kimmy

I'm not endorsing Kinsella-- he's after all a long-time Chretien loyalist and apologist, which makes him guilty of bad taste, at the very least. Nor do I read anything into his "Calgarian" pedigree. He's Calgarian in the same sense that Stephen Harper is a Torontonian. With that out of the way, I often read Kinsella for his take on pragmatic politics. He's not a philosopher of issues like national identity and so on... he might have views on such things, but his primary expertise and interest is on strategy, image, perception, and how to wage a campaign (in this respect, he's arguably a lot like his former leader.) I think that's why he was such a frequent guest on TV panels during the last election (although, his intense dislike of "Team Martin" added some color to procedings as well.) I just found Kinsella's commentary a distinct contrast to what so often comes from Liberals. We so often hear "so-con" and "Bush's puppet" and "religious fundamentalist" and all manner of other "scary" language coming from Liberal supporters and Liberals themselves when it comes to talking about Harper. So for Kinsella, a long time Liberal insider and possibly a member of their campaign committee in the upcoming election, to be talking about intelligence, ethics, and decency as characteristics that Dion and Harper have in common was quite a pleasant change. He even describes both Harper and Dion as "Trudeauesque", which if I recall is something that you've said of Harper in the past, perhaps in discussing the William Johnson biography of Harper. Usually when I read Liberals talking about Harper, I get the impression that they expect that if he ever wins a majority government his first act will be to rip off a latex mask to reveal that he's actually Dick Cheney (or an12 foot tall lizard, or something.) I just found it refreshing to hear a partisan willing to talk about "the other guy" with such respect. It's something that's been sorely lacking in politics in this country from both sides for a long time. -k

Some things seem to be pretty constant in all of the polls I've seen since the leadership race. -the Liberal lead is about 6 points... whether the exact numbers are 37-31, 38-32, or 40-34, the margin in each poll seems to be about the same. -the bump in Liberal support seems to be mostly at the expense of the NDP. Stephane Dion's ambitious environmental agenda is probably the reason why. Pornstache Jack is probably the guy most worried by these polls. -Conservative numbers have remained relatively constant. Each poll has showed a drop of only a point or two. If there was a contingent of "soft" Conservative support that was waiting to see who the Liberals picked before deciding whether to go back, it was either a pretty small contingent, or they weren't very excited about Dion. Personally, I still suspect there's something of a honeymoon effect. I know Gerry will beg to differ. We'll have to see how things unfold. Particularly, we'll have to see how Action Jack tries to go about winning back the NDP support that has turned Liberal in the past week or so. We'll also have to see how people react when Dion starts talking about real policy instead of "motherhood" issues. -k

They should play Muslim songs and Wiccan songs as well. All taxpayers subsidize the CBC, not just those of one particular religious group. Yeah, I bet there's tons of great Muslim Christmas carols they could play. I'm sure that CBC plays all kinds of worldbeat crap if you search their schedule, Norm. Why, sometimes they even play music that I'd listen to, if I was willing to stay up until 3am to hear it. -k

I recall reading an article on the subject of abortion in India, which mentioned that in approximately 10000 cases where the parents had advance knowledge of the sex of the fetus before choosing to abort, about 9996 of the aborted fetuses were female. Why? The dowry. People literally can't afford to have female children because it costs them a fortune. A little quick googling turned up this: Female foeticide in India: Am I being too "politically correct" if I consider that to be vile and despicable? This article from the "Times of India", whatever that is, reports: (I had to search to find out what a "lakh" is. A "lakh" is 100,000. "50 lakh female foetuses a year are aborted after sex determination tests" means 5 million.) And of course they don't stop at childbirth, either, as a little research on the subject of female infanticide in India would reveal. That's barbaric. These people are idiots. But ultimately, the joke is going to be on them. As this sort of technology becomes more and more widely available, an entire generation of young men in India will be left scratching their heads and asking "so, like, where's the babes at?" -k

I found Warren Kinsella's comparison of Harper and Dion to be interesting, and I'll quote it at some length here: I found that ... pleasant. Reassuring. Heartwarming, even. It's refreshing to hear from someone who casts this as a battle between two decent men with different visions, rather than as a clash between regions, or integrity against corruption, or a compassionate man against a guy who secretly kills kittens for fun. -k

Given the high-profile controversy within the Liberal Party earlier this year surrounding the issue of Israel, why is it surprising that it would emerge as a wedge issue at a hotly contested leadership vote? -k

Is this the part where Joe Volpe and Alfonso Gagliano show up and start howling about the outrageous bigotry that Italian-Canadians face? -k

Y'know, I think Christianity is going to be just fine. -k

I caught a bit of it during a commercial break during another programme. I'd say that describing his english as "excellent" is a bit optimistic. He's certainly articulate, but his accent is slapstick, and sounds like something out of sketch comedy. It might not be politically correct to say so, but it will certainly remind English Canadians that Stevie D ain't exactly from around here. -k {"Come on, say 'chowdah' again, Frenchie!"}

I think the answer to both questions is, "it depends".Was he a good choice to lead the Liberals? It depends on what they want to accomplish. If their ambition is to regain their losses in central Canada and form a minority government, then the answer is that Dion was probably a good choice. Is he going to help the Canadian political situation? I guess it depends on what you consider wrong with the Canadian political situation. If you think that what this country needs is a return to the regional strife of the late 1990s, then Stephane Dion is a great choice because that's where we'll be headed under his leadership. -k

If I'm not mistaken, submarines and spacecraft use chemical means to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. The idea that such a process could be applied to automotive or industrial applications isn't beyond the realm of possibility. However, there's a rather significant difference of scale between the amount of carbon dioxide generated by a few dozen crewmen as compared to the amount of carbon dioxide generated by a massive-scale industrial process such as electrical generating plants or oil-sands processing. I think that present-day carbon dioxide scrubbing technologies require disposable reagents, as well, which raises additional questions, such as how much pollution or waste or energy is consumed in making these reagents, and whether disposing of massive quantities of used carbon dioxide scrubbing reagent is an even bigger environmental worry than the carbon dioxide. I don't know either way. It might, it might not. But if taking 1000 tons of C02 emissions out of the air generated 2000 tons of toxic sludge, it would be dubious progress. -k

I want a Triple E senate. I'd like to see 5 to 8 elected from every province and territory. I don't think most people care either way though. I haven't seen any actual polls on the subject, but I doubt that the idea could be promoted in Ontario, or especially in Quebec. I've heard the comment made that any senate proposal that would put PEI on equal footing with Ontario is a non-starter with Ontario voters. And in Quebec, it would be greated with hostility, where the mere suggestion of Quebec being just 1 of 10 would be anathema. The theme of Quebec thought seems to be that Quebec is 1 of 2 nations, not 1 of 10 provinces. Maybe we could have 24 Quebec senators, and 24 senators for English Canada. That would symbolize the Quebec "two nations" viewpoint. But first we'd have to make the senate utterly useless, so that it's a purely symbolic gesture. Don't be like that... I certainly don't suggest that central Canada is "evil". Just self-interested, as we all are. I'm sure that people like Saturn are the exception and that most people in Ontario do indeed feel some amount of brotherhood towards people elsewhere in the country... and that while perhaps many in central Canada might not actually know much about us, they don't bear us any ill will. I just think that sort of vague pan-national fuzzy-wuzziness will vanish in a hurry in the face of something tangiable, like an equalization formula that will put more money in Quebec's coffer while reducing Ontario's share of the load. Or the opportunity to address greenhouse gas issues on somebody else's dime. Or some sort of federal program to redistribute resource revenues. I mean, I don't think central Canada is evil or bears ill will toward us, I just think that given the opportunity, you guys will have no trouble rationalizing those kinds of ideas. I honestly don't know. I can't see any electoral or federal option that could be effective without also being inherently undemocratic. The only solution I see is continuing to support the party that believes in "hands-off" federalism and clear demarcation and respect for provincial jurisdiction. Maybe I just had lower expectations. -k

This latest round of discussion, with Black Dog and PolyNewbie, has been tremendously entertaining. If it were a boxing match, it would have been over long ago. While there's certainly no need for me to pile on as well, I have to once again complain about this particular bit: Last time you mentioned this, PolyNewbie, I requested an explanation. I never received one from you, as you apparently either didn't understand the "proof" or couldn't explain it. I went and looked on some truthie websites for a further explanation, and still couldn't find anything satisfactory. All I found was vague talk about "symmetry". That's fascinating, but it's in no way a scientifically accurate use of the second law of thermodynamics. This kind of argument is typical of religious knuckleheads who try to invoke thermodynamics to disprove evolution. It's not a scientifically accurate use of the principle, but it sounds scientific to people who don't know better. And this kind of trickery apparently works well on "truthies" too. -k

Wow are you ever a whiner. Dion is from Quebec there are 9 provinces and 3 territories that were shut out. Do you think Ontarions were pissed when Steve-O beat out Belinda and Tony Clement? Hell no. Yet not choosing a westerner is always an issue in Alberta. I don't mean at the leadership convention, I mean after the election. When parties appoint a "regional lieutenant" it's because they've had their asses kicked in that region. Annointing Kennedy as their "western lieutenant" will be particularly interesting, since he's been in Ontario for over 20 years and will probably run for parliament in Ontario. Sending Kennedy to Alberta to kiss ass every few months isn't going to change anything or make Albertans feel represented in Ottawa, especially when Dion comes up with his new equalization formula or guts our industries and loots the treasury for his environmental ideas. As we saw with Landslide Annie under the last Liberal regime, or the whole Alberta caucus under Mulroney, our MPs aren't our messengers to Ottawa, they're Ottawa's messengers to us. I think the conclusion was that if they watered down their platform, they'd have a chance to get into office and enact some of their ideas... which isn't ideal, but better than never getting into office and never enacting any of their ideas. If the current senate is "equal", then some provinces are more equal than others. The current alignment has 24 senators from Quebec, 24 from Ontario, 24 from "the west", 30 from the Maritimes, and 3 from the Territories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_senate#Senators Probably he suspects there's dubious support for those positions outside of western Canada or among the opposition parties, and as a result has put just enough window dressing on the issue to say he took action. It would be interesting, though, to see how the opposition would respond if he did push the issue. I don't actually want an "any E" senate. I'd prefer they just abolish the thing. I don't think people actually want a senate that does anything. Make the senate elected and effective, and soon they'll start acting like they have a legitimate mandate. Do people actually want a senate that stands up to Parliament? I'm skeptical. It's a lot easier to talk about big policy ideas when you're not actually in a position to enact them. The Liberals' big plans for Kyoto right now, versus what they actually did while they were in office, are a good example of that. -k

Rod Bryden is best known as the former owner of the Ottawa Senators hockey team, and also a close associate of John Manley I believe. It is in fact through Rod Bryden's connection to the Liberal Party that I first heard of the Sponsorship Program, long before Sheila Fraser cracked that thing open. A Toronto Sun sports-writer noted that while the Ottawa Senators had picked up a considerable amount of Sponsorship Program money, and some had been spent with Les Canadiens as well, the remaining Canadian teams had received virtually none. The Toronto Sun sports writer mused that perhaps Rod Bryden's acquaintences with the Liberals had something to do with the Senators getting extra loot under the program. As it turns out, that sports-writer touched on something a lot bigger than he knew. -k

Setting the "we're a nation!" comedy aside, all Stelmach is saying is that if Quebec is getting special treatment, he's going to lobby for the same. It goes back to the fundamental issue that sank the Meech Lake Accord... people don't mind saying that Quebec is distinct... what they object to is special powers and privileges. -k

Since Dion endorsed and voted for the same motion, and apparently aided Harper in creating the motion, it's not like either party can use it to their advantage. The issue of that resolution is a draw when it comes to choosing between the two major parties for Albertans. What's left is a choice between guy who espouses a hands-off form of federalism with clear division of responsibilities, versus a guy who espouses the traditional Liberal vision of a strong, centralist, interventionist Ottawa with wide-ranging programs that intrude on provincial jurisdictions. Guess which one sells in Alberta. And, let's admit it, we all know that Alberta is going to pay the dollar costs and the economic consequences of Dion's environmental agenda, so there's no point in even pretending that Dion has a shot in this province anyway. Is Kennedy unappealing to central Canada? Would choosing him have cost seats in Ontario and Montreal? Having a "regional lieutenant" is more or less a concession that you've been soundly rejected.. The Liberals had "Landslide Annie" as their regional lieutenant for years. Being the token Albertan in cabinet was great for her career, I suppose, but it didn't do anything to promote the party outside of her Edmonton Centre riding. I'm sure that Peter MacKay is achieving similar success as regional lieutenant for the Atlantic. And I have no doubt that Kennedy will do about as well for Dion in the capacity. The bright side is that having Kennedy as "regional lieutenant" will spare everyone the sight of Stephane Dion dressing up in denim and a cowboy hat when he comes to Alberta for the annual photo-op. I think we can all agree that Stephane Dion trying to dress up like a cowboy would be a terribly awkward moment for everyone. The question in the original post was: will a Dion victory result in renewed calls for Alberta separation? The answer is, undoubtably yes. Albertans are most likely going to be facing a hostile federal government after the next election, and there's nothing Alberta voters can do to avoid that outcome. "Hey, work to change the system!" But really, what's the point of trying? Population distribution indicates that Alberta will always be of minimal importance to the federal goverment, and any system that would alter that fact would be inherently undemocratic. Albertans have worked for decades at trying to influence the system. Advocating concepts like senate reform that have been continually rebuffed. Founding political movements, ranging from the CCF to Reform. Sending protest MPs to Ottawa. Sending government-side MPs to Ottawa. Even sending a separatist MP to Ottawa once. The net payoff of almost 20 years invested in building the Reform movement into a national force... appears to be 12 months of a minority government that has accomplished almost nothing of what was originally hoped for, and bowing out to the establishment shortly. A lot of people have concluded that attempting to work with the system is simply futile and that no degree of tinkering will alter the inescapable fact that population distribution leaves us powerless to prevent the federal government from having its way with us. The fact that the Liberals have chosen a very obviously "central Canada" leader rather than a national one is another worrying reminder of where we stand in the pecking order. And when he's elected Prime Minister to enact a hostile agenda, there will undoubtably be people advocating separation. Proportional representation is probably a great idea as a general principle of democracy.But as far as addressing the issue we're talking about, it doesn't do anything to help. It might make it worse, by enhancing the effect of population disparities on election results. No, only "elected" and "effective" relate back to elected. The third "e", the controversial one, is "equal," and it's really the one that breaks the whole thing. Central Canada voters will never buy into an "effective" senate that gives PEI 100x the per-capita representation that Ontarions have. But if it's done in proportion to population, then it just reinforces the numerical disadvantage of the regions, and the whole idea that the senate could act to protect the interests of smaller provinces goes out the window. -k

Wait a minute which PM was it that decided the Quebecois should be nation about a week ago? I hope your barf bucket is handy? That resolution certainly wasn't popular in Alberta. Considering that Dion endorsed it and voted for it in Parliament doesn't help him either. In fact, since Harper actually consulted with Dion in crafting and tabling the resolution in the first place, it's not like Dion can actually use it to attack Harper... And it'll be quickly forgotten anyway, once Dion starts articulating his ubercentralist hands-on federalism, his vision for our resources industry, his plans for a new equalization formula that loots Alberta to make Quebec happy, and whatever "two founding peoples" rhetoric he has to spout to stroke French egos, and on and on. So you think the Libs had to pick Kennedy otherwise they consider Alberta a fly over territory? Or does a leader have to speak English as a first language to include Alberta? Kennedy would obviously have been the first choice, but I don't think it had to be him. I think that Ignatieff had broader regional appeal than Dion or Rae. His statements on federalism and equalization sound the right notes, at least. I think it's a safe assumption that if picking a leader they could promote in western Canada was a priority for the Liberals, Stephane Dion wouldn't have won. I think the obvious conclusion is that picking a candidate they could promote in the west wasn't a priority for the Liberals. Do you disagree? Why? Of course. If it's a choice between picking a guy who appeals to Quebec, or a candidate that appeals to the prairies, then simple numbers indicate that going with Quebec is the smarter stategic choice. But you have to realize that this is seen as another sign that "we" are of secondary importance, and it's not well received. Choices come with benefits and consequences. If Liberals decided that the benefits of choosing the guy that gives them the best chance in Montreal, that's their perogative, but they also have to recognize the consequences. And you've unwittingly illustrated the whole principle underlying western dissatisfaction with federalism in its present form. Simple math suggests that the west's interests will always be of secondary importance to the federal government, which leaves many westerners searching for other ways to advocate and protect the region's interests. Some favor a decentralist approach (less power concentrated in Ottawa leaves less opportunity for Ottawa to impose policies that aren't in the best interests of the regions.) Others feel that governmental reform (such as "the triple-E senate") could protect the regions. Some feel that there's really no solution except separation. -k

LOL!!! And the Europeans emit less GHGs because they use diesel, which doesn't produce GHGs. LOL! Anti-environmentalists just shine with their brilliance. You might want to recheck your information there, because that tidbit demonstrates your own, uh, "brilliance." hmm? What was all this "effort" that Paul Martin put into appeasing Alberta? If he "almost broke his neck" addressing western alienation, it must have been by slipping on some cow-shit at a ranch photo-op, because it wasn't from hard work or daring policy. Aside from saying "I want to address western alienation," and showing up at a ranch wearing denim with a bunch of cameramen, what can you actually point to as an example of this "appeasement" of Alberta? How about * real action on parliamentary reform, senate reform, and transparency and accountability in government. * backing off on centralist, interventionist rhetoric and policies. Rediscover respect for provincial jurisdiction. * be honest and fair. For instance, if you're going to say "greenhouse gas emissions are too important, and we have to take action even if it hurts us economically" ...then don't start off your implementation talk by promising carte-blance exemption for Ontario auto-manufacturers. * don't start fake conflicts with Alberta for the sake of scoring political points back in central Canada, as Stephane Dion did a few years ago with his open letter to Ralph Klein. -k

I disagree; Mr. Kennedy's strong endorsement of Dion will likely help build support in the west. That's a non-issue. Voters don't know Kennedy or what agreements might have been made to obtain that endorsement, or even that an endorsement occured. For most people in Alberta, Dion's insufferable arrogance as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister is more likely to be remembered remembered than whether Kennedy endorsed him. What it boils down to is this: Kennedy was a candidate that could have garnered some interest in "the rest of Canada", and Dion is a candidate that has appeal limited to central Canada, and the Liberals picked the central Canada guy. While it might be true that those policies have dubious support in the west, just wait until Dion starts talking. Under the Chretien regime, the "Kyoto Implementation Plan" was a big, empty whiteboard, with the words "carte-blanche exemption for auto-makers" written in small letters in the corner. That's a non-starter in the west, and just wait until they start putting some more ideas on that whiteboard. Or just wait until Dion starts talking about his vision of federalism, or anything else that gives him the opportunity to play for the Quebec voters that the Liberals want to win back. When he starts trying to appeal to Quebec voters, he will be expressing a vision of Canada that makes westerners reach for the barf-bucket, and that's going to be a lot more negative for western voters than anything Harper's done over the past year. Dion is a leader that's just not going to win anything in the west, and his selection appears to be a sign that the Liberals don't even intend to try. We're "fly over territory" again, and people aren't going to be happy about it. -k

The Liberals are welcome to make an issue of it if they wish... but they won't, because they can't do so without undermining Stephane Dion. -k

Funny how the GTA is considered to include all of the suburbs and neighboring communities when people are discussing its population and GDP, and yet the GTA ends at the confines of urban Toronto when people are discussing political representation. Nice of Saturn to go out of his way to mention all of the traditional stereotypes central-Canadians hold about Albertans (and in doing so, provide a handy illustration of how the stereotypical Ontarion as seen by Albertans.) Sadly, during my time in Ontario, I found that Saturn's ignorance is actually fairly typical among young Ontarions. To address the original post... I think you have to realize, gerry, that Stephane Dion will not draw flies in Alberta (or anywhere else west of Winnipeg, outside of urban Vancouver.) And because of that, a lot of people have come to the conclusion that the Liberals have given up on trying to build their representation in the west and are simply going to focus their efforts on recapturing what they've lost in Ontario and Quebec. It seems like Alberta is once again "fly-over territory" for the Liberals (as in, territory that you fly over on your way to Vancouver.) If the Liberals were interested in the west in general... Dion wouldn't have won. Dion's victory is seen as a sign that the Liberals are going to retreat back to central Canada. That's why people are again mentioning the old Liberal quote "screw the West, we'll take the rest." It seems like we're in for a renewed focus on regional divisions, and yes, it'll get ugly. -k

We're not making this up. I know people are getting sick of hearing "it's early", but it's early. Here's 2 reasons why people shouldn't read too much this poll: (1) party conventions always result in a short term boost in the polls. The convention puts the party in the spotlight for a week of fuzzy-wuzzy media coverage. (2) Stephane Dion was largely spared the scrutiny that was given Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. With Dion well back in 4th place prior to the voting, his positions received little coverage. Now that he's leader, he will receive a level of scrutiny and attention that he hadn't received during the campaign, and when his positions on some issues, particularly no-win issues like Afghanistan or fiscal issues, become well known, it will inevitably turn some people off. -k

Not that long ago Gerry Hatrick was trumpetting a poll showing Bob Rae was the favorite choice of Canadians, while Stephane Dion was rated 4th with a paltry 12%. Let's have a look at the poll that Figleaf is referring to: That last sentence indicates that in every other region, at least 30% of people surveyed considered Dion "a poor choice". And a little quality time with my pocket calculator indicates that when the Quebec component of the survey is discounted, only 52% of the people surveyed considered him "a good choice". In "the rest of Canada," only 52% people consider him "a good choice" and at least 30% of people consider him "a poor choice", so interpretting this as a "brilliant" decision requires putting a lot of faith in the Quebec numbers. So, how enthusiastic are Quebecers about Stephane Dion? That's an interesting question. Maybe 62% of Quebecers are jumping up and down in excitement over his win. Then again, maybe they just thought he was the best choice because he was the only Quebec candidate in the whole race. As Technocrat points out, it doesn't say that 62% of Quebecers plan to vote for him. -k

This is the most important point. The first-past-the-poll electoral system, combined with very regionally different party support breakdowns makes a generalized poll like this almost meaningless. To determine what a poll might mean in terms of an election, you have to have regional breakdowns (and in the case of Quebec, almost riding-by-riding breakdowns.) You underestimate the power of first impressions. Dion has obviously made a good one, and they always linger. What was Paul Martin's approval rating when he was selected Liberal leader? ...and what was it a few months later? ...what was it on Decision Night 2005? ...on Decision Night 2006? Oh yeah, first impressions count for a lot. Recall that last winter, at the time when the election was called the polls showed the Liberals in majority territory, and within a few weeks the polls showed the Conservatives nearing majority status. With that in mind, I think that a statistically narrow lead at this point in time isn't much to celebrate. Party conventions always result in a modest bump in the polls, and that's what this is... a modest bump. With this one statement you've shown yourself to be out of touch with our current political climate. I disagree. In my home, at least, Dion's victory was greeted with derisive snorts and rolling of eyes. *Another* Quebec Prime Minister? During my lifetime, we've had a couple months of Kim Campbell, a couple of months of Jim Turner, and almost a year of Stephen Harper. Aside from that, it's been 22 years of Quebec politicians. Dion hasn't won yet, but it's a strong possibility. It might help the Liberals rebuild their base in Montreal (or maybe not...) and it probably won't hurt their fortunes in Ontario, but it'll do little to build bridges with the rest of the country. I doubt federal Liberals in BC are very excited about Dion. Federal Liberals on the Prairies wouldn't be excited about Dion either, except that there aren't any federal Liberals left on the prairies. -k