Evening Star

It is tough... They could vote against the government and just hope/expect that the resulting election will not produce a majority government for anyone. That could potentially still leave them with the balance of power, allowing them to demand what they want from the next government's budget. The optics might not be so great though if they bring down a government that actually offers something substantial in the areas of medical student loan forgiveness, eco retrofit funding, help for seniors, and R&D (as the CBC's leak seems to suggest).

This seems tricky. As Rosemary Barton said, it seems hard to square finding the government in contempt with a willingness to negotiate on the budget. Perhaps they could be placated on the contempt issue with an apology and evidence that things will be done differently? I kind of doubt they'll reach an agreement on the budget anyhow.

I haven't read that book but, yeah, I've always suspected that the economic arguments around these things are just sports fans' excuses. Intuitively, it seems pretty obvious to me from observation that the presence, absence, or departure of sports teams has little impact on municipal economies. Buffalo's economy won't be turned around by the Sabres' or Bills' ticket sales. (Quite agree, Smallc. Airports are a much more justifiable expenditure.)

I was thinking of volunteering with Brian Masse's campaign.

Seems to work in Northern Europe, for example. As far as I know, PET never attempted those tax levels (at all). My understanding was that he mistakenly expected the NEP to generate enough revenue to offset the deficits. One could point to many examples of tax-cutting governments (Reagan, Bush, ...) that created massive deficits. As has been pointed out on this board, NDP governments in MB and SK have balanced their budgets with high taxes.

All I'm saying is that I don't think there's a general anti-American bigotry (and resistance to American ideas because of their origin) as much as a distaste for specific policies. I think we actually agree on the main point though.

It does still seem a little odd that he would identify as American, though, if he doesn't have citizenship (and didn't even grow up there for that matter), regardless of how strict the requirements are.

OK, cool, I think we're actually on the same page here.

Ha, but that is only true of certain kinds of reforms: No one cries out "Americanization" when someone suggests e.g. nationalizing pharmacare or even bulk drug purchasing or simplfying the exporting of generic AIDS drugs! (I imagine that if someone suggested all-out UK-style socialized medicine, we wouldn't hear the cry either.) And I think Nicky is right. When Canadians see American ideas that seem to work, people are happy to adopt them. No one seems too upset about e.g. the expansion of the US film industry into Vancouver or about Canadian musicians performing jazz or hip-hop or even about the adoption of some American ideas in education. (Privatization would probably not be popular, however.) As to the main point, I've always liked this Idealistic Pragmatist post: http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2006/05/us-as-unexamined-alternative.html She argues that comparing ourselves primarily to the US (when there are other models to look at) can actually restrict progress.

I'm just not convinced that his having worked in the US is the reason, as opposed to the seemingly deluded level of identification with the US (and Bush/Cheney foreign policy) that he seems to hold. As far as I can tell, the public mostly just finds him arrogant and awkward. Besides, he generally hasn't really seemed to advance a very compelling alternative to the CPC in terms of policy. (His recent embrace of quasi-NDP economic policy seems a bit out of the blue.)

Thanks, bush_cheney. That was hilarious.

I agree that the Conservatives are attempting to exploit anti-Americanism in a fairly crass (and hypocritical) attack strategy. I'm just not sure that this is why "Ignatieff can't be PM".

The two situations are different though. The first is a matter of law. The second is simply part of an attack ad strategy used by an opposing party, along with a number of other factors. I've never thought that Ignatieff's career in the US in and of itself is the main reason why most Canadians don't care for him. (I do have an issue with the political views he advocated while in the US but not with the fact that he worked in the US.)

Are there really citations of Ignatieff referring to himself as an American? That's an awfully foolish claim to make if you're not a citizen.

Ah, that's very different from what the OP suggested and completely innocuous (and rather sensible). Isn't it possible to see Canada as an independent multicultural country and also recognize its ties to Britain and the Queen? A shared monarch is more than a coincidence. History is important and our historical connection to Britain, including the basis for our whole Parliamentary system, does go beyond our connection to the US.

Yeah, I'm actually pretty amazed that all the news outlets have seen fit to report on McPherson's age and background.

I do think there's a difference between having dual citizenship and actually referring to the other country as your "home" to which you promise to return if your political ambitions here don't succeed, although I would definitely need a cite to believe that Ignatieff actually said this. I also think it's a fairly minor issue compared to someone's actual policy positions, however.

Excellent post!

To be pedantic, "barbaric" is an adjective. "Barbarically" is the related adverb. What's important is that "barbaric" judges/describes the act (as either "savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal" or "primitive; unsophisticated" according to OAD) while "completely unacceptable" seems to actually spell out that the act is not tolerated.

I agree, Molly, which is why this 'controversy' has mystified me from the start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff#The_Lesser_Evil_approach

Kimmy, would you vote for them anyway? Even at the height of Ontario's manufacturing sector, the NDP could never really dominate the industrial heartland. What more do you think they'd gain by chasing a disappearing sector today, say, by picking someone like Pat Martin as leader? They'd probably turn me into a Liberal voter for one. Besides, in any case, how much time does Layton spend talking about e.g. transgendered rights compared to pensions or home heating taxes or even Internet billing? Amir Khadr and Megan Leslie are both intriguing suggestions.

For real. I was actually considering possibly voting Liberal and this reminded me of some of the reasons why I shouldn't. xpost

I dunno, is there much written about the economic benefits of sports teams? Buffalo and Detroit have all kinds of sports teams and are both still pretty roughed up.

Ugh.