Pendulum Swing: Are the Conservatives a Dying Breed?

As the numbers begin to roll out post-election here in Canada, we'll begin to develop a more detailed picture about who is voting for which party. One thing that is striking for me is the beginning of a real age gap politically, and a general move to a centre-left, left position as the electorate gets younger.

The results of Conservative success in Saskatchewan tells me two things. One, that the population there is aging, and that the NDP is appealing to younger voters, and largely urban ones. Again the situation in Saskatchewan is probably more complex than simply that, but I think a lot of that movement to the Conservatives is based on its social conservative appeal.

The NDP is the most socially progressive party in Canada. The older NDP was based far more heavily on fighting for the worker side of the worker/owner divide. Those kinds of class lines are far more blurred these days than they used to be.

Today small businesses of vastly unusual complexity in all sectors of society are appearing with contract and sub-contract work becoming more and more common. The old ideological divisions of worker/owner no longer hold, and so an older generation looks to “traditional“ values that harken back to when they were younger. Something older folks can understand, and it is a constituency the current Conservative party is able to appeal to.

One of my biggest beefs with the NDP is what I see as it's far too close ties with organized labour unions. While unions are an important foil to the abuses of workers by large corporations, they are also dinosaurs, who's hierarchical structure is rife with corruption and nepotism. But go back a decade and even suggesting a breaking of those ties would have been met with horror from many NDP faithful.

The NDP have seen a modest revival under Jack Layton, who has taken the party in a very socially progressive direction. His emphasis is on diversity both ethnically and also by encouraging far greater gender parity (while better than all the other parties, still only in the low 30% range). But while emphasizing a socially progressive agenda, I think he is alienating old line NDP of the Bill Blakie variety.

Frankly, I think it's a sacrifice the NDP should make. Because what is becoming clear from the election results, is that the Conservative Party constituency is solidly founded (at least for this election), on a much older senior citizen population. A population which is much more likely to vote, but one which is also rapidly dying off.

The Conservatives, however, have a much longer road ahead. Their core is founded on free market fiscal and social conservative principles. In most of his writing Harper has emphasized the notion of tradition and small government conservatism, while at the same time suggesting that the best way to market those things to a broader population, is by de-emphasizing them; by disguising them so as to avoid alienating voters. It's a losing bargain.

The younger crowd, while perhaps less politically aware, is very media savvy. They have a far greater ability to parse marketing-speak, and they also have access to far more types of media than simply the mainstream presentation of major networks and newspapers. Most will actively seek out numerous alternative voices in order to develop their own unique montage of world events and politics.

The neo-conservative marketing conventions are already old, and the fact that once in power they and their ideas have failed so miserably in application, is already damnation enough for most people with any sense, particularly those with any sense of politics and the goings on in the world. So the Conservative Party of Canada is already going in the wrong direction for most young people. They have, as they have shown in this election, only lies, half-truths and misdirections to use to appeal to a broad base of voters. It didn't work despite voters only having a corrupt incumbent government to vote for in it's place.

While I think the NDP and to a lesser extend the Greens have an enormous battle ahead to actually get their constituency into the polls, f they should we will begin to see a real shift in Canadian politics.

The Conservatives on the other hand are going to see their constituency literally disappear as they die off. The question for the Conservatives is, how can they move more toward the centre, particularly as the centre starts to move more toward the left? I think this election signals the bare beginning of that pendulum swing.

The Canadian Alliance, with the merger of the right, essentially gobbled up the Progressive Conservatives, and purged themselves of the progressive Red Tory wing. I'm beginning to wonder if they have enough people in the party to shift it back to the centre, because if they don't, I think we've just seen the climax of this nation's hard right-wing ideologues.

Kurdish Redux

I wrote late last week about a Guardian article briefly detailing a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh. It's always a good idea to go to the source, which is exactly what I did when I picked up the June 28th issue that contains Hersh's article. Here is a little chunk along with the link to the full article on the New Yorker's website:

In a series of interviews in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, officials told me that by the end of last year Israel had concluded that the Bush Administration would not be able to bring stability or democracy to Iraq, and that Israel needed other options. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government decided, I was told, to minimize the damage that the war was causing to Israel's strategic position by expanding its long-standing relationship with Iraq's Kurds and establishing a significant presence on the ground in the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan. Several officials depicted Sharon's decision, which involves a heavy financial commitment, as a potentially reckless move that could create even more chaos and violence as the insurgency in Iraq continues to grow. (click here for the full article)

I feel for the Kurds, I really do. They have suffered enormous oppression at the hands of Arabs, Turkomen, and Persians in the historically Kurdish regions of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. They have been exploited and abandoned on different occasions by the Americans. And now the Israelis are using them, with their only interest being a military stronghold in the midst of powerful Muslim states. If the Israelis can they will use the Kurds as Muslim proxies, who have intimate familiarity with the region and its cultures to act as saboteurs and shock troops causing instability for potential rivals of Israel.
Unfortunately, all this tactic will do is destabilize the region further, and likely drive Turkey, Syria, Iran along with Iraqi Shia and Sunni insurgents into unofficial alliance.

Hersh seems to buy a lot of the story from Israeli provided intelligence that Shia insurgents are being supported by Iran. While I agree that there is undoubtedly some kind of connection, the extent is likely over emphasized. Israel was clearly interested in extending the Iraq war to at the very least create a direct and intense military threat on Iran from the US. Although I think they were hoping more for a series of escalations that would lead to an Iran invasion, while Israel took care of Syria.

Iran's interest is in seeing Iraq find enough stability so that the Iraqi Shia majority can rule through democratic means. They can do that with the full appearance of democracy, and they have no need to engage in military action covert or overt. That said, they will be doing their best to make contact with the newly forming Iraqi Shia leadership, but they will undoubtedly be doing that on a covert level.

The Israeli argument that the Iranians want to keep the Americans tied up in Iraq has some measure of "realpolitik" validity, and it is seductive to then believe that Iran is prompting violence against the occupation. But Iran doesn't need to take that kind of risk, they simply can wait the situation out, and curry favour with Iraqi Shia.

The primary source of insurgents in Iraq, up until March, were largely Sunni Iraqis. The Shia flexed a little muscle by driving occupation forces out of Najaf, and a few other Shia dominated cities for a brief period, but I suspect that was as much for show, negotiating position, and recruiting, as any real determination to get rid of the occupation.

I think Israel is agitating for destabilization of the region leading to wider war. They want to pacify Arab countries in particular, and Middle East Muslim states in general, before those states can develop nuclear arsenals that will prevent Israel from being able to use conventional military attacks at their leisure. And to end the possibility of those states being a threat to Israel in the future.

Israel's approach is disastrously wrong-headed. Like all wars, it will spiral out of control, drawing in unexpected state actors. In fact, it could easily lead to nuclear war, with who knows what consequences.

Again I think the Kurds are being used by the Israelis as patsies in all this, and sadly it is the Kurds who will yet again suffer the most should the situation destabilize in the region.

I think the Kurds have been convinced that the US and Israel are their allies, because of the protection they were afforded by the Iraq no-fly zone in the decade preceding the Iraq war. It allowed the Kurds to build a nascent Kurdistan. They are willing to work with nations that they see as having protected them. I think they mistakenly assume that protection will extend into the future.

Rent a Spy

Wow, the Bush Administration is really going crazy over outsourcing. Mercenaries up the wazoo in Iraq, and now we find out even spies are getting into into the pork provided by a government in love with the idea of private enterprise as the be all and end all to perfect existence.

Private contractors are taking over jobs once reserved for highly trained agency employees: regional desk officers who control clandestine operations around the world; watch officers at the 24-hour crisis center; analysts who sift through reams of intelligence data; counterintelligence officers who oversee clandestine meetings between agency officers and their recruited spies; and reports officers who act as liaisons between officers in the field and analysts back at headquarters. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the intelligence community working closely with private industry, there is the potential for trouble unless the union is closely monitored. Because the issue is hidden under the CIA's heavy layers of secrecy, it is impossible for even Congress to get accurate figures on just how much money and how many people are involved. But many expertss, after spending millions of dollars training people to be clandestine officers, taxpayers are having to pay them twice as much to return as rent-a-spies.

"The money is incredible," one agency veteran, who handled spies overseas for years, told me. "I doubled my salary to go out and come back in and continue doing what I was doing." (click here for the full article)

What's next? Maybe US politicans will outsource their positions. I can just see it, Dubya will outsource the presidency so he can go on vacation and golf more often. Besides it would be a more "efficient" use of tax payer money, because we all know business does everything better than government.

US No Longer Immune to War Crimes Prosecution

The US has withdrawn a proposal at the UN to extend the immunity of American troops from war crimes procecution.

Washington withdrew its resolution after it became clear it would not get the required support.

For the last two years it had secured special status for US troops, arguing they could face malicious prosecutions.

"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate," said the US deputy ambassador to the UN James Cunningham. (click here for the full article)

This is far too long in coming, and it is unfortunate that it required something like the torture of Iraqis by American troops at Abu Ghraib to make the prosecution of Americans for war crimes possible.

As the BBC article cited here mentions, the US had previously blackmailed the Security Council into granting the special protection for American troops by threatening to veto any peacekeeping missions that came before the Security Council for approval.

Since the most pressing peacekeeping mission forthcoming, is the US desire to appear to hand over the Iraq occupation to the UN, the Americans were stuck.

Now the question is whether Americans will face charges in the future. I suspect activist judges in Europe will be the first to charge an American with war crimes. High on the list of those deserving to be prosecuted are Kissenger, and when they retire or are voted out of office, Rumsfeld, and Dubya.

Corporatized Public Service in Harlem

The theme today seems to be schooling. I ran into an article on a Harlem schooling project while looking through Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

The article is quite lengthy. I love long articles, as they tend to be far more thorough. For those who use the link below to read the whole article, I should forewarn you that it is ten pages, or in the range of 3000 words in length.

But to summarize, the focus on the article is on a man named Geoffrey Canada, who is the president of a not-for-profit organization called the Rheedlen Centers for Children and Families. Rheedlen provides a network of services for disadvantaged children and their parents in Harlem. Rheedlen's mandate extends geographically in a 60 city block area of Harlem.

Canada's new program combines educational, social and medical services. It starts at birth and follows children to college. It meshes those services into an interlocking web, and then it drops that web over an entire neighborhood. It operates on the principle that each child will do better if all the children around him are doing better. So instead of waiting for residents to find out about the services on their own, the organization's recruiters go door-to-door to find participants, sometimes offering prizes and raffles and free groceries to parents who enroll their children in the group's programs. What results is a remarkable level of ''market penetration,'' as the organization describes it. Eighty-eight percent of the roughly 3,400 children under 18 in the 24-block core neighborhood are already served by at least one program, and this year Canada began to extend his programs to the larger 60-block zone. The objective is to create a safety net woven so tightly that children in the neighborhood just can't slip through. (click here for the full article, note that NYT requires registration)

The problem, however, is that there that there are political motives behind the structure of the Rheedlen's programs. For one, the Rheedlen's major focus as it goes forward, is the creation of Charter Schools: essentially schools outside the public education system, but still provided with a large helping of public funds in order to operate.

Moreover, a lot if not all, of Rheedlen's structure and organization has been based on business principles. There appears to be a decidedly pro-corporate approach to the handling of problems, and program's success is based primarily on the performance of students on standardized tests, or basically easy to measure data that may not necessarily reflect accurately the health of the neighbourhood Rheedlen operates in.

The business plan that Canada's team came up with proposed a steady increase in the annual budget over nine years, from $6 million to $10 million to $46 million. (This year, four years in, it is $24 million.) The plan reads more like a corporate strategy document than a charity prospectus. It refers to ''market-penetration targets'' and ''new information technology applications,'' including a ''performance-tracking system.'' In practice, too, the organization feels more like a business than a nonprofit, which offers comforting visuals to donors: everyone at the headquarters wears a suit, every meeting starts on time and there is a constant flow of evaluations, reports and budgets. ''Geoff could be a C.E.O. at any S.&P. 500 company,'' Druckenmiller said, and he meant it as a compliment.

Now I want to emphasize that following a business plan, or even operating based on business principles may not be entirely a bad thing for a non-profit. Results count in any endeavor, and figuring out how to measure success in any environment is never an easy process. But the problem with a corporate model is that corporations are structured to always look to the bottom line, and success is based purely on monetary profit.

Money doesn't translate well into people, they are very different animals; and the whole focus of the success of a not-for-profit project is on how it best meets objectives in improving things. In the case of Rheedlen it's all about the children who's lives it's trying to improve.

In the US today there is religious belief in the idea that business models are what work best for anything you want to do. In reality, the only reason this kind of approach has gained preeminence is that public tax-payer money is far less available for social projects. A large proportion, or in many cases, the entire budget of a not-for-profit is dependent on money it can raise from wealthy foundations. These foundations themselves were established by wealthy business men, who fully buy into a business model of success. It did after all work for them.

But, social programs, like public infrastructure, are not projects about making profits. They are projects about improving the lives of the people in the societies where these projects take place. Profit comes later, as the populace makes use of the benefits the projects provide, by creating a more complex marketplace.

While I firmly believe, after having read the article, that the Rheedlen president, Geoffrey Canada is driven to improve the lives of children in Harlem, and that he is using all the means available to achieve some measure of success; I have a nagging problem with the underlying structure of Rheedlen's approach.

Near the end of the NYT article the author, Paul Tough provides the following:

All of which makes skeptics, especially those in the teachers' union, wonder about Canada's motivation. Randi Weingarten, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, said that she used to be friendly with Canada, even attending his fund-raisers, until Bloomberg and Klein came into office and started making threatening noises toward her union. ''Since the mayor became mayor, Geoff Canada has stopped having any relationship with us,'' she said.

In her opinion, Canada's new attitude comes down to politics: ''I think what's happened is that they've decided that they'll work with the mayor, and that they won't work with the public-school system except through the mayor and the chancellor'' -- meaning that they won't work with the teachers' union. Canada often speaks of the opposition that his charter-school plan is going to face from the teachers' union and what he calls the educational establishment, but to Weingarten, it's the other way around: it's Canada who is picking this fight, demonizing the teachers' union in order to score political points with the mayor. ''They are working very secretly with the Board of Education and the Bloomberg administration'' on the charter-school plan, she said, a strategy that she said was shortsighted, not least because it is far from certain that Bloomberg will be re-elected. ''If you truly want schools to succeed,'' she said, ''you work with the people who represent the teachers.''

Now unions have their own set of priorities, and they frequently do not mesh with the needs of those they serve. Their focus is on the protection of their members, and in many cases they make a concerted effort to reduce the workload of their members to the detriment of those they serve. This can be especially true in the case of public sector unions used to feeding on tax payer provided funds.

The question should be one of balance. In the case of the project in Harlem, why has government abrogated it's responsibility to properly manage and fund the services needed to raise inner city black children out of poverty and illiteracy? Why can't a public structure create a program that "combines educational, social and medical services", where the entire integrated service "starts at birth and follows children to college"?

Why depend on the tireless effort of one man, specifically Geoffrey Canada, willing to massage the system that exists as best he can to provide some small improvement to the children in the district he has such concern for? His efforts are admirable, and his dedication appears unquestionable, but what comes after him? Clearly Rheedlen depends on his leadership, so what happens when he retires? Historically many not-for-profit organizations begins to fail when the frequently charismatic leader retires or passes away. Who then takes care of the children in Harlem? Or is the only important thing to see the results of business model applied to broad based public service initiatives? And how much of that success, if there is any, is based on business principles, and how much on the dedication of passionate individuals like Geoffrey Canada?

Paul Tough's article ends with a rather poignant and telling scene. It is a public lottery Mr. Canada is holding for the first 180 positions in the initial Charter School Rheedlen is creating:

Finally, at No. 111 on the waiting list, Janiqua Utley's name was called, and her mother rose, took her by the hand and started up the aisle to the backdoor. As workers began sweeping up coffee cups and popped balloons, I sat down next to Canada. He looked exhausted, overwhelmed not only by the evening but also by the enormity of the task ahead of him. His eyes were watery, and as we talked, he dabbed periodically at his nose with his folded-up handkerchief. ''I was trying to get folks to leave and not to hang around to be the last kid called,'' he said. ''This is very hard for me to see. It's very, very sad. These parents feel, Well, there go my child's chances.''

It was a waiting list, I reminded him, that had started him on the path toward the Harlem Children's Zone more than a decade ago -- and now, despite all the millions of dollars, and the staff of 650 and the backing of the mayor, he is still setting up waiting lists. He nodded. ''We've got to do more,'' he said. ''We've got to do better.'' He sighed and looked up at the stage, where Land had just reached No. 150.

I admire the hard work of someone like Geoffrey Canada, who truly wants to improve the lives of others. But basing hope on sparse private dollars from foundations set-up by wealthy men for their own aggrandizement, as much as any desire for public service, is a very hard bargain. It leaves an awful lot of people behind when the party passes, and all that remains are scraps of balloons left by those lucky enough by accident of birth or just dumb luck to attain the helping hand they need.

"I Want a Bloody Apology"

A bizarre little article today courtesy of CNN. Apparently a Japanese teacher, upon catching a student sleeping in class, required the student to write an apology in his own blood.

He said the boy was taken to the staff room of the school in Fukuoka City, southern Japan, after being caught asleep during a lesson. The 40-year-old male teacher handed the boy a box-cutter and paper and told him to write an apology in blood. (click here for the full article).

Now the teacher subsequently apologized to both the student and his parents, and they seem to have forgiven him; as not only does he get to remain a teacher, but he will continue to teach the student in question.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but while I appreciate the idea of apologies and making amends for past mistakes, I'd have a very hard time letting the teacher simply resume teaching. At the very least I'd want to see him required to have a psychological evaluation, and attend some form of therapy or counseling to ensure he will not be a danger to students in the future.

Of course my initial visceral response, had it been my child, would be to draw a little of the teacher's blood myself, but that too would be counter productive too.

A person in authority subjecting a child to that kind of trauma is despicable. It sends all the wrong kind of messages about misbehaviour, and acceptable punishment.

Is Israel Using the Kurds as Patsies?

In an article to appear in this week's New Yorker, the Guardian reports that Seymour Hersh has provided extensive detail of Israel's involvement with various Kurdish factions in the traditionally Kurdish areas of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

"Israel has always supported the Kurds in a Machiavellian way - a balance against Saddam," one former Israeli intelligence officer told the New Yorker. "It's Realpolitik. By aligning with the Kurds Israel gains eyes and ears in Iran, Iraq and Syria. The critical question is 'What will the behaviour of Iran be if there is an independent Kurdistan with close ties to Israel? Iran does not want an Israeli land-based aircraft carrier on its border." (click here for the full article)

Clearly Israel is attempting to take advantage of the long oppression of the Kurds by the other various ethnicities in the region, including Arabs, Turkomen and Persians. Unfortunately it is a bargain by which the Kurds, in the long run, are likely to suffer the most, while Israel uses Kurds as a proxy force and Kurdish enclaves as safe havens for Israeli actions in the neighbouring regions.

If the various ethnicities in the region were smart, however, they would work together toward some form of rapprochement with the Kurds. Instead of seeing them as enemies to be attacked, they should approach them as friends, with initiatives to create stability in the region, and some sense of safety and security for Kurds and their cultural and ethnic identity.

Unfortunately, most political actions in the region take the form of belligerent confrontation. And the machinations of Israel in that part of the Middle East all too often seem directed at creating dissention, discord and violence.

Sex and Bollywood, the Twain have Met

I'll be the first to admit that I consider Canada to be generally prudish when it comes to enjoyable activities like flirting, especially when compared to my experiences in Cuba. People there seem to be so much more comfortable in their own skins, while here the issue of male/female relations seems to have an overt political quality a little too much of the time. On the other hand, Cuban attitudes toward homosexuality generally harken back to the dark ages of the North American '60s and '70s. It makes for a bizarre combination.

Our movies (which are largely American) are of course quite different from "real life". Beautiful people who regularly engage in intimate behaviour at the drop of a skirt are a staple of North American viewing pleasure.

Not so in Bollywood, well at least not until relatively recently. Overt sex scenes are making more of an entrance into Indian cinema, although by our movie standards they're apparently rather tame.

Jeremy Copeland, a CBC News correspondant in India, has these observations about a recently released Bollywood film called Murder:

I went to see Murder at one of Delhi's big modern multiplexes to find out what all the hype was about. It was an afternoon show but the theatre was sold out. I could sense the nervousness in the audience whenever there was a hot scene. Indian moviegoers often talk during a movie and it's not unusual for people to take calls on their cellphones. But during the scenes where Sherawat exchanged passionate kisses with her co-star, the audience was silent.

Being used to Hollywood movies I found it all quite tame. I was shocked, however, by the violence. In one scene the husband repeatedly punches his cheating wife in the face. Strangely, this didn't seem to surprise or bother anyone but me. (click here for the full article)

Admitedly Copland's viewpoint is of an outsider looking in. So it is interesting to read commentary from Indians themselves on the film. Here's a taste courtesy of Nabir Gosal on Planet Bollywood:

Murder is definitely not a family film, its theme is bold and that is amplified by the numerous love scenes which make Jism look like a walk in the park. Director Anurag Basu has crafted a well shot film which is seen in the opening sequences with the police chase which accurately set the tone for the film. The subsequent interrogation scenes open the story quickly and keep the viewers attention. A majority of the story is told in flashback and they unfold quickly as well. The story packs small punches as we go and results in an above average thriller. In addition, the story is well told and complete, and all loose ends are tied up. Editing is first rate; the pace is even throughout the film, with that the cinematography is also good; it complements the director’s vision properly. The climax in the garden maze is nicely shot and the sex scenes, while a little on the adult side are well picturised. (click here for the full article)

Given Gosal's perspective Indian audiences would appear to be not so much shocked as titilated at the racier aspects of the film.

That isn't true, however, of another recent film called "Girlfriend" that has raised the ire of groups opposed to the oppression of sexual minorities. This from an article in the Calcutta Telegraph (one of my regular sources of news), quoting Tejal Shah a co-founder of an alternative film festival with a focus on gay and lesbian themes:

“But I know, that six years after Deepa Mehta’s film Fire was released, the rightwing will see no reason to protest your film because your portrayal of a lesbian as ‘a psychopath, sexually abused, man-hating murderer and killer’ fits just fine into their hetero-patriarchal agenda of portraying lesbians and gays as freaks, abnormal and as people who must die at the end of the film, so they are aptly punished for their unnatural existence.”

“Films like Rules — Pyaar Ka Superhit Formula or Karan Johar’s Kal Ho Na Ho show gay people in a way that is not offensive. When things are changing even in the mainstream, this (Girlfriend) comes as a big blow to a community that is already without any rights.” (click here for the full article)

Clearly issues of sexuality, and their depiction in film, are easily as complicated in India as they are here, which should come as no surprise. And while Bollywood may be currently more conservative in their graphic depiction of sex in film, Indians appear to be going through a similar sexual cultural evolution that we are in the midst of here in North America.

Finally Some Links

It has taken me far too long to add links, particularly other blog links. But now they're finally up.

For all those who have been patient enough to link to me without any reciprocal links, thank you. That has now been remedied. According to bStats, BlogsCanada has given me the most hits, followed by Revolutionary Moderation. But, I appreciate everyone who has linked to me.

My "News" links are simply links to the news sources I read most often, although it isn't an exhaustive list by any means. The range is fairly broad, but I tend to avoid hard right-wing sources. I occasionally try to suppress my gag reflex, and read the American Spectator, or the National Review, but there's no way I'm adding them as links.

My "Blogs" links include everyone in the BlogsCanada EGroup who has a blog, and a few other blogs I read regularly. I'm more than willing to include reciprocal links. Just send me an email, and I'll likely put you in after having a read of some of your blog.

I've also added my email address. I tend to prefer comments in my posts, but if you want to send something private go ahead.

Happy reading.

Canadian Online Pharmacies Kick-Ass

During US Senate hearings investigating online pharmacy saftey, and interesting picture was revealed about the quality of Canadian online pharmacies:

All 18 Canadian sites required consumers to supply a physician-written prescription before filling orders. That was the case for five of 29 U.S. pharmacies; no other foreign pharmacies did. (click here for the full AP article)

Only 5 of 29 US online pharmacies required a doctor's prescription, and American drug companies are complaining about the saftey of Canadian drugs?

In fact, the US GAO (General Accounting Office) found that narcotics were quite easy to purchase from American and foreign online pharmacies, and they were even shipped in disguised packaging.

A shipment of the narcotic OxyContin arrived in a plastic compact disc case, investigators said. A bottle of pills of the AIDS drug Crixivan came inside a sealed aluminum can that was itself enclosed in a box labeled "Gold Dye and Stain Remover Wax."

I definitely agree that the industry deserves regulation, but it is clear that the concerns of pharmaceutical companies in the US over cheaper Canadian drugs, are simply concerns over profits, and have nothing to do with saftey.

New Shell Chief Disagrees with Harper

In an interview in today's Guardian, the new head of Royal Dutch Shell, Ron Oxburg, has declared his concerns over the threat of climate change to the world environment.

"No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are at present," he says. "People are going to go on allowing this atmospheric carbon dioxide to build up, with consequences that we really can't predict, but are probably not good."

He believes the solution is something called sequestration, in which carbon dioxide from cars and power stations is captured and stored. "Sequestration is difficult," he says. "But if we don't have sequestration I see very little hope for the world." (click here for the full article)

Those paying attention to the oil industry worldwide already know Shell has had to reduce its estimate of its oil reserves a number of times, which has led to the removal of much of its top management and a drop in the value of its shares.

That the new chairman of Shell, one of the largest oil companies in the world, would come out so strongly in support of climate change science is probably a shock within the oil industry, an industry which has steadfastly resisted the conclusions of that science.

How this connects to the Canadian election is simple. Stephen Harper has made it clear that he would opt out of Kyoto. He has also repeatedly asserted his disbelief in the science of climate change, and the possible harm the immense amounts of carbon dioxide the world is pumping into the air will do to planet.

Now with even some heads of oil companies coming out in support of climate change science, I think voters should be again asking themselves just how wise Harper's plans are. Is it worth risking the planet to simply enable the leader of the Conservatives to please the Canadian oil industry, to which Harper has historic ties?

Is Harper Mooning Us With His Corporate Welfare Bum?

I read a rather interesting article today by Murray Dobbin of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He had a few pointed questions about Harper's apparent claim to be planning to eliminate corporate welfare.

Dobbin parsed through some of Harper's comments on the issue, and described example where Harper indicated Liberal government waste, but failed to indicate he would get rid of the program responsible. The program in question is the Technology Partnerships Program, created by Paul Martin, which has given away an estimated 6.4 billion, and less than 1% of that money has been paid back.

The interesting bit was that Harper did not claim he would scuttle the program, merely that he would have it reviewed by Sheila Fraser. In Dobbin's words:

He managed to associate himself with a Canadian hero, Auditor General Sheila Fraser, while making no commitment to empty one of Bay Street's favourite troughs. He even quoted former NDP leader David Lewis's familiar phrase “corporate welfare bums” from the early 1970s. (click here for the full article)

Dobbin goes on to point out that Harper also failed to mention one of the greatest corporate welfare bum industries in the country: oil and gas. Between 1971 and 1999 the oil and gas industry received over 40 billion in subsidies, while during that same period sustainable energy industries received only 200 million.

Givent the kind of sustained profits the oil and gas industry has made over the decades, this kind of subsidy is simply outrageous. The NEP may have been a foolish imposition under Trudeau, but these kinds of tax payer handouts to an industry that rakes in the cash is hard to justify.

Dobbin describes one possible motivation for Harper's silence on the issue of oil and gas and corporate government handouts:

Oil-industry executives virtually created Harper's first political party, Reform, personally vetting Manning and his idea for a genuinely free-market conservative party. When they had finished checking Manning out, they blessed him, gave the party millions of dollars and told him to move from Edmonton to Calgary so they could keep an eye on him.

This I already knew, and given the deep attachements to the industry that Harper has in his past, I'm entirely unsurprised he would not bother to mention the kind of free lunch the industry receives.

I think there is some considerable potential for serious cost savings should the next government seriously cut back on the kind of graft that takes place in favour of corporations and at the expense of tax payers. But given Harper's lack of specifics, I have my doubts he'd  deliver.

Moreover, given the kind of big spending he wants to do, I just can't see how Canada will be able to cover the bills. I don't think Harper will run a deficit should he get elected. Frankly, I think he'll cut as deeply as he has to into social programs, and anything else not labeled military. Even health care will go to an immediate two tier system, with the Harper argument being that it simply recognizes the current reality.

Not a pretty picture, that wide corporate ass, bulging with all those fat profits. It's particularly true, given the kind of hardship most Canadians have had to swallow over the past decade of cut-backs. I think we're past due for a real change. Harper will only be more of the same, only worse.

Canadian Election: Leader Debate Performance

These are my personal observations about the debate tonight between the leaders of the four major Canadian federal political parties. They probably come with my personal biases included, but I'll make an effort to be fair. But in general, I honestly can say that none of the leaders stood out as particularly bad or particularly good.

Paul Martin

He looked pretty good for most of the debate. A little shaky on occasion with some stumbly moments, but nothing too poor. He got zapped briefly by Harper over budget questions, but had a very good come back. He did, however, get hit quite effectively by Layton when Martin tried to dismiss Layton with a quip about Layton's handlers, while they were debating missile defense. He also mangled the beginning of his final statement. But all in all I don't think this debate hurt him, and it may even have helped a little since he withstood most of the blows that came his way. The harping on the sponsorship scandal by the other candidates felt tired. I got the distinct impression that the issue has been worn away at somewhat.

Stephen Harper

He didn't do nearly as well as I had expected him to. While I don't think he did a poor job, he played a lot of dodge ball, and he was only effective once in redirecting the issues when he went after Layton over NAFTA, but even then Layton more than held his own. The impression I was left with of Harper was of someone not entirely there, and I can't exactly put my finger on the problem yet. Harper didn't seem especially grounded I suppose. But that said, I don't think his debate performance will hurt him especially, but I definitely don't think he gained ground on this one.

Jack Layton

Way too “Guy Smiley” for a lot of the debate. He had the “Troy MacClure” thing going; and which ever of his handlers came up with that approach should be drawn and quartered. The only time that facade really dropped was when Martin tried to dismiss Layton with his handler quip during the missile defense question. Layton really put his boots on, and gave Martin a good kick in the pants over that one. Layton should let that passion out more often. Overall I really can't do a proper read here, because on the one hand Layton had his plastic moments, but he did he did have a touch of fire every now and then.

Gilles Duceppe

He was hard to understand at times, and he seemed out of place. I, frankly would have much rather seen Harris the Green party leader in the debate. I'm afraid I didn't really find Duceppe's performance influential at all.

So to sum up: I'd say if anyone benefitted it may have been Layton, but only thinly. It's hard for me to judge, because I've followed the election closely, and I know the platforms of all the parties, so there was nothing new for me. People coming into viewing the debates with little prior knowledge will likely see things differently. I'll have to ask around among friends and aquaintences for their impressions. Some of my bias is also probably creeping in, because I'm going either Green or NDP.

I will say that the debate has not made my mind up for me. I'm still undecided, but I'm also never influenced by charisma or a lack of it alone. A party's platform and values are just too important to me to simply let charisma do my deciding for me. In that I frequently seem at odds with many people I know (which I always find kind of scary).

The Courts and the Law Can Also be a Source of Justice

Those who are supporters of the Conservative party, have made a lot of noise about the democracy of free votes in parliament. To that notion they have attached ideas of "freedom" whatever that may mean to them, because they seem to imply that freedom and democracy would still exist even if a free vote resulted in a removal of the rights of others.

I think it's far too easy to forget that the law and the courts can also be a source of not simply freedom, but of justice. The law is about recognizing what is right, what is considered acceptable behaviour in a society. But a truly just society makes an effort to include, not exclude. A truly just society set out protections, rights and freedoms for all it's citizens, not simply those who happen to attain a majority and then use their power to oppress others. That is not a just society, and that is not the kind of society I want to live in.

Owen Fiss, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School, recently gave an address during a ceremony in which he received an honorary doctorate of laws degree at the University of Toronto. Part of his speech dealt with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the active and progressive interpretation of it by the Supreme Court of Canada:

The 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms embodies a vision of constitutionalism that once belonged to Brown, and the Supreme Court of Canada has developed that brand of constitutionalism in profound, inspiring ways. The Supreme Court of Canada has made equality the centerpiece of its jurisprudence, has insisted that equality be measured in terms of effects, not purposes. The focus has been on the social consequences of those who are subject to the law, not the mind of those who wrote the law. The court has taken this emphasis upon effects and has brought it to the domains of religious liberty and to free speech, and it has accounted for the court's ready acceptance — of course, taking cues from the Charter itself — of affirmative action as a strategy to eliminate disadvantage.

Building on this jurisprudence, the court has given the equality value forceful expression on behalf of women and the disabled, has extended it to sexual minorities, and in the context of applying the equality value in other domains including free association, has begun to protect the economically disadvantaged.

On top of this, the Supreme Court of Canada has understood, in a way that few other courts in the world have understood, that equality, as a true and substantive value, sometimes requires positive remedies. From that perspective, it has read into an anti-discrimination statute a protection for gays and lesbians; it has required instruction in sign language for the deaf; and it has insisted that a provincial legislature retain a protection for freedom of association when it came to the plight of farmers.

I would insist that anyone who is prepared to celebrate Brown v. Board of Education must today celebrate the jurisprudence of The Supreme Court of Canada. These decisions provide a standard against which we can measure our own work and reveal how short our own jurisprudence has fallen from what it could be. These decisions also provide an inspiration. They indicate in a very concrete and immediate way of how the ideals that we share in common could be realized and elaborated, much like seeing a tree — a living tree — in a neighbour's yard, tall and lush with its branches reaching to the heavens.

I have spoken of the law and I beg your forgiveness for that, because that is my professional subject. But the disenchantment that we in the United States have experienced in the law extends more broadly. The disenchantment that we have experienced in the law has extended to society, and to our politics in general. For me, law is just a metaphor for our public life.

In the 1960s, the public life in the United States was dominated by an image of the National Guard, in an orderly systematic way, escorting a handful of black children into Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The idealism and the nobility of that encounter were plain for all the world to see. Today, Little Rock has been replaced by an image of a pile of naked, hooded bodies in Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad.

Many of us in the United States are committed to reversing this course of history. The burden of doing so is an enormous one. We will take up that burden with full understanding of its gravity, and when we do, we will look north for guidance and inspiration.

Delight in your sovereign prerogative. By example, remind us of all that democracy could be. Be true to yourselves and in doing so, you will provide a lesson for all the world. Speak, Canada, speak. We are listening. (click here for the full text from the Toronto Star)

Electing representatives to the House of Commons is but one means of measuring the justice in our society. But the House of Commons is not the only measure by which we judge whether our society is just, whether it is fair, whether it is free.

The Clarity Act and the NDP

In today's Toronto Star, Thomas Axworthy, a former principal secretary to Pierre Trudeau, points out the danger of the NDP's assertion it would be willing to throw out the Clarity Act should the party come to power.

For those with foggy memories, the Clarity Act was a piece of legislation passed in the House of Commons that would require any question over Quebec separation to be a clear one in order for any vote on soverigenty to be considered legitimate.

The reasoning being the people of Quebec must understand that should they decide to separate from Canada, they would no longer be Canadian citizens, no longer be able to hold a Canadian passport, and they would give up all right to participate in Canadian federal elections. Quebec would quite literally be a separate nation.

Layton's dismissal of the Clarity Act is a potentially serious issue, despite the fact that Canada has enjoyed relative peace over the issue of Quebec separation for many years now.

As Stéphane Dion, Chrétien's lieutenant, has written in an open letter to NDP leader Jack Layton: "Since the Clarity Act became the law of the land in 2000, with the proud support of the NDP, the separatist leaders have had a much tougher time playing their favourite tactic: hiding their secessionism behind a screen of confusion and ambiguity."

Yet Layton would throw all this away: Layton has said the NDP would recognize a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec and repeal the Clarity Act. The NDP Leader unilaterally took this position in 2000 despite the fact that most NDP MPs voted in favour of the act and NDP House leader Bill Blaikie has praised it as one of Chrétien's greatest achievement.

Layton's pandering to Quebec nationalists, however, is serious because in a minority House of Commons, the Bloc and the NDP might make common cause to demand the repeal of the Clarity Act as their price for supporting the government of the day. (click here for the full article)

I'm a great believer in clarity. I think important questions, such as the break up of Canada, need to be dealt with in the clearest terms possible, so that people understand the consequences of their actions. In some of my other posts here on BlogsCanada I've been critical of the Conservatives for their lack of clarity over their stances on a whole variety of issues, but in particular on their social conservative agenda. I think they are hiding their true character in order to appeal to a broader base of voters.

I think Layton and the NDP, in their desire to appeal to Quebec voters, have made the mistake of assuming that they can do it by appealing to soft Quebec nationalists. I feel that is a grave error, because not only is that distasteful politics that soft nationalists can clearly see through, it potentially sells the rest of Canada short.

Bagel Burglars and White Collar Crime

I came across this interesting article in the New York Time Magazine from a few weeks back. The article is about a former economist, now full-time bagel-meister, who has habitually gathered statistics on the bagel theft ratio of different offices where he distributes his bagels.

You see his bagel distribution is based on the honor system. He puts his bagels and donuts in the lunch areas of various businesses, along with a wooden box with a slot for the money to pay for the bagels customers take. If they don't pay, but take his bagels, they are stealing, and he loses money. He does, however, make a decent living, so there are enough honorable people out there to keep his business going.

Of course different offices have different theft ratios, and those ratios seem to correlate to different professions. Needless to say, Paul F. the bagel economist, no longer tries to distribute his bagels to law offices....dontcha just luv stereotypes that turn out to be true.

What is interesting about Paul F.'s discovery, is that it is a small window into the world of white collar crime, something that is apparently agonizingly difficult to gather statistics about, because so little of it is ever punished.

For the full article, click here.

Money Doesn't Buy Sex...No Really

Yeah you read that right, in a study by some...ahem...economists, specifically David Blanchflower of Dartmouth University and Andrew Oswald of Britain's Warwick University, they've found that, "Money, it seems, does not buy more sexual partners."

I bet that's news to all the prostitutes out there.

I find it funny when economists come up with "scientific" research, they often seem to forget to include the bloody obvious.

The researchers, who based the report on a survey of 16,000 Americans, said the effort was part of an "emerging branch of economics" aimed at determining "the empirical determinants of happiness."

Wow "empirical determinants" sorta like measuring happiness units. I wonder how many units you'd get for sex anyway?

But then you'd have to consider different kinds of sex right? I mean, what if your parnter is all rough and grabby and you don't like that kind of thing? I guess that would mean less units.

Or what if you're about to go all the way and you partner stops and asks if you love him/her...does that subtract happiness units? I guess it would, if the love ain't there, and you have to lie. But would the other person, getting a lie, but not knowing, get more happiness units? And would you get more happiness units for having lied, because then you get to go all the way, and get even more happiness units? Whew! Complicated.

Then again, according to the study, if you're homosexual you're outta luck.

It also found that 2.5 percent in the survey claimed to be homosexual, and concluded that "homosexuality has no statistically significant effects on happiness."

Darn, I guess "gay" just doesn't really apply. Bummer.

One thing I want to know though. How the hell do dumbasses like the authors of this toilet paper masquerading as a scientific study even get hired by a university, let alone be able to publish crap like this?

PS: If you really really want to, click here for a link to the news article about the study.

Cuba: Home to an Organic Agricultural Revolution

From time to time I enjoy reading the English online version of Granma International, the Cuban state newspaper. The articles are almost always informative, and it is interesting to see the political slant the Cuban press has on world events.

Unfortunately my Spanish is poor, so I can't compare the difference between the English and Spanish versions; although I doubt there are huge differences, other than perhaps more content available in the Spanish edition.

My primary interest, however, in reading Granma International is keeping up with Cuban culture and technology. Some may be surprised at the idea of Cuban technology, but in fact Cuba has a thriving biotech and pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, they are rapidly becoming leaders in organic farming techniques.

A lot of their adoption of organic farming has to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the continuing embargo by the United States. Cuba can no longer afford to buy the chemical pesticides, fertilizers and the oil fueled equipment required for intensive monoculture farming. They've been forced to go a more labour intensive route to agriculture, and they've had to develop natural alternatives to chemical pesticides, and fertilizers; and that's where their fairly advanced biotech industry has come in.

The application of biological controls began by preserving and reproducing the natural enemies of the bacteria, viruses and insects that are harmful to agriculture. In order to achieve this objective, Cuba had to embark on a program in centers where those biological means were multiplied using semi-handmade techniques.

There are currently 220 reproduction centers producing seven lines of bio-pesticides including bacteria, mushrooms and insects, located throughout the country. Three industrial plants were also constructed to manufacture more concentrated bio-pesticides. (click here for the full article)

In addition to natural, or bio-pesticides, Cubans have developed techniques to ensure the fertility of the soil.

In order to nourish the soil without resorting to the continued use of chemical fertilizers, the island has developed several lines of work, added Dr. Ruiz, who is secretary of the National Committee of Cuban Organic Production.

Organic nutrition from the earth includes the use of vegetable manure, worm humus and agricultural and industrial residues. In order to develop these bio-fertilizers using local resources, the country has had to implement basic conditions in each area to make the most of available resources so that nutrients extracted from crop harvests may be returned to the soil.

It is interesting to see how a tiny nation, when pelted with lemons by the most powerful nation in the world, is able, at least in one instance, to make lemonade.

Conservative Danger: Three Vacant Supreme Court Positions

In a number of places in today's press, the issue of Harper's stance that the Supreme Court of Canada should take a deferential role to the will of the Canadian Parliament has been discussed (see the links at the end of this article).

But another intensely important issue, that ties in directly with the Canadian Supreme Court needs to be discussed. The next person to become Prime Minister will be able to appoint at least three Supreme Court justices, and shape the nature of the Supreme Court for a generation.

Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Frank Iacobucci have both announced their departure, so two immediate vacancies will open up by the time the next government forms. Then in 2006, justice John Major reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75.

The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices, who, once appointed serve until mandatory retirement at 75, or upon voluntary resignation. Three positions out of a possible nine will be available to whoever the next Prime Minister decides to appoint. And let us make no mistake, it is the PM who is the final arbiter of appointments. It does not matter if that Prime Minister is serving in a majority or a minority government.

Moreover, there are no hard rules as to who can be appointed. Traditionally justices have been appointed from provincial Courts of Appeal, but there is nothing to say that justices can't come from lower courts, or even lawyers directly from practice. The pool of candidates available to a Prime Minister, with a particular ideological take on how the Supreme Court should function in relation to Parliament, is large enough for him to choose justices who closely share his ideology.

Now it would be a radical shift in tradition to choose justices from anywhere other than provincial Courts of Appeal, but Stephen Harper is proposing a radically different relationship between the Canadian Supreme Court and the Canadian Parliament. He insists the Supreme Court should be deferential to the will of Parliament. It would only make sense that, if Harper were Prime Minister, he would appoint those who fell in line with his view of the Supreme Court's role. But just as important, he could appoint justices who share his intensely social conservative agenda.

The question Canadians need to start asking themselves is: Do they trust the Conservatives act in accordance with Canadian tradition and appoint relatively non-partisan experienced justices? Or will Harper base his appointments on how inline they are with his stances on issues like environmental law, same-sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty, bilingualism, federal hate crimes law, and the role of the Supreme Court.

We know how the Liberals would appoint justices, they would continue with tradition. But we've never had a seriously right wing coalition made up largely of former Reform and Canadian Alliance party members.

This single issue could provoke a significant shift in the overall trends in Canadian law for decades to come. I think it's something the other parties in this election need to start talking about.

Here are some additional article links:
Toronto Star: Shaping Our Top Court (click here)
Toronto Star: Harper Unveils Plan to Change Judiciary (click here)
Canadian Press: Harper, Martin vie for chance to reshape Supreme Court of Canada (click here)
The Supreme Court of Canada Website (click here)

Canadian Election Newspaper Bias

In a post of mine on Stephen Harper for BlogsCanada, some people who I assume are Harper supporters posted comments over the negative media bias against Harper. Jim Elve (the BlogsCanada owner and site admin) added a comment that contained a link to a Globe and Mail article, where data was collected to show that Harper had averaged less negative coverage than the other party leaders. In fact, in the National Post, Harper averaged positive coverage. (click here for the full article)

McGill's Observatory on Media and Public Policy has studied positive and negative mentions of the major parties and leaders in the news and commentary of seven leading dailies through the first 10 days of the campaign. The results show marked differences among the papers.

The Liberals are getting beaten up everywhere, but especially in the National Post where the average net coverage is —37 per cent. This percentage is based on the per cent of positive mentions minus the per cent of negative mentions -- a score of 0 per cent would be perfectly neutral. Le Devoir (-32 per cent), La Presse (-30 per cent), and the Calgary Herald (-25 per cent) were close behind the Post. The Toronto Star and the Globe & Mail were at -21 per cent and —19 per cent respectively. The Vancouver Sun was kindest at —10 per cent.

The Conservatives are getting better press than the Liberals across the board. The Calgary Herald and the National Post led the way with +12 per cent and +6 per cent respectively. The Toronto Star (-12 per cent) and Le Devoir (-11 per cent) were most critical of the party while the Sun, La Presse and the Globe were basically neutral.

As one would expect, coverage of the leaders closely mirrored coverage of the parties. Le Devoir was particularly hard on Liberal leader Paul Martin (-32 per cent) and the Post was both particularly warm to Conservative leader Stephen Harper (+12 per cent) and hard on NDP leader Jack Layton (-32 per cent).

Now this doesn't come as any surprise to me. All the newspapers mentioned have political biases, based largely on what they see as their intrisic appeal to a particular readership. It is interesing to note, however, that the National Post appears to be the most clearly partisan among mainstream newspapers.

Early on in the election campaign, Harper seemed to be treated uniformly gently by the press, especially considering a number of his past stances on issues like Iraq. I think part of the problem for the gentle coverage was the abyssmal performace of the Liberals, and part was the lack of an attack by the NDP on the Conservatives. I also think that is starting to change. Since the Globe article above was printed, an effort to shine a light on Harper's social conservatism is beginning to develop.

It will be interesting to see how the various newspapers, and the mainstream media in general, respond to the lack of balance that has largely favoured Harper so far. Will they continue to treat him gently or will they start asking harder questions, and keep asking them if Harper tries to skirt them as he has done so far in the campaign?

Globe Tag Team Slams Layton

Now I suppose it should come as no surprise that the right wing crowd at Toronto's national newspaper would come out swinging at the more inflammatory rhetoric being peddled by Jack Layton.

An awful lot of column inches have been dedicated to attacking Jack for his blaming of homeless deaths on Paul Martin. In fact, I'd venture to guess more has been written about Layton's comments than there has been coverage of the NDP's actual platform.

Yet it is a little puzzling that the right of centre columnists at the Globe and Mail would take close to a week to put a few sentences together. Perhaps it took them that long to stop sputtering in outrageous indignation, because that tone certainly inflects their columns.

The first up is Margaret Wente, a former Iraq invasion cheerleader (amazing how quiet she's been on that topic recently). Never one to shy away from using inflammatory rhetoric herself, Wente had this to say about some material she lifted from the Toronto Star (click here for the full article):

Who were the people so cruelly expelled from their rat-infested, makeshift shelter? And what will become of them now?

One was Luke O'Hearn, an able-bodied 20-year-old from Saint John. He lived under the bridge with his dog, Shok. Luke's girlfriend, who also lived there, comes from Markham. They met last winter while living in a junkyard in British Columbia.

"It's been a choice to live here because there's a certain freedom," Mr. O'Hearn told a reporter from the Toronto Star. "Here we don't have to pay any rent. We're not obliged to anyone but ourselves."

Now, I am a person of average compassion. I'd never argue that homeless people are homeless by choice. But clearly, some of them are. We used to call these people bums and vagrants, before those words were banned. Now every bum and vagrant is a homeless person, with an automatic claim on the public's sympathies and purse.

This is a very typical tack those on the right take. They track down those of the homeless who express a desire for “freedom” and assume this means being homeless is their choice. Wente goes on to list the “benefits” the homeless receive at taxpayer expense, throwing in shots about the waste of employing social workers, and the fact that two “able-bodied” young people should have no impediments to hard labour.

Wente's latter assumption, that simply having a fully functioning body can somehow get you a job conveniently ignores a whole host of requirements. In fact, most people need a home address, a home phone number, proper attire, and something of an education to get even the lowliest of paid labour. If a functioning body was the only requirement, then we could have chimps doing everything (and now that I mention it a chimp hammering away at a keyboard would likely be an improvement over Wente's attempts at logic).

The second member of this dynamic duo is Jeffrey Simpson, who's focus on Layton also begins with the homeless swipe at Martin. Simpson then proceeds to accuse Layton of living in the land where money grows on trees (click here for the full article):

The NDP platform is a joke, not because it's radical -- new ideas such as those for making Canada greener are welcome -- but because it doesn't add up. Does anybody care? Likely not, because the party won't form the government. But the document does indicate how far left Mr. Layton has taken the party.

The platform relies on a mixture of bad ideas and fairy tales, wildly overestimating revenues and underestimating spending. More than $8-billion is supposed to come from uncollected money identified by the Auditor-General. There's a good reason why that money hasn't been collected, and it isn't from lack of trying. The inheritance tax on which Mr. Layton relies is an old chestnut that has been tried and failed everywhere, even in the U.S. where armies of tax accountants and lawyers guide clients around the tax.

Again we have the right's tired refrain extolling the evils of tax and spend government with accusations that there could never be enough tax revenue to pay the bills. Simpson of course fails to mention that of the major parties' revenue surplus predictions, the NDP comes out in the middle, well below the *gasp* Conservatives. He also conveniently forgets to mention the NDP have pledged to maintain a balanced budget.

What I find interesting about these two right-wing columnists, especially in comparison to some of their other columns on the other political parties, is their focus on proposed NDP policy. You see the NDP have one. They've declared where they want to spend Canadians' money and how. They've been clear about how they'll raise the taxes they need to pay for it, and if they're wrong about the money they get, they've said they'll maintain a balanced budget.

At least the NDP have been open enough to provide a breakdown of their spending, and aren't nearly as pie in the sky as the so-called Conservatives (a rather ironic appellation given their economic prognostications).

Under the big C's and Harper we'll see gigantic tax cuts, which will be paid for by a similarly gigantic tax surplus. Of course discussing just how much of that cutting will be limited to taxes, as opposed to social programs, is something Harper is quite acrobatic at avoiding.

Then again, I don't really expect a lot in terms of insightful commentary from columnists of Wente and Simpson's calibur. They seem happy trotting out the same old cliches and overblown rhetoric about left leaning policies. Besides, it's easy to get out the cookie cutters, and pound out a reactionary column chock full of right wing chestnuts. Comparing policies of the various parties, and providing some original meaty commentary, might actually take some real work.

Naw, it's easier to get the bills paid blaming the homeless and screaming about taxes.