising wing for the party, not to mention all the objectivity issues it raises for you and the other Liblogs?

Or do the Blogging Tories do the same thing? Blogging Dippers? As far as I know, they are in no way associated with either of their "mother parties". With the financial relationship Cherniak has set up, I don't know he can say the same thing.

Maybe it's just me.

...Cherniak made it clear that the money raised would not go directly to the Liberal Party or any of its various wings.

And the comment was dead on about the Blogging Tories -- they do not collect funds and make donations as a group, though members are free to do as they wish as individuals.

So if the money being raised "to help the Liberal Party" is not going to the Liberal Party, where is it going? And how is it helping?

The main idea is to become a third party advertiser during elections. The other and less certain idea is to create a Liberal Blogger Scholarship.

Third party advertising is a choice fraught with danger during an election period. If the Liblog members combine into some sort of single entity under this umbrella organization, and then identify themselves as a third party, the group will have to be registered with the Chief Electoral Officer. Then each blogger will have to identify each pro-Liberal blog entry (and possible every anti-Conservative, anti-NDP, and anti-Bloc entry) as an ad authorized by the umbrella group. Presumably Cherniak would want to check each posting before granting that authorization.

Cherniak says that the purpose of the group is to protect himself, but now every Liblog is tied to every other like climbers on a rock face.

On election day, no new posts can go up. According to the rules, posts that have gone up prior to election day can stay, but they cannot be changed. I think that comments might be considered a "change", so comments would have to be turned off on the very day when election blogging would hit overdrive.

How about limits of election spending? As a registered third party, all the Liblogs would be required to submit to an audit run by an auditor appointed by Cherniak's umbrella group if the total money raised exceeds $5,000. How much does an audit cost? I don't know, but it's probably not cheap. Not to mention the irritation felt by all the Liblog members who are sucked into this. That means also tracking all the donations to make sure they aren't coming from non-Canadian sources.

Register as a third party advertiser? Unless Cherniak raises thousands of dollars, it hardly seems worth the trouble, and might chase more than a few good bloggers away from the Liblogs.

What about other uses for the money? Like this scholarship? Cherniak admits that's a long shot. Seems to me the real desire here is offset some of his own costs:

The main goal is to raise money to pay for startup and hosting.

Well, looks like he'll be lucky to hit that plateau:

We have now raised just over $100, but we will need at least $400 to cover all of the startup costs. As a result, all I ask is that Liberal bloggers donate $10 each to the cause. To do so, please click on the donation button to the right.

For me, the best help I can provide to the Conservative Party is insightful commentary and the odd investigative piece here or there. I can tell you that if I ever entered into a formal relationship including financial renumeration in either direction, the blog would be retired immediately. Blogging is, and should remain, the domain of unaffiliated observers. They should not be fronts for fundraisers and slush fund operators.

One more thing. There is a risk here that if Cherniak tries to take his blog and those of his Liberal friends into the some kind of formal relationship with the Liberal Party, people will think that other political communities such as the Blogging Tories and the Blogging Dippers are in similar cahoots with the political parties they support. At best, that will be a misleading impression that will colour the opinion of the reader of any blog. At worst, it could trigger some kind of regulatory interest in the Tories and the Dippers that rightly should be focused only on the Liblogs.

Ironically, during the last election, people at odds with the Conservative Party, disgruntled ex-Tories Carole Jamieson and Eugene Parks, tried to paint the Blogging Tories as some sort of arm of the Conservative Party of Canada and so subject to regulation. Frankly, I couldn't take it too seriously.

Why were the Blogging Tories targeted and not the Liblogs? Probably because the Blogging Tories were far more effective during the election campaign than either the Liblogs or Blogging Dippers as measured by the amount of interest garnered by the main stream media. Several stories first cracked by Blogging Tories were picked up by the main stream media and became part of the story of the campaign. And of course, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won.

Despite this, Elections Canada dismissed the attempt by Jamieson and Parks to muzzle the Blogging Tories via third party regulation.

I wonder if the real value of Cherniak's Liblog corporation, for certain people, will be to force Elections Canada to clamp down on all blogs. I'm not saying Cherniak is playing some sort of Ludlumesque double game here. But if I were a Liberal Party strategist looking for a way to shutdown, or at least severely curtail, the work of those meddling Tory bloggers, I might take advantage of a situation in which Elections Canada is forced to regulate my own Grit bloggers. I might make a big donation to Cherniak's fund to make sure his non-profit organization is formed and then registered with Elections Canada, even though I know that, in the end, it would be a major blow to the Liblogs. Being less effective than the Tory bloggers, that sacrifice would be minimal for the Liberals, but I could then argue that Elections Canada should regulate all political bloggers in the name of fairness, formal incorporation or not.

The Liblogs might be sacrificed as a weapon to knock down the Blogging Tories, in other words.

Too complicated? Maybe. But then people who play politics are too clever by half sometimes.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:38 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1402 words, total size 9 kb.

A cabal?

A cabal is a number of persons united in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church, state, or other community by intrigue. Cabals are secret organizations composed of a few designing persons. Its usage carries strong connotations of shadowy corners and insidious influence.

One famous such group was P2, or Propaganda Due (Italian: Propaganda Two). It has been alleged that P2 was involved in the murder of Aldo Moro, the Italian Prime Minister, in 1978.

A new cabal dedicated to the selection of Canadian prime ministers has been identified. Though the group has no formal name, they pose as reporters, and I have dubbed them the Zolfians!

Harper’s treatment of the media is that of an ingrate. The media made Harper. The media also first made Trudeau and Mulroney. Later, the media made both Trudeau and Mulroney and their parties suffer at the polls.

A similar fate awaits Harper if he doesn’t change his basic suspicion and hatred of reporters and news commentators.

Strangely for a cabal, this group of power brokers has been revealed not by the painstaking process of analyzing subtle clues hidden in historical documents and such, but rather by a widely published commentary by their leader, CBC journalist and commentator Larry Zolf.

I suppose shadowy intrigue isn't what it used to be. I mean, the whole point of being the power behind the throne is that no one sees you pulling the strings.

Unless, of course, there is another group behind the Zolfians, and the Zolfians are just dupes who don't even realize that they don't have the real power to choose a prime minister.

Could it be the voters of Canada?

Scary.

[Hat tip to small dead animals]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:43 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess the Conservatives will have to get used to this:

“Canada is blindly following the lead of Washington,” and of pro-Israel lobby groups, she said.

Yes, Stephen Harper does whatever George W Bush does. Typical neo-con. Can't be trusted to chart Canada's own unique destiny.

The problem with this statement of national vice-president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Wahida Valiante, is that it simply isn't true.

Canada has become the first country after Israel to cut funding and diplomatic ties to the Palestinian Authority over the new Hamas government’s refusal to renounce violence.

The Conservatives say they will still offer humanitarian aid to Palestinians through the United Nations and other agencies.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday that Ottawa cannot go farther.

"As you know, Hamas is a terrorist organization — listed in this country — and we cannot send any direct aid to an organization that refuses to renounce terrorist activity, refuses to renounce violence."

The first country after Israel. Doesn't sound like someone who follows. Sounds like someone who leads.

Palestinian leaders are shocked. I bet they are:

Ottawa has been sending $25 million a year to Palestine but the Liberals had planned hefty increases.

Instead, the $25 million will now be cut by $7.3 million to $17.7 million, said Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Marie-Christine Lilkoff.

The argument for not cutting off aid is predictable:

Cutting off contact will not help Palestine improve its democratic systems, Valiante says.

Rewarding terrorists is not likely to do much to improve democracy either.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:22 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

The case of Abdul Rahman, the man in Afghanistan sentenced to death for the crime of apostasy, from both the Christian and Muslim point of view, and just how lucky Muslims are that the Christian view is very different.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:57 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 744 words, total size 5 kb.

I got this email, and I'll quote it without naming names:

Bill 602p is being ushered through Parliament at this time, it will give Canada Post the ability to levee a charge of 5 cents on every email that internet users get. The internet provider will be sent a bill from Canada Post and they in turn will bill the user.

I have emailed my MP Rona Ambrose to suggest that I did not vote for more taxation and told her if this bill gets passed don't come looking for my vote next time. How stupid do they think the Canadian public is that Canada Post can charge a service they don't provide

I thought to myself, how can there be any bills being ushered through Parliament? Any bills died when the election writ was dropped. Parliament hasn't been recalled so a new bill can't have been submitted. And the numbering is wrong.

So I did a quick check:

A new, localized variant of the venerable modem tax legend (a perennial headache for the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S.) has swept across Canada during the past week in the the form of a bogus email alert. The message claims that the Canada Post Corporation (the post office) is pushing legislation to impose a 5-cent surcharge on every email "delivered" to Internet users...

The bogus email is shown:

Subject: E-MAIL SURCHARGE

Internet Subscriber:

Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and continue using email:

The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of Canada attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation Canada Post will be attempting to bill email users out of "alternate postage fees".

Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every email delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Toronto lawyer Richard Stepp QC is working to prevent this legislation from becoming law.

<snip>

Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! Send this email to all Canadians on your list and tell your friends and relatives to write to their MP and say "No!" to Bill 602P.

Kate Turner
Assistant to Richard Stepp QC
Berger, Stepp and Gorman
Barristers at Law
216 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
MlL 3C6

There is no firm "Berger, Stepp and Gorman", and the postal code "M1L 3C6" is for Stellarton Road in Scarborough. There is a reverse search page for postal codes, by the way.

The page has more information about this hoax, the Australian and American counterparts, and how it has been rebutted over and over again. Like a rash, though it comes back. I suppose it depends partly on people having never heard of the hoax before. I hadn't. It was only my natural skepticism that kept me from reacting.

So if you get this email, ignore it. Don't write your MP. And if you are an MP or one of the people who writes responses to letters from constituents, be nice when you tell the person it was a hoax. It's easy to be taken in by these things.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:25 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 3 kb.

A hypothetical question. If a family of 6 (husband, wife, and 4 young children) were looking for accommodations in or near Ottawa, is there anyone out there with a place to stay? These people are looking for free or near-free living for a few months or so in order to get established. Maybe you've got a big house and are entering the "empty nest" phase of life, and could use help with utilities and such. Let yours truly know if you can help out, and I'll pass it along.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:31 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't think of a better comparison that this.

From the right we have two of the finest minds in Canadian conservatism, Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin, authoring a blueprint for what conservatism has to do to become a force in this country.

If you haven't already bought their book Rescuing Canada's Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution, do so now. It's a bargain at twice the price. Just follow the banner at the top of this page.

In it, they review the history of conservatism, deal with how conservatism interacts with different institutions in this country (media, academia, etc) and make recommendations about how to improve those relationships, and then outline a number of policy platforms that would resonate with Canadians, re-invigourate conservatism, and cure a lot of problems in this country.

Two people.

Of course, on the left, it's very different.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:48 AM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 5 kb.

This article in the Ottawa Citizen is interesting on two levels. First, on the story itself:

The federal opposition is sending signals it will block Conservative plans to impose automatic jail terms for a variety of gun-related crimes unless the stiff terms are watered down.

The opposition, while willing to deal with the governing party to fight a spate of gun violence in urban centres, say the Conservative penalties could run afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee that the punishment must be proportional to the crime.

Sue Barnes, the Liberal justice critic, suggested the Conservative penalties are "draconian" measures that would have to be diluted to survive a court challenge.

Strange that Sue Barnes had no comment on the Liberal Party election platform plank that called for law-abiding citizens to have their firearms confiscated. But a criminal, found guilty in a fair trial, and given the punishment already required by law as opposed to a retroactive punishment for a hithero legal activity, is going to win a Charter challenge?

The Liberals and the NDP have to be careful here. Canadians are in no mood to pander to criminals:

One factor working in the Conservatives' favour is that no party wants to be seen as opposing a bill on firearms crimes at a time when there is public concern across the country, particularly in such cities as the Liberal bastion of Toronto.

Of course, a Liberal bastion is the prison population itself, so the Liberals are in a bit of a bind here.

Funny how being in a minority government can actually make the Conservative position stronger. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Vic Toews take a strong position, guaranteed to anger the opposition. But can the opposition oppose? If they do so too strongly, they can bring the government down. The Conservatives are the only party in a position to fight back-to-back elections. Stephen Harper's approval ratings are sky high. The Liberals are broke and leaderless. And the Canadian people will crucify any party that forces a snap election so soon.

If they faced a Conservative majority government, the opposition could be loud and uncompromising. But now, they have to tread very carefully.

But aside from the issues of crime and punishment and of parliamentary strategies, it is interesting to note that the Ottawa Citizen tucks this bit of information in the very last paragraph:

There is a consensus among criminologists that minimum jail terms, which eliminate discretion for judges to impose sentences they see fit, do not deter crime.

I'm not going to discuss whether this is true or not, or if deterrence is the only motive, or even the most important motive, in setting sentences. But the fact that a newspaper left this to the very end suggests that the paper is not eager to criticize the Tory plan. It would seem that the Conservatives have some allies.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:05 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

We've all seen gimmicks. We tend to dismiss them, because by definition, they have a childish appeal:

Finding a successful gimmick for an otherwise mundane product is often an important part of the marketing process. For example, toothbrushes are often given various gimmicks, such as bright colors, easy-grip handles, or color-changing bristles so they appear more exciting to consumers. This is often done when trying to appeal to children, who often get more excited about the gimmick than the product.

Who gets excited about typical leftie belly-aching about evil corporations, evil conservatives, evil this and evil that? Normally no one does. I mean, after a while, the sheer volume of evil is mind-numbing. More than a few people sympathetic to the left must begin to wonder just how evil these things really are -- I mean, the world manages to function reasonably well despite all the alleged evil.

And for those who think this works in reverse, remember that the right thinks the left is misguided, while the left thinks the right is evil.

With that, it comes as no surprise that the left resorts to gimmicks far more than the right. This can be burning effigies and flags, staging sit-ins and die-ins, or throwing pies and balloons filled with paint. The right rarely indulges in these sorts of theatrics. On Canada's web-based home for the left, rabble.ca, we see a new gimmick that tries to maintain the interest of the consumer:

The goal here is to make Stephen Harper disappear:

Depressed about the Conservative victory in the election? Wishing you could think of a way to get rid of Stephen Harper before he does too much damage? Now you can help us make that smirk just disappear. How?

From between $10 and $100, you can buy a 10x10 pixel spot on this banner showing Stephen Harper's face. The price is adjusted to reflect where on the banner you pick, the face being the priciest bits. On that spot you get a teeny tiny symbol and a link to your progressive web site. For instance, NDP MP Libby Davies links to her website from Stephen Harper's chin.

You're not actually helping defeat the Conservatives as such, but just indulging in a bit of web-based graffiti. The purpose is to generate cross-traffic and help build the ARRG:

Your pixel ad will help rabble build an Active Rapid Response Group (ARRG) that will be there every time the Conservatives try to cut funding, cut programs or do anything else to destroy what you care about in this country.

Sure. Whatever.

For example, did you know there was a vigil outside Sussex Drive the day of Harper's swearing-in to demand that he maintain the federal commitment on child care?

Um, no, so I guess it wasn't really effective. And since Stephen Harper's approval rating is now hitting the 66% range in British Columbia, where so many die-hard NDP-types make their home, ARRG seems to be off to a bad start.

That's the problem with gimmicks. They sound cute. They might even catch your eye. But in the end, they are shallow, and they certainly can't transform a fundamentally poor product into a good one. But they can help mask a poor product, which probably explains why rabble has a gimmick on their home page, while the home page of the Fraser Institute web site is filled with actual ideas.

But what if a right-wing web site decided to go with a gimmick? How about a Java-based game not unlike the old Missile Command from Atari. Instead of missile raining down on you, NDP talking points come out of the sky. More money for the environment. Higher minimum wage. Labour-friendly laws. Punitive taxes. Complete demilitarization. If one hits the ground, it means that the NDP has succeeded in causing you embarrassment on that particular issue. Your job is to shoot down each of these by sending up a counter-missile made up of money from your limited budget. Use enough money, and the NDP missile is eliminated before it strikes.

Sort of the way the NDP didn't seem to care about having a parliamentary debate and vote on the issue of Canadian troops in Afghanistan while the Liberals were in power as long as the Liberals were spending billions to incorporate NDP platform planks into an ad hoc budget. Now that the Conservatives are in power, however, having that debate has suddenly become the most important thing in the world.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:46 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

Of course, we all know what the war in Iraq is all about -- oil, right? And the men and women in the coalition fighting it are murdering countless innocents who were better off under the gentle hand of Saddam Hussein.

Naomi Klein is one of those who knows better:

MONDAY FEB 21ST, 6-9PM
LA FUNDRAISER
NAOMI KLEIN
FREE IRAQ! From Killer Liberators and the Corporations They Serve

Venice United Methodist Church
1020 Victoria Ave. (at Lincoln)

Of course, for Naomi Klein, everything reduces to corporations.

So what happens when the brutal killers don't act in a brutal and murderous manner? The obvious thing to do is to ignore evidence contradictory to what you know to be true. This is the most common defence in the face of cognitive dissonance, the state in which a person finds himself or herself when two contradictory realities are perceived.

Of course, any conservative will tell you there is only one reality, and you have to face up to it. But for idealists, who fill the ranks of the left, there is the world as it is, and the world as it should be (that being defined differently by each person, of course). When they don't match, there is a drive to resolve the dissonance -- but very few adjust their ideals. Best to adjust the perception of reality.

For instance, coalition soldiers should be killers in the service of corporate interests because George W Bush is evil (or stupid, depending on which ideal reality you believe in).

But then we learn that soon after a number of Christian pacifists who have been highly critical of the coalition, who subscribe to the idea that all the wrongs of the world are the fault of the Americans, and specifically of the conservatives, were kidnapped by the poor oppressed people they came to help, those same coalition forces began planning the rescue of those pacifists.

This week, the rescue happened:

But, in the event, the coalition devoted huge resources to securing their release. The SAS, special forces from the US and Canada and military intelligence officers spent months trying to locate them.

A force consisting of SAS troopers backed up by about 50 paratroops and Marines spearheaded the task force that rescued them. US and Iraqi troops were also involved in the mission.

So the reality is that the evil corporate thugs risked their lives to rescue those who kept insisting to the world that these people were evil corporate thugs.

You'd think that revelation would require a major rethink. Of course, the simplest thing to do is to pretend that these brave and selfless men and women don't even exist:

NORMAN KEMBER, the freed peace activist, will arrive back in Britain today amid growing controversy over his failure publicly to thank the military forces who rescued him.

Neither Professor Kember nor the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) organisation for whom he worked have acknowledged the work of the soldiers who rescued him and two Canadian hostages on Thursday, or of the teams of military and intelligence officials who spent months trying to track them down.

General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army, expressed the unhappiness of the military last night when he told Channel 4 News that he was “saddened that there doesn’t seem to have been a note of gratitude for the soldiers who risked their lives to save those lives”.

This is to be expected. These pacifists and their kind have invested a great deal of time and effort in constructing a world in which the US is evil, all the world's problems are related to lack of access to abortion, that capitalism doesn't work, that recycling is the right thing to do at any cost (even if it costs more in energy and resources than making a new item), that the legends and myths of native people are inherently better at describing the world than Western science (unless those cultural beliefs lead those same native peoples to eat seals and whales, in which case another acute case of cognitive dissonance develops).

The problem with the case of the Christian Peacemaker Teams is that the press has not played its accustomed role. See, the way to avoid cognitive dissonance is to avoid data that contradicts your idealized world view. As long as the media continues to report on explosions in Baghdad and never reports on the schools, the hospitals, the rebuilt infrastructure, and so on, there is no cognitive dissonance.

But in this case, the media has let the left down. Not only did it report on the rescue, it compounded the problem by reporting on the amount of effort put into the operation and then made things worse by obliquely suggesting that the rescued hostages and their colleagues were wrong not to aknowledge their rescuers.

It's going to take a lot of marches, placards, slogans, and fundraisers by luminaries on the left to set the world right after this mess.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:00 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 834 words, total size 5 kb.

From Expose the Left:

President Bush spoke to military and civilian families in Wheeling, West Virginia this afternoon about the War in Iraq. As usual, he spent a long period of time with the audience to answer the questions they may have. One woman, a military wife, told President Bush about her husband’s career as a military broadcast journalist and the footage he got about how great things are going in Iraq. She told the President that many cable news channels are just not reporting good news and only the bad news. She wanted to know what people could do to see the good happening in Iraq.

The President's answer:

Help over there will ya? I just got to keep talking and word of mouth, there’s blogs, there’s internet, there’s all kinds of way to communicate which is literally changing the way people get their information and so if you’re concerned I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that got internet sites and just keep the word moving.

A video of the encounter is available there as well.

There is a message to the main stream media here -- control of the national agenda is slipping, and the administration is well aware of alternative ways to get information out and how to use these alternatives to frame the debate. In Canada too, the situation has changed. While in Ottawa, I spoke to several senior people in the Harper government, and each had the same thing to say -- the last election was the breakout election for the blogs. Blogs played a role larger than maybe is appreciated, and that role is only going to grow.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:02 PM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

A story of kindness and generosity in Afghanistan stands in stark contrast for the calls of neverending emnity between Christian and Muslims issued by Osama bin Laden and the Islamists.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:33 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 4 kb.

The Liberals are acting tough:

Opposition party leaders warned yesterday they are willing to bring down Stephen Harper's minority government if it does not change its course -- particularly on the Tory promise to provide a child-care subsidy to parents -- in the next two weeks.

In separate meetings with the Prime Minister, interim Liberal leader Bill Graham and the Bloc Quebecois' Gilles Duceppe reminded the Conservative leader his party is outnumbered in the House of Commons and urged him to compromise on the government agenda as he drafts his Throne Speech.

The speech, which will be delivered by Governor-General Michaelle Jean on April 4, sets out the agenda for the coming parliamentary session and will be passed or defeated in a confidence vote that could spark another election.

Mr. Graham insisted the Liberals are willing to face the consequences of a confidence vote even though they won't have a new leader until December and are still struggling with the fallout of the party's defeat in January.

He laid out his party's well-known concerns about the Tory agenda, including the fate of a $5-billion deal -- signed by the Liberals last year -- to improve living conditions for aboriginals, opposition to a cut to the Goods and Services Tax and Mr. Harper's promise to pull out of child-care agreements that were also signed by the previous Liberal government.

Strong words from a weak party:

Despite Mr. Graham's threat, his party is ill-suited to face an election until at least 2007. The Liberal executive agreed last weekend to hold a leadership convention in December to replace former prime minister Paul Martin.

Mr. Graham pointedly refused to say whether he was prepared to lead his party into an election if Mr. Harper's government suffered a quick defeat. He called one reporter's scenario "hypothetical."

One wonders just how many in the Liberal caucus are really willing to go into another election less than three months after the last election, which was preceded by an election only 17 months earlier. And that election in June 2004 was called early by Paul Martin in an attempt to win a majority ahead of the Gomery Inquiry testimony.

The last two elections saw the Liberals cut down from a majority to a minority, then from a minority to the largest opposition party. Continuing the trend means third party status or worse. Stephen Harper is doing well in the polls, better in fact, than before the vote on January 23. The Liberals are in debt and without a leader. In fact, they lack even a potential leader as all the big names have already dropped out. In Quebec, the Conservatives are likely to build on their success in the last election, while the Liberals are likely to fall lower, again based on the personal popularity of Stephen Harper.

Moreover, if the Throne Speech outlines the same five priorities, including the commitment to cut the GST and to replace the Liberal daycare program with direct payments to parents, then Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will be doing exactly what they've promised to do for months now. Promises that got the party elected.

I don't know what makes Bill Graham thinks that having a "do-over" on the last election so soon will accomplish. The Liberals have no new ideas. They don't even have a new face yet. The Conservatives are being consistent. Nothing else has changed. I suppose the fight for David Emerson's seat would be interesting, but that's about it.

Defeating the government now would be seen as a colossal waste of time by the electorate, especially if the government is defeated for doing exactly what it promised to do, promises that already won it an election. Stephen Harper would call for the shortest campaign allowed by law, arguing correctly that nothing has changed from the last campaign to justify anything longer. The Liberals would have no choice but to offer to Canadians a chance to vote for an interim prime minister, and then ask voters to trust the party to replace him or her with a new leader that they would like once the leadership convention happened.

Another unelected prime minister -- just like Paul Martin when he got the job. And look how well it turned out for him when he first went to the polls in June 2004.

For Canadians who cast their vote influenced primarily on who they think would be the best prime minister, the situation would be seen as ridiculous. And be certain that all the other parties would make hay on the fact that during a Leaders' Debate, the Liberal contender is just a placeholder, making any comments he or she makes essentially irrelevant.

I expect a few Liberal MPs would not even bother running for re-election, and that more than a few losers from the January 23 vote would decide to sit this one out. Donors would keep their checkbooks in their pockets, and I doubt the Liberal Party credit line with the banks would go very far right now. Could they even get an airplane this time around?

The whole thing is absurd. I don't know why the Liberals think making these sorts of wild threats will accomplish anything. Expect Stephen Harper to meet with the other party leaders, but in the end stay true to himself and his party platform. No one knows what will happen during an election, but at first glance, it sure seems like a bad idea for the Liberals.

Actually, the threat seems rather pathetic.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:09 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 926 words, total size 6 kb.

Indian affairs is one of the trickiest and thankless portfolios in the Canadian government. It looks like the Conservatives are off to a good start, though.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:36 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1127 words, total size 8 kb.

If this is what passes for insightful political analysis on the left, then I can sit back and do some serious relaxing.

Larry Zolf is an award-winning commentator and journalist and a friend of Canada's left. He is also considered a bit of a fool by some observers (see here and here).

Maybe I wil join that list based on this piece from the CBC:

Martin made one particularly fatal blunder. He could have visited the troops in Afghanistan over Christmas 2005, in the middle of the campaigning for the Jan. 23 federal election.

If he had, he would have been the hero of the troops and stolen the campaign momentum away from Harper's one-a-day policy announcements.

Instead, Martin did nothing, letting the Tory leader steal the momentum with military announcements and promises to deploy more troops.

Is this how the left sees an election campaign? As six weeks of campaigning that could have been ignored because the people of Canada would have been utterly captivated by a single photo-op? Canadians would have forgotten Adscam and the Income Trust Scandal and beer-and-popcorn and the non-confidence chicanery and the budget follies and the dithering because Paul Martin would have popped his head out of LAV III?

Is this the opinion the left has of the voting electorate?

Stephen Harper's visit was no stunt. It was a carefully crafted message about the importance of the military and of Canada's foreign affairs and interests. The visit was not driven by polls or by impending votes. In fact, the visit preceded polls that showed Canadians beginning to see the Afghanistan mission in a positive light.

The honesty and leadership Stephen Harper showed is resonating with Canadians and has set the tone for this new government. You can't fake honesty and leadership. The people would have seen through that. The troops would have seen through that.

That is, unless you believe Larry Zolf. If you do, then every Canadian in and out of uniform would have trumpeted the gutsy leadership of Paul Martin because he gladhanded some troops in a tent in Kandahar, despite the months of evidence to suggest he was no such leader, and the campaign would have turned around.

Larry Zolf has seen more campaigns than me. Maybe he's right. But I don't think so. Moreover, I think it reveals a lot about what the left thinks of the rest of us.

To be fair, Larry Zolf makes some other points in the article that make sense. But I can't get past this notion that Canadians would have voted the Liberals back in power if only Paul Martin had done this one photo-op. It makes us sound so...so...infantile.

I guess it's all part of the beer-and-popcorn mindset.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:00 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

From CTV:

As his growing girth becomes the subject of endless speculation, Prime Minister Stephen Harper admits he is enduring an ongoing battle of the bulge.

"When I was young I was very thin," he told television host Claude Charron during an interview for Quebec network TVA Monday.

Well, given the choice between being chubby and smart, or skinny and stupid, I know which I'd rather be. Because I can always go on a diet.

That having been said, let's hope we don't spend too much time in the media worrying about weight and clothes sense and other fluff.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:44 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I am waiting for Mike Puffy to cover this story... Anyway, is THIS what we get when we don't have a machine churning out press releases and soundbites to our media? What's next? A searing expose of Jack Layton picking shirts that are only so-so when worn with orange ties? Seems to me there are still plenty of scandals around that the last government never quite managed to come clean on - perhaps if they have a moment the national press could chase one or two of them.

Posted by: Halfwise at March 21, 2006 05:51 PM (du9e5)

2 I dunno. I'm a 28 year-old (happily married) woman and I think he's kinda sexy. Mind you, I'd pick brains over brawn any day!

Posted by: at March 21, 2006 06:43 PM (FWPCU)

3 I dunno. I'm a 28 year-old (happily married) woman and I think he's kinda sexy. I think men with brains (even a little over weight) are A LOT more attractive than a stupid stud. As for me, I'd pick brains over brawn any day!

Posted by: at March 21, 2006 06:46 PM (Rww+E)

4 Poutine... Quebec's way of getting even with Les Anglais. Choke 'em off at the arties...

Posted by: tomax at March 21, 2006 07:24 PM (jHhd0)

5 Do you think it is now fair game for the media to comment on, say, Hedy Fry being a wee bit plump or how about that sweet little dumpling Libby from the NDP. How about an article on oh maybe how at 6'4" maybe Mr. Harper is too tall or his ears too big or his shoes not quite Belinda-haute. They have already lampooned his hairstyle, the way he walks his children to school and his blue eyes. I really never knew Canadians were so small minded and donw right cruel and bigotted. Oh wait - it's the media just "doing their job" I guess. .

Posted by: maria at March 21, 2006 07:57 PM (rp6r3)

6 The liberal media is too embarrased to concentrate on their own bandits. They must be getting bored when they can only poke fun at the PM"s body condition. But if that's all they can find that's a good thing!

Posted by: Albert A at March 21, 2006 08:23 PM (iLouJ)

7 Sad, isn't it? The media are so desperate for a way to tear Harper down, they resort to this kind of personal attack.

Posted by: Mac at March 21, 2006 08:26 PM (TaDbz)

8 I find it kind of funny that the ONLY think the MSM can find to complain about Harper is his expanding girth. He must be doing something right. What I find amazing is how little air time they have given Dingwall's entitlement, the Reloscam, Scottie's e-mail friend, the DND scandal, and any number of other scandals that have come up and are still ongoing - yet - the headlines are all about the Prime Ministers weight. Is there somewhere we can complain about this?

Posted by: Alberta Girl at March 21, 2006 11:38 PM (zcssu)

9 Alberta Girl >>Is there somewhere we can complain about this? Right here is a good start, letters to editors will help, and notes of support to columnists, bloggers and commentators. I am encouraged by what seems to be a move by the general public towards wanting actual content in its news. I hope it's not just my wishful thinking.

Posted by: Halfwise at March 22, 2006 12:08 AM (du9e5)

10 Frankly, I think it is better to have a fat belly than a fat, empty head like the last 40 years of Liberal Prime Ministers have had.

Posted by: rockyt at March 22, 2006 11:08 AM (ixWGA)

11 Let them bitch about the PM's clothes or looks all they want. While they do that, the MSM's not busy causing trouble elsewhere.

Posted by: V-Man at March 22, 2006 02:24 PM (o7zpN)

12 Off-topic vent: " Paul Watson, Greenpeace co-founder and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society president, said Harper's unwillingness to ban the commercial sealhunt is not only embarrassing on the international scene but shows how "rude and inhospitable he is." " So lets be hospitable, and let air head foreigners who know nothing about Canada, come in and tell us how to run our country and lives! Iam sure that would fly... Perhaps we should go to France and protest the cruelty to animals that occur in French seafood restaurants - where they pitch a living creature into a bot of boiling water... but then Lobsters aint cute enough to raise the ire of Greenpeace.

Posted by: Curtis at March 23, 2006 01:21 PM (heo8b)

13 The sudden battle of the bulge is actually a sneaky legal manouver... Did you know, that Harper's former chef is sueing Harper for wrongful dismissal? (the poor fella was let go on election day) He is therefore gaining weight as evidence that he likes the new cooks cooking much better... Pretty sly for a neo-con guy ...

Posted by: Curtis at March 23, 2006 04:20 PM (heo8b)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives home page :

The CCPA is an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice. Our research and analysis show that there are workable solutions to the policy questions facing Canadians today.

Just how independent are you when you are on the government dole? The CCPA gets nearly a half-million in yearly funding from the federal government. Of course, that means the Liberal Party, which might explain these "policy" titles:

• Canada's Failure to Promote Collective Bargaining as a Human Right
• Budgeting for Women's Equality
• Foreign ownership of telecom puts Canadian culture at risk
• Canada's high-income earners are not overtaxed

Will the CCPA switch gears now that the Conservatives are in power? Not likely. More interestingly, will the Conservative government take away funding, letting the CCPA get funding from private supporters?

But then the fundamental working principle of the CCPA is that government funding is prefered over private sector funding, that somehow that makes a hard-left think tank "non-partisan".

Total nonsense, of course.

So the CCPA is fundamentally at odds with the the principles of small-c conservatism. But look to the CCPA to put the government on the defensive. Withdrawing funding is a partisan move. Never mind that right-wing think tanks like the Fraser Institute accept no funds from the government.

It leads to the question that can a small-c conservative party ever really be suited to government, given that government is antithetical in many ways to government function? I think the answer is yes, but then the details are likely to come out of the research from the Fraser Institute than from the CCPA. If the government has no intention of ever implementing, or even listening to, the ideas from the CCPA, funding them seems to be a waste of money.

And wasting money is another one of those things small-c conservatives hate to do.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:55 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Check out the Million Blogger Page for a new take on a blogger search engine:

I'm a Web developer and have been dreaming of building a better blog search engine. A kind of visual search that allows you to quickly browse thousands of blog profiles on one page, and discover interesting blogs not just popular ones.

It is true that in blogging, as with any complex system with distinct nodes, there will be nodes that for one reason or another become slightly larger than the others (in this case, blogs that are seen as being of somewhat higher quality). As the system evolves, these nodes become attractors, which means that any trajectory that comes close to that node ends up staying close even if disturbed. For instance, Instapundit is an attractor, since invariably everyone who gets into blogging puts Instapundit on their blog roll, and there it stays even if Instapundit goes on a three-month sabbatical. The presence of attractors makes it hard for other blogs to get noticed.

So any attempt to create a new system that allows people to avoid the attractors and find other blogs of interest is worth looking into.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:36 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Finally we can get on with business:

Canada's ethics czar has cleared Prime Minister Stephen Harper of any wrongdoing in his controversial decision to bring former Liberal David Emerson into the Conservative fold.

"My conclusion from the preliminary inquiry is that neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Emerson contravened any of the specific Sections of the Members' Code," federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro said in a report released Monday.

"I am satisfied that no special inducement was offered by Mr. Harper to convince Mr. Emerson to join his cabinet and his party."

As well, Mr. Shapiro said, there is "no reason, and certainly no evidence" to contradict Mr. Emerson's assertion that he accepted the Prime Minister's officer in order better serve his Vancouver-area constituents.

"I therefore find no reason to pursue these matters further," Mr. Shapiro said.

Moreover, the Commissioner agrees with me that cabinet appointments are a matter of judgment, not of ethics:

With regard to Mr. Harper, Mr. Shapiro found that he was "performing a constitutionally recognized executive function, and not an activity associated with his legislative duties or functions" and as a result was entitled to make the cabinet appointment.

For Mr. Emerson, he added, the higher salary and benefits afforded a cabinet minister can't be considered an improper inducement on their own.

"If it was, the appointment of any person to Cabinet could be considered suspect," Mr. Shapiro said.

Also true.

No reaction yet from the the folks who want to overturn the fair election of David Emerson. I'm willing to be they won't give up. This was never about ethics. It's all about politics and the chance to take a seat from the minority Conservatives and give it to the opposition.

Well, if nothing unethical happened, then clearly nothing illegal happened, and nothing is going to change. Emerson is in cabinet, and he's going to stay there. Another win for Stephen Harper.

Interestingly, Belinda Stronach should be concerned:

He also noted that if an opposition member were approached — or did the approaching — with the sole intent of changing their vote on a specific issue in the House, then such a move may be considered inappropriate and unacceptable.

Nothing will come of this statement in terms of an inquiry, but a subtle jab nonetheless. We might yet see this comment come up again during the Liberal leadership campaign if Stronach runs.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:21 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

The first reaction is to laugh, of course:

Yesterday, Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac called The Daily News to say he intends to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

He also wants to run to bring his youth to the party and to end the "continuous mockery that's been allowed to take place of my party."

MacIsaac has mused about running for office in the past. He insisted yesterday that this time he's serious.

He will finance his bid by selling some art he owns. Leadership contenders must pay the Liberal party $50,000.

I'm not suggesting he is a likely to win, or that he will have any serious influence during a leadership convention, or that I would want any party, large or small, led by MacIsaac. But I think anyone who wants to serve his country in politics should be given the courtesy of consideration. He should be allowed to present his case and have it judged, but not pre-judged.

Making a major change in direction like this isn't easy. If he's serious, I wish him luck.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:17 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ashley is wasting his time and his money. It's not because of his previous displays of youthful piss and vinegar (W. was full of it and look where he ended up), it's because entertainers usually have no perspective to their popularity. If people like him, it's for his entertainment value not his opinions or political savvy. Stick to the fiddle and outrageous antics Ashley, you'll just be big embarrasment in politics. You've already started poorly by your misread on Quebec as well as not having liquid money and having to sell art for the ante.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 20, 2006 10:07 AM (Zyz8s)

2 I can already see the hundreds of "the Ron fiddles while __________" That would transpire.....

Posted by: DrWright at March 20, 2006 10:42 AM (svtW3)

3 oops Ashley better get coffee

Posted by: DrWright at March 20, 2006 10:44 AM (svtW3)

4 Good for him if he wants to run, he could be an interesting candidate. My guess is he is just looking for some free publicity, as he did prior to the 2004 election when he said he was supporting Harper and the Conservatives in a big feature story in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, and then recanted the next day, saying he was just joking.

Posted by: Jay at March 20, 2006 10:48 AM (3GO5g)

5 Dr. Wright.... Ron fiddles while the conservatives crash and burn.. My new CD will be out in the fall. Look for it in a Wal-Mart near you.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 20, 2006 11:26 AM (Zyz8s)

6 What's he gonna do, team up with Natalie McMaster and stomp his way to PM? That'd be some ticket.

Posted by: Captain Ned at March 20, 2006 11:48 AM (osioG)

7 This guy, has as better claim to the liberal leadership than Bryson and Belinda does. He's a rookie politician, but at least he's starting out with the party he wants to lead.

Posted by: Curtis at March 20, 2006 12:23 PM (heo8b)

8 I think every good Canadian should encourage Ashley to run for leader of the Libs. He'd fit right in with the other candidates, Rae, Brison, Stronach, etc. We should encourage Avril Lavigne to run as well. How about Marc Emery, Mark Messier, Marc Garneau, Markie Post, any Trudeau, or any of Paul Matinn's offspring. Say, what's Celine Dion up to these days? She's bilingual too. Should McIsaac win, will someone please take his fiddle away and donate it to someone who knows what to do with it?

Posted by: dmorris at March 20, 2006 12:54 PM (iNlUz)

9 Tina Keeper would be perfect!

Posted by: glen at March 20, 2006 01:28 PM (KdMPS)

10 At least we know he's got nothing to hide........

Posted by: Dagny Taggart at March 20, 2006 01:54 PM (/WgcG)

11 Mark Messier would be a natural liberal leader. After all he ended his NHL carrer spearing someone in the groin. (got a game misconduct for it)

Posted by: Curtis at March 20, 2006 04:19 PM (heo8b)

12 Whose next? Micheal Moore? He'd fit right in.

Posted by: gimbol at March 20, 2006 04:20 PM (zElnE)

13 They'd have to remove some of the back benches for Micheal Moore to fit in...

Posted by: Curtis at March 20, 2006 04:56 PM (heo8b)

14 Ummm... didn't he have to file for bankruptcy a few years ago... yeah, let's put him in charge of the liberals so they will be even less of a threat. They can be dumb and broke.

Posted by: Heather Cook at March 20, 2006 11:34 PM (4SQNC)

15 Daydreaming about a possible interview scenario. Question: So, Mr. MacIsaac, what is your opinion on Pol Pot? MacIsaac: Well, I'm not familiar with that particular variety, but pot is pot.

Posted by: molarmauler at March 21, 2006 02:16 PM (GS+Dm)

16 I agree Curtis. So far, all 5 of the most likely contenders are not liberals. I see two conservatives (Brison and Stronach), one New Democrat (Bob Rae), an American college professor (Ignatief), and a Montreal Canadian. It seems the liberal party has become nothing more than a mish-mash of Conservatives and Socialists who put ambition ahead of principal.

Posted by: rob at March 21, 2006 02:27 PM (DiVcO)

17 Guys, it's a fool's game to write off Ashley MacIsaac. Jesse Ventura was a good Governor, Sonny Bono had a respectable career, not to mention Ronald Reagan. He could surprise us all. Dr. Wright - I wish I'd thought of that. Nice one.

Posted by: Jason D at March 21, 2006 02:59 PM (oU3FB)

18 To ask the question of POl Pot is indeed funny you figure?I don't think the millions of people who died under his regiwem would find it funny.I migth add as for personal bankruptcy there are qwuite a few cabinet minister stoday who have filed personal banruptcy-and that i have ran companies every year now for over a deacade that have been either 6 or 7 figure comanies.Youcannot beilvie everytihng you read espaiclly in Macleans. As for expericne- may I add this one last note-Belinda Stroncah?Ihave had friends who were in Chicago part ofthe Chicago 7 smetimes called the chicago 8 - ihave travlled the world far more extesnvly then Stephne Harper,I have promoted liberal cuases at very high personal costs to my family inthe past when i felt it was necassiry- and fianlly-I have never had na expeircne in my life of sex invloing watersports - i hope i don't disapooint anyone with that truth-which i said at one point jokingly to a macleans wiriter to promote tolernce of people's sex lives bieng none of anyone 's buisness-remeber-the state has no place inthe beddrooms of the nation anyone?I can't wait tillthe day in my be it far away or or sooner future that MAc lean's has top Right P.M. A.M. Arrognace should be earned-and By 31 - with more experiecne with the world then most in Ottawa now- I think i have earned it

Posted by: ashleymacisaac at March 26, 2006 11:05 PM (1D9uK)

19 To ask the question of POl Pot is indeed funny you figure?I don't think the millions of people who died under his regiwem would find it funny.I migth add as for personal bankruptcy there are qwuite a few cabinet minister stoday who have filed personal banruptcy-and that i have ran companies every year now for over a deacade that have been either 6 or 7 figure comanies.Youcannot beilvie everytihng you read espaiclly in Macleans. As for expericne- may I add this one last note-Belinda Stroncah?Ihave had friends who were in Chicago part ofthe Chicago 7 smetimes called the chicago 8 - ihave travlled the world far more extesnvly then Stephne Harper,I have promoted liberal cuases at very high personal costs to my family inthe past when i felt it was necassiry- and fianlly-I have never had na expeircne in my life of sex invloing watersports - i hope i don't disapooint anyone with that truth-which i said at one point jokingly to a macleans wiriter to promote tolernce of people's sex lives bieng none of anyone 's buisness-remeber-the state has no place inthe beddrooms of the nation anyone?I can't wait tillthe day in my be it far away or or sooner future that MAc lean's has to Right P.M. A.M. Arrognace should be earned-and By 31 - with more experiecne with the world then most in Ottawa now- I think i have earned it

Posted by: ashleymacisaac at March 26, 2006 11:05 PM (1D9uK)

20 Thank you! My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Keith at May 08, 2006 12:52 AM (G4VGg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment