06/10/2006
Harper, the imperial PM?
Early on Friday, the Toronto Star's Chantal Hébert wrote in her latest column the Conservatives are quickly losing ground in Québec after winning a surprise ten seats in the January elections. It's not just Harper's opposition to the gun registry, which remains popular in the province and even more so after last month's shooting rampage at Dawson College. It's also the Cons' decision to cut literacy programs just months after Jacques Demers of the Montréal Canadiens admitted to long-time functional illiteracy; as well as the Court Challenges Program which among other things saved the Montford Hospital, Ontario's only primarily French-language health care facility and which was threatened for closure by no less than Tony Clement and Jim Flaherty during their days in the Mike Harris government.
Hébert suggests also the proposed "Defence of Religion Act" may have been the last straw for Québécois, who pride themselves on the strict separation of church and state -- and still have long memories of Maurice Duplessis and his malicious bullying of the Jehovah's Witnesses during the 1940s and 1950s.
It was another story in Thursday's edition, however, that made me curious. It was about the fact that Harper, the head of government, and Governor General Michaëlle Jean, the head of state, have had only one face to face meeting since the PM took power, and that was back in March. They've spoken on the phone a few times, but that's it.
Is this actually normal in a Parliamentary democracy? In the United Kingdom, the Queen meets with the Prime Minister -- technically as well as legally her chief servant -- every Tuesday night when Parliament is in session. In countries with a hybrid system and where the sovereign or President shares power with a Prime Minister, regular communication is not only indicated also essential; especially when opposing parties are sharing the reigns (known in France, for instance, as cohabitation).
So what gives? The role of an impartial head of state is to advise, consult and warn. Does Harper think those are anachronisms and so we should get rid of the GG and make himself President? I'd like to know.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, October 6, 2006
Five things feminism has done for me
A few weeks back, my colleagues over at Progressive Bloggers challenged each other to write an entry in their respective blogs about what they think about feminism and five things the feminist movement has done for them. I have held back on writing my entry because this is something I've had to really think about ... but I'm ready now.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
- Feminism has made me a better person, generally speaking. Granted that I am rough around some edges and still need some work, but overall it has allowed me to take a look at the big long term picture about life in general; rather than the short term. In a world where short term gain is oftened favoured as politically expedient, this has been a major factor for me -- sometimes, positive changes will only occur over the long run and women more than men have that viewpoint.
- It has had the pleasant result I have more female friends than male. I may be a tad too sensitive at times, but the fact I'm better able to empathize with the cause of women has helped m with my personal self-respect; and self respect is the first step to getting friends. A lot of men I know don't have that, which I don't understand.
- It has convinced me that more than ever we need proportional representation. It's very interesting that in countries which have PR, women have much greater involvement in decision making. The fact we still have first past the post shows there are still a lot of people, mostly men, who think women should stay home and shut up. This is wrong.
- It has also convinced me that working mothers and stay at home moms need equal treatment, under our tax policies. Parents shoudln't have to make the choice. They should get equal treatment -- and mothers shouldn't be fired for wanting to have children, which unfortunately still happens in the professional world and trades, and even the entertainment industry.
- Finally, it has also proved to me the benefits of a day care program. I'm much better off now because I had early intervention in day care for learning disabilities I have, and while I still cope with them occasionally I am convinced I'd still be mostly dependent on the state if I didn't have nurturing day care workers and special education people -- all women, all feminists -- who kept ploughing at me until they broke through. Any man who had his hands on me would have made me a ward of the state; in those days they just didn't have the patience women do, and some men still don't. Today, women and sensitive men continue that fine tradition of day care, they help many parents who just need an extra assist (especially with special needs kids) and they themselves need support from higher powers -- even if it's as simple as means tested subsidies and regulation across the board. The fact the Conservatives oppose both of these is shameful.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
The Bush Code
Two stories today -- one in WaPo and the other in the NYT -- talk about a problem the GOP is only now discovering but has been evident for quite some time now. The usually reliable evangelical Christian vote which is often successful in getting out the vote (GOTV) to squash any Democratic aspirations of a return to power is slowly but surely crumbling away. The WaPo story also suggests that many dedicated "values voters" are not going to sit at home this year but are actually going to vote Democratic because, they believe, "God's Party" has abandoned its values. It continues to wage war without just cause, justifies torture, ridicules minority religions even though Jesus of Nazareth reached out to "other" groups in his day, and proved its "compassionate conservatism" in the wake of the totally inhumane reaction to the Katrina nightmare.
Meanwhile, the Times said today that the great hope of evangelicals -- teenagers -- are dropping their "born again" hats like some people give up fetishes as bad habits -- cold turkey. By some estimates, only 4 percent of teenagers will believe what the Bible says by the end of the decade. While many leaders in the movement see that number as being rather out of whack with reality, the fact is religion is no longer appealing to most adolescents. Those who do get caught up in it often are bound by extremists who preach no tolerance of those who are different from them; such as is evident in the current documentary Jesus Camp.
It's not just the exasperation with Dubya and Co, or the Foley sex scandal and the coverup by the House leadership, or the disaffection of young people who are the best targets of recruitment. It's that more people are finally beginning to understand the Bush penchant for speaking in code, and are turning against it. Remember two years ago when Bush in one of the debates with Kerry referred to "Dred Scott," the infamous Supreme Court decision that said blacks, even free ones, could never be citizens? It was his "code" to evangelicals that he would appoint judges committed to overturning the Roe decision which some religious people see as immoral as Dred Scott was. (Funny, especially when one considers the Southern Baptist Church, the leading evangelical organization in America, broke away from its northern cousins because the southern church supported slavery and segregation as being the "will of God.") The other day, Bush talked about Iraq being a "comma" in the long term war, saying history will record the insurgency as a comma. (Code for, "God never puts a period, where he intends to put a comma." In other words, it was "God's will" that America had to invade Iraq for its oil.)
Here's a rather extensive list of other Bush code words, found with a simple Google search. Oh, and I just loved it the other day when he said he was fighting the war on terror because he didn't want to burden future generations. Explain then, sir, why it's then OK to run up the debt over 8.5 trillion (and still climbing) so as to ensure future generations are burdened? Perhaps he takes the line where Jesus said people in debt will be made to pay the last penny in the end times; so he wants to make sure only the Baby Boom and older will get Raptured while Generation X and everyone younger will be left behind. (Of course, the Rapture is pure heresy, as most thinking evangelicals believe -- it's just confined to the small group who believes the crap expounded by John Scofield, Jack Van Impe and John Hagee -- hey, three Johns! Do they represent the three letters of John, all apocalyptic in nature?)
The good news is that more rank and file Republicans are finally figuring out what Democrats have known for years: That GWB wears his faith on his sleeve and not in his heart. And like most sleeves on shirts, it can be taken off when deemed expedient. Just a small shift of evangelical voters, even a few percentage points, could tip the balance in favour of the donkey. I hope that happens, but I also hope that those elected will actually practice what they preach and bring faith based values back to the House and Senate rather than just carry on with business as usual -- and speak in plain language that wins people back to the electoral rolls and to the churches. Including young people who will find both a new commitment to public service, and are led to churches that teach the real Gospel and not a heretical and hate-filled interpretation of it.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Meanwhile, the Times said today that the great hope of evangelicals -- teenagers -- are dropping their "born again" hats like some people give up fetishes as bad habits -- cold turkey. By some estimates, only 4 percent of teenagers will believe what the Bible says by the end of the decade. While many leaders in the movement see that number as being rather out of whack with reality, the fact is religion is no longer appealing to most adolescents. Those who do get caught up in it often are bound by extremists who preach no tolerance of those who are different from them; such as is evident in the current documentary Jesus Camp.
It's not just the exasperation with Dubya and Co, or the Foley sex scandal and the coverup by the House leadership, or the disaffection of young people who are the best targets of recruitment. It's that more people are finally beginning to understand the Bush penchant for speaking in code, and are turning against it. Remember two years ago when Bush in one of the debates with Kerry referred to "Dred Scott," the infamous Supreme Court decision that said blacks, even free ones, could never be citizens? It was his "code" to evangelicals that he would appoint judges committed to overturning the Roe decision which some religious people see as immoral as Dred Scott was. (Funny, especially when one considers the Southern Baptist Church, the leading evangelical organization in America, broke away from its northern cousins because the southern church supported slavery and segregation as being the "will of God.") The other day, Bush talked about Iraq being a "comma" in the long term war, saying history will record the insurgency as a comma. (Code for, "God never puts a period, where he intends to put a comma." In other words, it was "God's will" that America had to invade Iraq for its oil.)
Here's a rather extensive list of other Bush code words, found with a simple Google search. Oh, and I just loved it the other day when he said he was fighting the war on terror because he didn't want to burden future generations. Explain then, sir, why it's then OK to run up the debt over 8.5 trillion (and still climbing) so as to ensure future generations are burdened? Perhaps he takes the line where Jesus said people in debt will be made to pay the last penny in the end times; so he wants to make sure only the Baby Boom and older will get Raptured while Generation X and everyone younger will be left behind. (Of course, the Rapture is pure heresy, as most thinking evangelicals believe -- it's just confined to the small group who believes the crap expounded by John Scofield, Jack Van Impe and John Hagee -- hey, three Johns! Do they represent the three letters of John, all apocalyptic in nature?)
The good news is that more rank and file Republicans are finally figuring out what Democrats have known for years: That GWB wears his faith on his sleeve and not in his heart. And like most sleeves on shirts, it can be taken off when deemed expedient. Just a small shift of evangelical voters, even a few percentage points, could tip the balance in favour of the donkey. I hope that happens, but I also hope that those elected will actually practice what they preach and bring faith based values back to the House and Senate rather than just carry on with business as usual -- and speak in plain language that wins people back to the electoral rolls and to the churches. Including young people who will find both a new commitment to public service, and are led to churches that teach the real Gospel and not a heretical and hate-filled interpretation of it.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
The Bush Code
Two stories today -- one in WaPo and the other in the NYT -- talk about a problem the GOP is only now discovering but has been evident for quite some time now. The usually reliable evangelical Christian vote which is often successful in getting out the vote (GOTV) to squash any Democratic aspirations of a return to power is slowly but surely crumbling away. The WaPo story also suggests that many dedicated "values voters" are not going to sit at home this year but are actually going to vote Democratic because, they believe, "God's Party" has abandoned its values. It continues to wage war without just cause, justifies torture, ridicules minority religions even though Jesus of Nazareth reached out to "other" groups in his day, and proved its "compassionate conservatism" in the wake of the totally inhumane reaction to the Katrina nightmare.
Meanwhile, the Times said today that the great hope of evangelicals -- teenagers -- are dropping their "born again" hats like some people give up fetishes as bad habits -- cold turkey. By some estimates, only 4 percent of teenagers will believe what the Bible says by the end of the decade. While many leaders in the movement see that number as being rather out of whack with reality, the fact is religion is no longer appealing to most adolescents. Those who do get caught up in it often are bound by extremists who preach no tolerance of those who are different from them; such as is evident in the current documentary Jesus Camp.
It's not just the exasperation with Dubya and Co, or the Foley sex scandal and the coverup by the House leadership, or the disaffection of young people who are the best targets of recruitment. It's that more people are finally beginning to understand the Bush penchant for speaking in code, and are turning against it. Remember two years ago when Bush in one of the debates with Kerry referred to "Dred Scott," the infamous Supreme Court decision that said blacks, even free ones, could never be citizens? It was his "code" to evangelicals that he would appoint judges committed to overturning the Roe decision which some religious people see as immoral as Dred Scott was. (Funny, especially when one considers the Southern Baptist Church, the leading evangelical organization in America, broke away from its northern cousins because the southern church supported slavery and segregation as being the "will of God.") The other day, Bush talked about Iraq being a "comma" in the long term war, saying history will record the insurgency as a comma. (Code for, "God never puts a period, where he intends to put a comma." In other words, it was "God's will" that America had to invade Iraq for its oil.)
Here's a rather extensive list of other Bush code words, found with a simple Google search. Oh, and I just loved it the other day when he said he was fighting the war on terror because he didn't want to burden future generations. Explain then, sir, why it's then OK to run up the debt over 8.5 trillion (and still climbing) so as to ensure future generations are burdened? Perhaps he takes the line where Jesus said people in debt will be made to pay the last penny in the end times; so he wants to make sure only the Baby Boom and older will get Raptured while Generation X and everyone younger will be left behind. (Of course, the Rapture is pure heresy, as most thinking evangelicals believe -- it's just confined to the small group who believes the crap expounded by John Scofield, Jack Van Impe and John Hagee -- hey, three Johns! Do they represent the three letters of John, all apocalyptic in nature?)
The good news is that more rank and file Republicans are finally figuring out what Democrats have known for years: That GWB wears his faith on his sleeve and not in his heart. And like most sleeves on shirts, it can be taken off when deemed expedient. Just a small shift of evangelical voters, even a few percentage points, could tip the balance in favour of the donkey. I hope that happens, but I also hope that those elected will actually practice what they preach and bring faith based values back to the House and Senate rather than just carry on with business as usual -- and speak in plain language that wins people back to the electoral rolls and to the churches. Including young people who will find both a new commitment to public service, and are led to churches that teach the real Gospel and not a heretical and hate-filled interpretation of it.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Meanwhile, the Times said today that the great hope of evangelicals -- teenagers -- are dropping their "born again" hats like some people give up fetishes as bad habits -- cold turkey. By some estimates, only 4 percent of teenagers will believe what the Bible says by the end of the decade. While many leaders in the movement see that number as being rather out of whack with reality, the fact is religion is no longer appealing to most adolescents. Those who do get caught up in it often are bound by extremists who preach no tolerance of those who are different from them; such as is evident in the current documentary Jesus Camp.
It's not just the exasperation with Dubya and Co, or the Foley sex scandal and the coverup by the House leadership, or the disaffection of young people who are the best targets of recruitment. It's that more people are finally beginning to understand the Bush penchant for speaking in code, and are turning against it. Remember two years ago when Bush in one of the debates with Kerry referred to "Dred Scott," the infamous Supreme Court decision that said blacks, even free ones, could never be citizens? It was his "code" to evangelicals that he would appoint judges committed to overturning the Roe decision which some religious people see as immoral as Dred Scott was. (Funny, especially when one considers the Southern Baptist Church, the leading evangelical organization in America, broke away from its northern cousins because the southern church supported slavery and segregation as being the "will of God.") The other day, Bush talked about Iraq being a "comma" in the long term war, saying history will record the insurgency as a comma. (Code for, "God never puts a period, where he intends to put a comma." In other words, it was "God's will" that America had to invade Iraq for its oil.)
Here's a rather extensive list of other Bush code words, found with a simple Google search. Oh, and I just loved it the other day when he said he was fighting the war on terror because he didn't want to burden future generations. Explain then, sir, why it's then OK to run up the debt over 8.5 trillion (and still climbing) so as to ensure future generations are burdened? Perhaps he takes the line where Jesus said people in debt will be made to pay the last penny in the end times; so he wants to make sure only the Baby Boom and older will get Raptured while Generation X and everyone younger will be left behind. (Of course, the Rapture is pure heresy, as most thinking evangelicals believe -- it's just confined to the small group who believes the crap expounded by John Scofield, Jack Van Impe and John Hagee -- hey, three Johns! Do they represent the three letters of John, all apocalyptic in nature?)
The good news is that more rank and file Republicans are finally figuring out what Democrats have known for years: That GWB wears his faith on his sleeve and not in his heart. And like most sleeves on shirts, it can be taken off when deemed expedient. Just a small shift of evangelical voters, even a few percentage points, could tip the balance in favour of the donkey. I hope that happens, but I also hope that those elected will actually practice what they preach and bring faith based values back to the House and Senate rather than just carry on with business as usual -- and speak in plain language that wins people back to the electoral rolls and to the churches. Including young people who will find both a new commitment to public service, and are led to churches that teach the real Gospel and not a heretical and hate-filled interpretation of it.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Senate: Government has lied to Canadians about Afghanistan
The Senate Defence Committee, overwhelmingly dominated by Liberals, pulled no punches today, saying that Canada is still screwing it up when it comes to homeland security; and moreover, both the Liberals and Conservative leadership have lied to the Canadian people about what it is we're actually doing in Afghanistan. (The report is here.)
This is the latest in a series of stinging reports from the Senators, who tend to be much more hawkish than the House of Commons and even most Canadians. But their advice is often pointed, backed by research, and ought to be heeded. Last year, they said we were way behind on border security measures despite the billions we've spent since 9/11; and they asked among other things why the expansion of border crossings at Detroit-Windsor and Fort Erie-Buffalo continues to be pushed back over and over again.
This year, their main focus was the Afghanistan mission. The bottom line is that we haven't been given the straight goods, and there are still no clearly defined terms of reference; just a vague promise we'll be there until 2009. I've said several times here that I support the mission, but I'm just about fed up with the lack of clarity as well. We may not be hemmorhaging troops and diplomats as rapidly as the Americans are in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but the losses are piling up and it is disconcerting for a country conditioned to believe we are either neutral or only peacekeepers. We can't very well keep the peace is there is no peace to keep. We have to make the peace, and to get to at least a stalemate we have to fight a war. It took six years for World War II to be fought on two fronts. We've been in one front for five and we've barely moved more than a couple hundred kilometres, if that. Not very impressive.
From the very beginning, we should have had what Jean Charest has demanded for years: A rapid reaction force of between 10 and 15,000 from all three services, with the very best equipment, the best training, and always ready to move on 48 hours notice. We should also be making sure the reserves are ready to respond to any disaster, natural or civil. We're just going by the seat of the pants.
The Senate is also recommending immediately doubling foreign aid, bring us to the magic 0.7% of GDP; shutting down CFB Goose Bay (saying it's a white elephant); a Coast Guard with reliable vessels (including speeds starting at 25 knots -- many of the current fleet has a maximum speed of 16); improving the training of the Canadian Rangers (the mostly Aboriginal military unit which patrols the north) and asserting once and for all our jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage and the Beaufort Sea east of the West 141th Meridian.
I am troubled by the recommendation we join the Ballistic Missle Defence program, or Star Wars. It's an unreliable technology and only encourages the arms race, not deters it. Far better would be for Canada to get some long range, non-nuclear missiles which would only be used as a defensive weapon, never a first strike as Dubya believes all weapons should be. Less expensive and we'd be asserting our sovereignty.
It does say, however, we should increase the annual budget of the military to $35 billion per year by 2012. This may ruffle a lot of feathers, but as the United States becomes increasily less trustworthy as a dependable ally and even trading partner, we need to protect our turf. We can't have a strong Canada without a strong military, and this will be true even after sanity returns to the States and a more responsible leadership comes to the Pentagon. As long as projects go to open tender and public spending is accounted for, and we also fix the health and education systems for a generation, I would support such an increase.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
This is the latest in a series of stinging reports from the Senators, who tend to be much more hawkish than the House of Commons and even most Canadians. But their advice is often pointed, backed by research, and ought to be heeded. Last year, they said we were way behind on border security measures despite the billions we've spent since 9/11; and they asked among other things why the expansion of border crossings at Detroit-Windsor and Fort Erie-Buffalo continues to be pushed back over and over again.
This year, their main focus was the Afghanistan mission. The bottom line is that we haven't been given the straight goods, and there are still no clearly defined terms of reference; just a vague promise we'll be there until 2009. I've said several times here that I support the mission, but I'm just about fed up with the lack of clarity as well. We may not be hemmorhaging troops and diplomats as rapidly as the Americans are in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but the losses are piling up and it is disconcerting for a country conditioned to believe we are either neutral or only peacekeepers. We can't very well keep the peace is there is no peace to keep. We have to make the peace, and to get to at least a stalemate we have to fight a war. It took six years for World War II to be fought on two fronts. We've been in one front for five and we've barely moved more than a couple hundred kilometres, if that. Not very impressive.
From the very beginning, we should have had what Jean Charest has demanded for years: A rapid reaction force of between 10 and 15,000 from all three services, with the very best equipment, the best training, and always ready to move on 48 hours notice. We should also be making sure the reserves are ready to respond to any disaster, natural or civil. We're just going by the seat of the pants.
The Senate is also recommending immediately doubling foreign aid, bring us to the magic 0.7% of GDP; shutting down CFB Goose Bay (saying it's a white elephant); a Coast Guard with reliable vessels (including speeds starting at 25 knots -- many of the current fleet has a maximum speed of 16); improving the training of the Canadian Rangers (the mostly Aboriginal military unit which patrols the north) and asserting once and for all our jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage and the Beaufort Sea east of the West 141th Meridian.
I am troubled by the recommendation we join the Ballistic Missle Defence program, or Star Wars. It's an unreliable technology and only encourages the arms race, not deters it. Far better would be for Canada to get some long range, non-nuclear missiles which would only be used as a defensive weapon, never a first strike as Dubya believes all weapons should be. Less expensive and we'd be asserting our sovereignty.
It does say, however, we should increase the annual budget of the military to $35 billion per year by 2012. This may ruffle a lot of feathers, but as the United States becomes increasily less trustworthy as a dependable ally and even trading partner, we need to protect our turf. We can't have a strong Canada without a strong military, and this will be true even after sanity returns to the States and a more responsible leadership comes to the Pentagon. As long as projects go to open tender and public spending is accounted for, and we also fix the health and education systems for a generation, I would support such an increase.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Harper humiliated on Kyoto; shows true colours on NWT
A couple of things this morning on my mind. First, in what can only be called an embarrassment, the three opposition parties ganged up and forced second reading (i.e. approval in principle) of Bill C-288, a resolution which if passed would force the federal government to uphold the Kyoto Agreement and immediately beginning setting targets to reduce levels of greenhouse gases through to 2013. Rona Ambrose, in charge of trying to put in "voluntary" standards that will make air quality even worse -- just as similar tactics proved in Texas when Duyba was Governor there -- was going to talk about her version of a new Clean Air Act to the House Environment Committee today, but instead is now on the defensive.
The fact remains, despite its problems, Kyoto is a moral imperative and the only way to reduce pollution emissions is to have compulsory targets, not voluntary ones. Even "The Terminator" recognizes this; in a break from most of the rest of the GOP, he signed a law in California last week calling for a reduction of pollution by 25 percent. The state, which already has the toughest air quality laws in the United States, will now set them even higher, closer to the standards in the European Union. I read once that a few years back -- I think it was 2000, during the controversial Bush-Gore battle -- Los Angeles did not have a single air quality warning all year, despite being right next to the Coast Mountains. Houston had a smog warning about once every other week, despite not being near any feature that would other wise make the air even worse.
That's what voluntary standards do for you.
Second, in a totally bizarre move, the Harper Government announced it is starting --from scratch -- negotiations with the Northwest Territories on the issue of "devolution." This is not devolution in the sense of how it has played out in places like the UK or Spain, where regions are granted autonomy in certain fields of power. In those cases, former unitary states have become something close to semi-federal. Instead, it's about giving our "colonies," which are what they really are, powers close to or equal to that of the provinces whose status is entrenched in the Constitution. In theory, the three territories have a wide range of powers but they can be taken away by Parliament at any time and they can revert to being police states ruled directly from the PMO, which is what the NWT was from 1905 to 1967.
The Yukon, which already had a high degree of autonomy from its inception in 1898, managed to obtain this "devolved" status in 2002, and the NWT wants it as well because $400 million in resource royalties that are supposed to come from the diamond mines there instead flows through directly to Ottawa. This would be unthinkable in the provinces, which have directly control over their resources, forests and electric power under Article 91A of the 1867 Constitution. When one considers the entire budget of the NWT is $1.1 billion and collects only about a third of this from its residents, getting access to the money that Ottawa in fact steals would be a jackpot for the territorial government. For one thing, it could pay off its entire debt right away, roughly $270 million dollars.
Three years ago it entered negotiations with the former Liberal government, and managed to initial a deal with the feds, whose negotiator was no less than former Ontario Premier David Peterson. A deal was actually reached, which gave Yellowknife almost everything it has asked for. All it needed was formal ratification by Parliament and the territorial legislature (which unlike the Yukon has no parties but runs on the basis of consensus).
This morning, CBC Radio One reported that the new Indian Affairs minister, Jim Prentice, has decided to force everyone back to the drawing board, from scratch, and has appointed Harvey André as chief negotiator.
Why? Could it be that Harper's still pissed about last year's side deals with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and thinks those set a bad precedent? Or the fact it was David Peterson, and his not so insignificant role in the defection of Belinda Stronach last year? Perhaps, there's a element of racism involved? (After all, the Yukon is mostly white; while 2/3 of the population in the NWT is Native Canadian.) Whatever it is, it strikes me as grossly unfair, and I say this from my post in the land of plenty -- Ontario.
For heaven's sake, the territory wants to get off equalization (in the case of the three territories it's called Territorial Formula Financing, or TFF). In the case of Yellowknife, its allocation this year is $739 million, over and above transfers for health and social services. A fair deal would not get the NWT off equalization entirely, at least not at first (it would cut the transfer roughly in half). However, allowing the NWT to be more self-reliant would free up money that could go back into health care and education in the have not provinces.
It's fair, it's right, and it should be done. The opposition parties should demand the original agreement be stuck to, or at least sent to the House of Commons for a binding ratification vote. Up or down, no amendments.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
The fact remains, despite its problems, Kyoto is a moral imperative and the only way to reduce pollution emissions is to have compulsory targets, not voluntary ones. Even "The Terminator" recognizes this; in a break from most of the rest of the GOP, he signed a law in California last week calling for a reduction of pollution by 25 percent. The state, which already has the toughest air quality laws in the United States, will now set them even higher, closer to the standards in the European Union. I read once that a few years back -- I think it was 2000, during the controversial Bush-Gore battle -- Los Angeles did not have a single air quality warning all year, despite being right next to the Coast Mountains. Houston had a smog warning about once every other week, despite not being near any feature that would other wise make the air even worse.
That's what voluntary standards do for you.
Second, in a totally bizarre move, the Harper Government announced it is starting --from scratch -- negotiations with the Northwest Territories on the issue of "devolution." This is not devolution in the sense of how it has played out in places like the UK or Spain, where regions are granted autonomy in certain fields of power. In those cases, former unitary states have become something close to semi-federal. Instead, it's about giving our "colonies," which are what they really are, powers close to or equal to that of the provinces whose status is entrenched in the Constitution. In theory, the three territories have a wide range of powers but they can be taken away by Parliament at any time and they can revert to being police states ruled directly from the PMO, which is what the NWT was from 1905 to 1967.
The Yukon, which already had a high degree of autonomy from its inception in 1898, managed to obtain this "devolved" status in 2002, and the NWT wants it as well because $400 million in resource royalties that are supposed to come from the diamond mines there instead flows through directly to Ottawa. This would be unthinkable in the provinces, which have directly control over their resources, forests and electric power under Article 91A of the 1867 Constitution. When one considers the entire budget of the NWT is $1.1 billion and collects only about a third of this from its residents, getting access to the money that Ottawa in fact steals would be a jackpot for the territorial government. For one thing, it could pay off its entire debt right away, roughly $270 million dollars.
Three years ago it entered negotiations with the former Liberal government, and managed to initial a deal with the feds, whose negotiator was no less than former Ontario Premier David Peterson. A deal was actually reached, which gave Yellowknife almost everything it has asked for. All it needed was formal ratification by Parliament and the territorial legislature (which unlike the Yukon has no parties but runs on the basis of consensus).
This morning, CBC Radio One reported that the new Indian Affairs minister, Jim Prentice, has decided to force everyone back to the drawing board, from scratch, and has appointed Harvey André as chief negotiator.
Why? Could it be that Harper's still pissed about last year's side deals with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and thinks those set a bad precedent? Or the fact it was David Peterson, and his not so insignificant role in the defection of Belinda Stronach last year? Perhaps, there's a element of racism involved? (After all, the Yukon is mostly white; while 2/3 of the population in the NWT is Native Canadian.) Whatever it is, it strikes me as grossly unfair, and I say this from my post in the land of plenty -- Ontario.
For heaven's sake, the territory wants to get off equalization (in the case of the three territories it's called Territorial Formula Financing, or TFF). In the case of Yellowknife, its allocation this year is $739 million, over and above transfers for health and social services. A fair deal would not get the NWT off equalization entirely, at least not at first (it would cut the transfer roughly in half). However, allowing the NWT to be more self-reliant would free up money that could go back into health care and education in the have not provinces.
It's fair, it's right, and it should be done. The opposition parties should demand the original agreement be stuck to, or at least sent to the House of Commons for a binding ratification vote. Up or down, no amendments.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Briefing notes (2006-10-04)
A fairly busy news day, and as I sometimes do I'm putting them all in one post rather than several. Here goes:
The heat is on at Six Nations: Two days after it was revealed Grand River Enterprises provided hosting services for an offshore Internet gambling operation, a report in this morning's Hamilton Spectator said the data from the servers had suddenly been transferred to another server -- at Kanhawake, Québec. Meanwhile, the paper's investigation continues, showing yesterday how GRE, despite opposition from Ontario tobacco farmers, is a huge player in Western Canada with some popular brands taking on the multinationals, even to the point of becoming a supplier to the German Army; and some questionable business practices such as buying products from one's own company to inflate sales. A technique a lot of televangelists use to make their books look like best-sellers when in fact they're just reselling them at a huge markup to their gullible followers (fortunately, the best sellers list at the NYT and others aren't so fooled -- and, it would appear, neither are what's left of the tobacco industry in Ontario in this version of musical chairs.) Today's installment is about how GRE has spread its wings and has become a major player across a number of reserves across Canada and even off-reserve. Including some allegations that they have effective control of some properties they really shouldn't as they are supposed to be for the use of bands of which they aren't members.
As always, I'm in favour of free enterprise on most things; and to see Aboriginal Canadians take the initiative to build a business from the ground up and provide employment opportunities for natives and non-natives, that pay at or above the national average for both groups, is impressive. But I also support ethical businesses, and the questions raised this week make me wonder not just about some of the practices used, but also whether the media may be attempting to tar all natives with a broad stroke. That may explain why the data transfer happened ... after all, there are those contracts they don't want to lose. The managers of GRE continue to be coy about their business ... one would expect a $350 million per year corporation to be just a bit more transparent, even if it isn't publicly traded.
Cons move to close marriage quagmire: God's Annointed Servant (TM) continues to deny it, but Stephen Harper has been considering a law to protect public officials who refuse to marry gay couples or to allow churches to deny services of any kind to homosexuals based on their orientation. The second one probably wouldn't get a leg to stand on if it was challenged in court; it would be struck down faster than most men manage to get women at hello. Besides, a church is supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner; and many of Harper's followers are even worse, hating the sinners to begin with.
But on the first point, I wouldn't hold any objections. If the Supreme Court of Canada ruled a clergyperson can refuse to marry homosexuals on religious grounds, it should logically follow public officials such as judges and city clerks should have the same right on personal grounds -- provided that they provide the names of those who will perform such marriages. The Second Estate is no less important than the first, and should have equal rights of refusal.
Air India judge says racism a factor: This is way beyond obvious, but former Supreme Court of Canada Justice John C Major has finally said what Canadians have known for years but didn't want to admit. If it had been an Air Canada flight with mostly white people, Canada would have armed itself with nuclear weapons, then destroyed Kashmir, in no time flat. But because it was Air India, the Mulroney Government sat on its hands and let the Mounties and the spy agency duke it out over jurisdiction. (I made extensive comments about how I felt about this over a year ago, here.) Meanwhile, Bob Rae -- yes, him -- told Justice Major the terrorist act never should have happened if for no other reason than the passenger who checked the bomb in Vancouver never boarded the flight; and this fact wasn't even flagged as the plane made a stopover in Toronto. Again, stating the obvious ... but at least someone's saying it.
Nova Scotia ends ban on Sunday shopping: It's about time Nova Scotia joined the rest of Canada in recognizing that not all people have Sunday as their rest day. Even the argument for a secular rest day falls flat because all it does is coerce people towards Christianity who may not want to observe that or any other religion. The method Nova Scotia used -- trying to punish two large supermarket chains to protect corner stores -- was rather half-baked anyway. As for the claim it'll make traffic bad seven days a week -- well, there's something there, but we put up with it.
2006 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Finally, Roger Kornberg of Stanford wins this year's prize for his work on DNA, following his father Arthur who also won the prize for Medicine in 1959. (It's the seventh time a parent and child have both won the Big Kahuna.) While Arthur's work was how DNA gets copied from itself to its progeny, Roger was the first to actually describe how DNA duplicates itself within organisms with a nucleus, as lowly as yeast. (Technical details are here.) He's taken it further by creating pictures that show how the process works in a way the public can observe -- previously, this was limited to the lab and researchers.
Don't know much about biology or chemistry, but anything that brings the world of science closer to the public is well worth it, in my opinion.
Next week, we find out who's won the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics, and the Nobels for Literature and Peace. The first two usually have a reputation for having rather wacky or eccentric winners, while Peace (which is awareded from Oslo and not Stockholm) always causes a buzz. Frankly, I'm rooting for Craig Kielburger for Peace -- not because he's a fellow Canadian; but because someone needs to tell the Sudanese government to fuck off over the Darfur genocide in a big way, just like the Norweigian Committee did to Dubya when they gave the honour to Jimmy Carter four years ago.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
The heat is on at Six Nations: Two days after it was revealed Grand River Enterprises provided hosting services for an offshore Internet gambling operation, a report in this morning's Hamilton Spectator said the data from the servers had suddenly been transferred to another server -- at Kanhawake, Québec. Meanwhile, the paper's investigation continues, showing yesterday how GRE, despite opposition from Ontario tobacco farmers, is a huge player in Western Canada with some popular brands taking on the multinationals, even to the point of becoming a supplier to the German Army; and some questionable business practices such as buying products from one's own company to inflate sales. A technique a lot of televangelists use to make their books look like best-sellers when in fact they're just reselling them at a huge markup to their gullible followers (fortunately, the best sellers list at the NYT and others aren't so fooled -- and, it would appear, neither are what's left of the tobacco industry in Ontario in this version of musical chairs.) Today's installment is about how GRE has spread its wings and has become a major player across a number of reserves across Canada and even off-reserve. Including some allegations that they have effective control of some properties they really shouldn't as they are supposed to be for the use of bands of which they aren't members.
As always, I'm in favour of free enterprise on most things; and to see Aboriginal Canadians take the initiative to build a business from the ground up and provide employment opportunities for natives and non-natives, that pay at or above the national average for both groups, is impressive. But I also support ethical businesses, and the questions raised this week make me wonder not just about some of the practices used, but also whether the media may be attempting to tar all natives with a broad stroke. That may explain why the data transfer happened ... after all, there are those contracts they don't want to lose. The managers of GRE continue to be coy about their business ... one would expect a $350 million per year corporation to be just a bit more transparent, even if it isn't publicly traded.
Cons move to close marriage quagmire: God's Annointed Servant (TM) continues to deny it, but Stephen Harper has been considering a law to protect public officials who refuse to marry gay couples or to allow churches to deny services of any kind to homosexuals based on their orientation. The second one probably wouldn't get a leg to stand on if it was challenged in court; it would be struck down faster than most men manage to get women at hello. Besides, a church is supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner; and many of Harper's followers are even worse, hating the sinners to begin with.
But on the first point, I wouldn't hold any objections. If the Supreme Court of Canada ruled a clergyperson can refuse to marry homosexuals on religious grounds, it should logically follow public officials such as judges and city clerks should have the same right on personal grounds -- provided that they provide the names of those who will perform such marriages. The Second Estate is no less important than the first, and should have equal rights of refusal.
Air India judge says racism a factor: This is way beyond obvious, but former Supreme Court of Canada Justice John C Major has finally said what Canadians have known for years but didn't want to admit. If it had been an Air Canada flight with mostly white people, Canada would have armed itself with nuclear weapons, then destroyed Kashmir, in no time flat. But because it was Air India, the Mulroney Government sat on its hands and let the Mounties and the spy agency duke it out over jurisdiction. (I made extensive comments about how I felt about this over a year ago, here.) Meanwhile, Bob Rae -- yes, him -- told Justice Major the terrorist act never should have happened if for no other reason than the passenger who checked the bomb in Vancouver never boarded the flight; and this fact wasn't even flagged as the plane made a stopover in Toronto. Again, stating the obvious ... but at least someone's saying it.
Nova Scotia ends ban on Sunday shopping: It's about time Nova Scotia joined the rest of Canada in recognizing that not all people have Sunday as their rest day. Even the argument for a secular rest day falls flat because all it does is coerce people towards Christianity who may not want to observe that or any other religion. The method Nova Scotia used -- trying to punish two large supermarket chains to protect corner stores -- was rather half-baked anyway. As for the claim it'll make traffic bad seven days a week -- well, there's something there, but we put up with it.
2006 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Finally, Roger Kornberg of Stanford wins this year's prize for his work on DNA, following his father Arthur who also won the prize for Medicine in 1959. (It's the seventh time a parent and child have both won the Big Kahuna.) While Arthur's work was how DNA gets copied from itself to its progeny, Roger was the first to actually describe how DNA duplicates itself within organisms with a nucleus, as lowly as yeast. (Technical details are here.) He's taken it further by creating pictures that show how the process works in a way the public can observe -- previously, this was limited to the lab and researchers.
Don't know much about biology or chemistry, but anything that brings the world of science closer to the public is well worth it, in my opinion.
Next week, we find out who's won the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics, and the Nobels for Literature and Peace. The first two usually have a reputation for having rather wacky or eccentric winners, while Peace (which is awareded from Oslo and not Stockholm) always causes a buzz. Frankly, I'm rooting for Craig Kielburger for Peace -- not because he's a fellow Canadian; but because someone needs to tell the Sudanese government to fuck off over the Darfur genocide in a big way, just like the Norweigian Committee did to Dubya when they gave the honour to Jimmy Carter four years ago.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Flaherty steals (at least) one great idea -- from Liberals
What a difference a year makes. Barely eleven months ago, when the Martin government proposed a "working income supplement" in the mini-budget to help poorer Canadians (with kids or not), Stephen Harper called it impractical. It passed (supported by the Bloc and the NDP) as part of the Ways and Means Motion, a week before Martin fell. It was going to be phased in over a number of years starting in 2007, but it was subsequently quashed by Jim Flaherty's budget and replaced along with other things by his stupid and taxable "stay home and shut up" hundred bucks a month which goes to everyone with kids under six, even the high heeled. Parents with no kids, even single people like myself with no kids, were completely shut out, in fact our income taxes increased.
Regular readers of my column know that I believe that hundred bucks would be better if it was tax free and tacked on to the base amount of the Child Tax Benefit. (From an administrative as well as a moral standpoint.) But all working Canadians need help too. At the very least, there should be some kind of a guaranteed income for people who work. This is to encourage people to get off of welfare and into paying jobs; as well as people who have jobs that don't pay enough, to look for better work (for, as one's income increased, the supplement would decrease). Ideally, the guaranteed floor would be the poverty line but it could be either higher or lower, depending on whatever consensus is established with the provinces and territories. Also part of this, however, should be a raise in the basic exemption to a much more reasonable level.
So what do I read this morning? The brother of SCTV alumnus Joe Flaherty (that should tell you something right there), Jim is now openly musing there should be a working income supplement after all, and he may introduce it as early as the next federal budget.
Two trains of thought on this one. One, he's probably going to package it as part of a poison pill of other tax cuts, including eliminating the capital gains tax and further cuts in the GST. Two, he may be trying to clip the wings off of whoever is elected Liberal leader -- and most of the candidates, including Michaell Ignatieff (from page 19 of his platform), have made it clear they want such a supplement back into the mix of tax relief measures.
Either way, Flaherty may be finally beginning to understand that his first budget actually did a lot of damage to the poor and is trying to repair that. Of course, he'll have to get it past Stephen Harper -- and while even most business executives understand how important helping the working poor is, those who give him lifeblood, namely Big Oil, really couldn't give a damn. I think Flaherty might go to the wall on this one with Harper, just as Martin did with Chrétien on the need for the draconian spending cuts and off-loading to the provinces of the 1990s.
While you're at it, Jim, give Canadians a real child care program, eh? We Liberals wouldn't mind if you did.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Regular readers of my column know that I believe that hundred bucks would be better if it was tax free and tacked on to the base amount of the Child Tax Benefit. (From an administrative as well as a moral standpoint.) But all working Canadians need help too. At the very least, there should be some kind of a guaranteed income for people who work. This is to encourage people to get off of welfare and into paying jobs; as well as people who have jobs that don't pay enough, to look for better work (for, as one's income increased, the supplement would decrease). Ideally, the guaranteed floor would be the poverty line but it could be either higher or lower, depending on whatever consensus is established with the provinces and territories. Also part of this, however, should be a raise in the basic exemption to a much more reasonable level.
So what do I read this morning? The brother of SCTV alumnus Joe Flaherty (that should tell you something right there), Jim is now openly musing there should be a working income supplement after all, and he may introduce it as early as the next federal budget.
Two trains of thought on this one. One, he's probably going to package it as part of a poison pill of other tax cuts, including eliminating the capital gains tax and further cuts in the GST. Two, he may be trying to clip the wings off of whoever is elected Liberal leader -- and most of the candidates, including Michaell Ignatieff (from page 19 of his platform), have made it clear they want such a supplement back into the mix of tax relief measures.
Either way, Flaherty may be finally beginning to understand that his first budget actually did a lot of damage to the poor and is trying to repair that. Of course, he'll have to get it past Stephen Harper -- and while even most business executives understand how important helping the working poor is, those who give him lifeblood, namely Big Oil, really couldn't give a damn. I think Flaherty might go to the wall on this one with Harper, just as Martin did with Chrétien on the need for the draconian spending cuts and off-loading to the provinces of the 1990s.
While you're at it, Jim, give Canadians a real child care program, eh? We Liberals wouldn't mind if you did.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
2006 Nobel Prize in Physics
This year's award goes to two Americans, John C. Mather (UC Berkeley) and George F. Smoot (NASA's Goodard Space Flight Centre) for their work on the COBE satellite, which gave further credence to the Big Bang theory of how the universe was created. The satellite is able to measure minute differences in temperature in space ... with some points of the universe just a few points above absolute zero. By doing that, they were able to measure out almost to the very boundaries of the universe itself. (Technical analysis of what was trying to be accomplished is here.)
I'll take that one for what it's worth. Many people remember the 1969 moon walk and, among other things, Buzz Aldrin saying "Magnificent Desolation." What they forget was was Aldrin said on the way back to earth. He quoted Psalms and the line about God creating everything in the universe then saying, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalms 8:4 -- emphasis mine). Since my teenage years, I have accepted that evolution and the creation story need not be incompatible; in fact, I can't help but wonder if the writers of the Scriptures were so awe inspired by the depth and space of the universe they felt compelled to reduce it to just six "days."
Pretty sure this one is going to be summarily dismissed by Stockwell Day, now in charge of Canada's national security file. After all, he believes The Flintstones was a documentary.
Or my own father, who thinks we were trespassing on "God's property" when the moon landing happened.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
I'll take that one for what it's worth. Many people remember the 1969 moon walk and, among other things, Buzz Aldrin saying "Magnificent Desolation." What they forget was was Aldrin said on the way back to earth. He quoted Psalms and the line about God creating everything in the universe then saying, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalms 8:4 -- emphasis mine). Since my teenage years, I have accepted that evolution and the creation story need not be incompatible; in fact, I can't help but wonder if the writers of the Scriptures were so awe inspired by the depth and space of the universe they felt compelled to reduce it to just six "days."
Pretty sure this one is going to be summarily dismissed by Stockwell Day, now in charge of Canada's national security file. After all, he believes The Flintstones was a documentary.
Or my own father, who thinks we were trespassing on "God's property" when the moon landing happened.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
2006 Nobel Prize in Physics
This year's award goes to two Americans, John C. Mather (UC Berkeley) and George F. Smoot (NASA's Goodard Space Flight Centre) for their work on the COBE satellite, which gave further credence to the Big Bang theory of how the universe was created. The satellite is able to measure minute differences in temperature in space ... with some points of the universe just a few points above absolute zero. By doing that, they were able to measure out almost to the very boundaries of the universe itself. (Technical analysis of what was trying to be accomplished is here.)
I'll take that one for what it's worth. Many people remember the 1969 moon walk and, among other things, Buzz Aldrin saying "Magnificent Desolation." What they forget was was Aldrin said on the way back to earth. He quoted Psalms and the line about God creating everything in the universe then saying, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalms 8:4 -- emphasis mine). Since my teenage years, I have accepted that evolution and the creation story need not be incompatible; in fact, I can't help but wonder if the writers of the Scriptures were so awe inspired by the depth and space of the universe they felt compelled to reduce it to just six "days."
Pretty sure this one is going to be summarily dismissed by Stockwell Day, now in charge of Canada's national security file. After all, he believes The Flintstones was a documentary.
Or my own father, who thinks we were trespassing on "God's property" when the moon landing happened.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
I'll take that one for what it's worth. Many people remember the 1969 moon walk and, among other things, Buzz Aldrin saying "Magnificent Desolation." What they forget was was Aldrin said on the way back to earth. He quoted Psalms and the line about God creating everything in the universe then saying, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalms 8:4 -- emphasis mine). Since my teenage years, I have accepted that evolution and the creation story need not be incompatible; in fact, I can't help but wonder if the writers of the Scriptures were so awe inspired by the depth and space of the universe they felt compelled to reduce it to just six "days."
Pretty sure this one is going to be summarily dismissed by Stockwell Day, now in charge of Canada's national security file. After all, he believes The Flintstones was a documentary.
Or my own father, who thinks we were trespassing on "God's property" when the moon landing happened.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
2006 Nobel Prize in Physics
This year's award goes to two Americans, John C. Mather (UC Berkeley) and George F. Smoot (NASA's Goodard Space Flight Centre) for their work on the COBE satellite, which gave further credence to the Big Bang theory of how the universe was created. The satellite is able to measure minute differences in temperature in space ... with some points of the universe just a few points above absolute zero. By doing that, they were able to measure out almost to the very boundaries of the universe itself. (Technical analysis of what was trying to be accomplished is here.)
I'll take that one for what it's worth. Many people remember the 1969 moon walk and, among other things, Buzz Aldrin saying "Magnificent Desolation." What they forget was was Aldrin said on the way back to earth. He quoted Psalms and the line about God creating everything in the universe then saying, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalms 8:4 -- emphasis mine). Since my teenage years, I have accepted that evolution and the creation story need not be incompatible; in fact, I can't help but wonder if the writers of the Scriptures were so awe inspired by the depth and space of the universe they felt compelled to reduce it to just six "days."
Pretty sure this one is going to be summarily dismissed by Stockwell Day, now in charge of Canada's national security file. After all, he believes The Flintstones was a documentary.
Or my own father, who thinks we were trespassing on "God's property" when the moon landing happened.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
I'll take that one for what it's worth. Many people remember the 1969 moon walk and, among other things, Buzz Aldrin saying "Magnificent Desolation." What they forget was was Aldrin said on the way back to earth. He quoted Psalms and the line about God creating everything in the universe then saying, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalms 8:4 -- emphasis mine). Since my teenage years, I have accepted that evolution and the creation story need not be incompatible; in fact, I can't help but wonder if the writers of the Scriptures were so awe inspired by the depth and space of the universe they felt compelled to reduce it to just six "days."
Pretty sure this one is going to be summarily dismissed by Stockwell Day, now in charge of Canada's national security file. After all, he believes The Flintstones was a documentary.
Or my own father, who thinks we were trespassing on "God's property" when the moon landing happened.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, October 2, 2006
Six Nations interests involved in offshore gambling
My local newspaper, the Hamilton Spectator, launched a major redesign today. It's the first one in just three years, and while it does look a bit more appealing and easier to read it's still mostly a broadsheet version of a tabloid. In one respect, though, I do appreciate its attempt to be even handed in talking about who's who and what's what in the ongoing struggle at Douglas Creek in Caledonia the last few months. But with the reformatting, the Spec decided to drop the other shoe today and I wonder if it'll have the unintended consequence of making the battle between Six Nations and Haldimand County even worse.
In the first of a four part series running this week, the paper reports the same guys who make cigarettes on reserve and sell them overseas (but can't sell them to non-natives in Canada because the tobacco growing monopoly won't let them) host several servers for off-shore Internet gambling sites. In essence, they've taken a page from their Mohawk brothers and sisters in Kahnawake, on Montréal's south shore, and set up their own independent "gaming commission." Only in this case, they didn't even ask the elected band council for permission; much to the annoyance of Chief David General, who wishes there was a referendum on reserve to resolve the issue. The operation has managed to divide reserve residents, some who wish it would all go away.
What makes it even more complicated, says the paper, is that Grand River Enterprises (GRE) was recently awarded contracts to supply and maintain software for six federal departments. This is the real irony of the situation, in my opinon: They don't consider themselves to be Canadians, although the Jay Treaty granted the Iroquois and some other tribes dual US-Canadian citizenship; yet they still feel confident enough to provide services to what they consider a foreign power. Meanwhile, Canadians are going online and playing these games which is technically not illegal (unlike for Americans) but the hosting of the games definitely is
The Québec government pretty much knows what goes on at Kahnawake but doesn't want to provoke another Oka standoff, although they and the legal casinos in Montréal, Lac Leamy and Charlevoix are losing tons of money to the "outlaw" operators. Given how bad things are already in Caledonia, I doubt Dalton McGuinty wants to get involved too much on this one either.
Why do I think the Spec is taking sides on this one? While it is scrupulous to say that not all Six Nations members support GRE, it also points out that everyone there is either employed by the group or knows someone who is. If the people off of the reserve in Caledonia, already struggling because of dropped business levels, suspect that whatever money is being spent left has come from ill-gotten gains, it could provoke violence and even bloodshed. And the main principle the Exempt Media operates on is good news is no news; if it bleeds it leads. Morbidly, I think they want a revolution to break out.
I have to read the rest of the series to see how it plays out; but for a "new" newspaper this isn't exactly the best way to start out. As for the law ... well, I think it's time to change it. Make online gaming legal, and tax it or collect a commission off the revenues just as we do for the tribal casinos in Orillia and Scugog Island. It took Canada 700 years to make craps legal, it shouldn't take that long to bring a dark area of the Internet back into the light.
UPDATE (5:19 PM EDT, 2119 GMT): Online gaming firms as well as Canadian software companies who provide services to them took a hit on the stock market today after the US Congress passed a law making it illegal for US credit card companies to accept charges for such bets. (It was a rider tacked onto a Coast Guard spending bill.) Do they really think they can stop the plague this way by forcing it even further underground? They've just given a huge boost to money changing services like Western Union and the mostly Arab-run hawalas, which will only exacerbate relations between Christians and Muslims even more. Come on guys, legalize it. You'll get more money taxing winnings than you'll spend prosecuting what are essentially clearing houses to begin with.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Comments:
James
26/12/2007 11:47:35 PM
I love gambling online and everyone should be given the opportunity to gamble over the
Internet. It doesn't matter where they live as long as they are at least 18 years old.
In the first of a four part series running this week, the paper reports the same guys who make cigarettes on reserve and sell them overseas (but can't sell them to non-natives in Canada because the tobacco growing monopoly won't let them) host several servers for off-shore Internet gambling sites. In essence, they've taken a page from their Mohawk brothers and sisters in Kahnawake, on Montréal's south shore, and set up their own independent "gaming commission." Only in this case, they didn't even ask the elected band council for permission; much to the annoyance of Chief David General, who wishes there was a referendum on reserve to resolve the issue. The operation has managed to divide reserve residents, some who wish it would all go away.
What makes it even more complicated, says the paper, is that Grand River Enterprises (GRE) was recently awarded contracts to supply and maintain software for six federal departments. This is the real irony of the situation, in my opinon: They don't consider themselves to be Canadians, although the Jay Treaty granted the Iroquois and some other tribes dual US-Canadian citizenship; yet they still feel confident enough to provide services to what they consider a foreign power. Meanwhile, Canadians are going online and playing these games which is technically not illegal (unlike for Americans) but the hosting of the games definitely is
The Québec government pretty much knows what goes on at Kahnawake but doesn't want to provoke another Oka standoff, although they and the legal casinos in Montréal, Lac Leamy and Charlevoix are losing tons of money to the "outlaw" operators. Given how bad things are already in Caledonia, I doubt Dalton McGuinty wants to get involved too much on this one either.
Why do I think the Spec is taking sides on this one? While it is scrupulous to say that not all Six Nations members support GRE, it also points out that everyone there is either employed by the group or knows someone who is. If the people off of the reserve in Caledonia, already struggling because of dropped business levels, suspect that whatever money is being spent left has come from ill-gotten gains, it could provoke violence and even bloodshed. And the main principle the Exempt Media operates on is good news is no news; if it bleeds it leads. Morbidly, I think they want a revolution to break out.
I have to read the rest of the series to see how it plays out; but for a "new" newspaper this isn't exactly the best way to start out. As for the law ... well, I think it's time to change it. Make online gaming legal, and tax it or collect a commission off the revenues just as we do for the tribal casinos in Orillia and Scugog Island. It took Canada 700 years to make craps legal, it shouldn't take that long to bring a dark area of the Internet back into the light.
UPDATE (5:19 PM EDT, 2119 GMT): Online gaming firms as well as Canadian software companies who provide services to them took a hit on the stock market today after the US Congress passed a law making it illegal for US credit card companies to accept charges for such bets. (It was a rider tacked onto a Coast Guard spending bill.) Do they really think they can stop the plague this way by forcing it even further underground? They've just given a huge boost to money changing services like Western Union and the mostly Arab-run hawalas, which will only exacerbate relations between Christians and Muslims even more. Come on guys, legalize it. You'll get more money taxing winnings than you'll spend prosecuting what are essentially clearing houses to begin with.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Comments:
James
26/12/2007 11:47:35 PM
I love gambling online and everyone should be given the opportunity to gamble over the
Internet. It doesn't matter where they live as long as they are at least 18 years old.
Liberal rank and file have their say -- what will the "bosses" do?
After three days of Liberal voting at meetings this past weekend in a process not unlike a caucus or closed primary in the States, some indicators of what may be to come have emerged. Some mail in ballots are still to be counted in Québec, but with 409 of 469 "meetings" reporting, Michael Ignatieff is the early front runner with 29.8% or 1252 delegates. Nowhere near the 35% many said was needed for an early victory but it's nonetheless a strong endorsement for an outsider who's been back in Canada less than a year; and a sign the party may be willing to turn to someone who doesn't have visible poltical or insider experience. (One only has to remember a similiar risk the Progressive Conservatives took in the 1980s when they went to another "wet behind the ears" guy, Brian Mulroney. He won the biggest landslide ever the following year. Maybe Iggy supporters are thinking the same thing.)
As I said yesterday, I ranked Ignatieff my second choice in delegate selection, in part because I'd like to see a quick end to the convention and not an all-night marathon. It would have been a lot easier to just rank the leadership candidates themselves 1, 2 ,3 etc and sort out a winner through preferential ballot. The man has potential, and as long as he can actually get his committed delegates to show up for the first ballot he'll be in a strong position. But it's not quite over yet.
In second place is Bob Rae (19.8% or 832 delegates). Trailing him are Gerard Kennedy and Stéphane Dion, each with 16.8% (and with 706 and 698 delegates, respectively). The other candidates each have less than 5% support.
As Ignatieff pointed out last night, there are still two months to go and he's quite right. What's yet to be seen is how the ex officio block of votes will go. These are the 800 or so "superdelegates" who are in automatically because they are party executives at the national or local level, or are sitting MPs or Senators. Many have committed themselves to Ignatieff, but it's not clear how many are actually going to stick by their word. Further, Iggy has now become the target of what is the perennial "anyone but ..." syndrome that plagues a lot of parties and leads to a lot of divisions.
That should not be the focus. If he wins, fine. If it's someone else, that's fine too. The party has to rally around its new leader and he or she in return must bring in the non-winners into the shadow Cabinet as quickly as possible so they can pounce on Stephen Harper the day after the convention wraps up. They must not make the same mistake as last time, when Sheila Copps was shut out of the Cabinet in a vindictive move by Paul Martin. The candidates must also get together and form common cause; and come out with a platform that's good to go as soon as possible and is not dribbled out until the last possible minute as You Know Who did last year. (And we still don't know the rest of his hidden agenda.)
There are precedents for this: The "Common Sense Revolution" of Mike Harris, as punitive as it was, was let out a year before he was elected in Ontario and it got people talking at the grassroots; so people knew where he stood when the Exempt Media called it a Lyn McLeod victory over Rae even before the election started. When all McLeod could do was come up with a carbon copy of the Red Book and propose a five percent tax cut against Harris' thirty, she was toast -- Harris had set the agenda already.
I'm certainly not suggesting something so radical, although in previous posts I have said our entire tax regime needs to be overhauled. But when Jean Chrétien came out with the original Red Book, it got people talking; and it put Kim Campbell on the defensive. The Liberals must do the same and now, before Harper and Jack Layton get more traction. They need to do it before the election is even called.
The membership has spoken. It's up to the delegates to do their job and for the eventual winner to finish the marathon and win the race.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
As I said yesterday, I ranked Ignatieff my second choice in delegate selection, in part because I'd like to see a quick end to the convention and not an all-night marathon. It would have been a lot easier to just rank the leadership candidates themselves 1, 2 ,3 etc and sort out a winner through preferential ballot. The man has potential, and as long as he can actually get his committed delegates to show up for the first ballot he'll be in a strong position. But it's not quite over yet.
In second place is Bob Rae (19.8% or 832 delegates). Trailing him are Gerard Kennedy and Stéphane Dion, each with 16.8% (and with 706 and 698 delegates, respectively). The other candidates each have less than 5% support.
As Ignatieff pointed out last night, there are still two months to go and he's quite right. What's yet to be seen is how the ex officio block of votes will go. These are the 800 or so "superdelegates" who are in automatically because they are party executives at the national or local level, or are sitting MPs or Senators. Many have committed themselves to Ignatieff, but it's not clear how many are actually going to stick by their word. Further, Iggy has now become the target of what is the perennial "anyone but ..." syndrome that plagues a lot of parties and leads to a lot of divisions.
That should not be the focus. If he wins, fine. If it's someone else, that's fine too. The party has to rally around its new leader and he or she in return must bring in the non-winners into the shadow Cabinet as quickly as possible so they can pounce on Stephen Harper the day after the convention wraps up. They must not make the same mistake as last time, when Sheila Copps was shut out of the Cabinet in a vindictive move by Paul Martin. The candidates must also get together and form common cause; and come out with a platform that's good to go as soon as possible and is not dribbled out until the last possible minute as You Know Who did last year. (And we still don't know the rest of his hidden agenda.)
There are precedents for this: The "Common Sense Revolution" of Mike Harris, as punitive as it was, was let out a year before he was elected in Ontario and it got people talking at the grassroots; so people knew where he stood when the Exempt Media called it a Lyn McLeod victory over Rae even before the election started. When all McLeod could do was come up with a carbon copy of the Red Book and propose a five percent tax cut against Harris' thirty, she was toast -- Harris had set the agenda already.
I'm certainly not suggesting something so radical, although in previous posts I have said our entire tax regime needs to be overhauled. But when Jean Chrétien came out with the original Red Book, it got people talking; and it put Kim Campbell on the defensive. The Liberals must do the same and now, before Harper and Jack Layton get more traction. They need to do it before the election is even called.
The membership has spoken. It's up to the delegates to do their job and for the eventual winner to finish the marathon and win the race.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
2006 Nobel Prize for Medicine
Once again, it's Nobel Prize season; and like I did last year, I'm going to offer my comments on the winners and their discoveries and work.
Andrew Z Fire (Stanford) and Craig C Mello (U Mass) split this year's medicine prize, for their 1998 discovery about the flow of DNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm and what happens when "sense and anti-sense" RNA meet up. Quite literally, they annihilate each other. It's somewhat similiar to the analogy between matter and anti-matter, or for that matter (no pun intended) time and anti-time. Technical details can be found here.
Bottom line: It was a major breakthrough in the fight against rapidly spreading viruses and diseases, especially in lower organisms. The long term implications are that it could help to lead to cures for genetic diseases if the genes that cause them can be tricked in a similar way to kill itself.
My thoughts about this one? Wouldn't it be great if they could use that and other breakthroughts to cure breast cancer, Parkinson's Disease, muscular dystrophy, even AIDS -- all diseases the "will of God," according to Christian "conservatives"? Get those diseases to commit suicide too? Faith and science have never been incompatable, it's some elements of religion that have made them so. Illness is not the will of God, no matter what disease it is; and the sooner we can put the money grubbing "faith healers" out of business and make people whole through genuine faith both in themselves and the positive possibilities in science the better.
Great pick, in my opinion. Hope this sets a theme the Institute intends to set for the next two weeks -- like last year, one can hope there is actually a practical purpose in the selections, unlike some years when some choices are so hard to explain even a rocket scientist can't figure it out.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Andrew Z Fire (Stanford) and Craig C Mello (U Mass) split this year's medicine prize, for their 1998 discovery about the flow of DNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm and what happens when "sense and anti-sense" RNA meet up. Quite literally, they annihilate each other. It's somewhat similiar to the analogy between matter and anti-matter, or for that matter (no pun intended) time and anti-time. Technical details can be found here.
Bottom line: It was a major breakthrough in the fight against rapidly spreading viruses and diseases, especially in lower organisms. The long term implications are that it could help to lead to cures for genetic diseases if the genes that cause them can be tricked in a similar way to kill itself.
My thoughts about this one? Wouldn't it be great if they could use that and other breakthroughts to cure breast cancer, Parkinson's Disease, muscular dystrophy, even AIDS -- all diseases the "will of God," according to Christian "conservatives"? Get those diseases to commit suicide too? Faith and science have never been incompatable, it's some elements of religion that have made them so. Illness is not the will of God, no matter what disease it is; and the sooner we can put the money grubbing "faith healers" out of business and make people whole through genuine faith both in themselves and the positive possibilities in science the better.
Great pick, in my opinion. Hope this sets a theme the Institute intends to set for the next two weeks -- like last year, one can hope there is actually a practical purpose in the selections, unlike some years when some choices are so hard to explain even a rocket scientist can't figure it out.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, October 1, 2006
My second, third and fourth choices
The delegate selection for the Liberal Party takes place in Hamilton Mountain today. Watching the results roll out the country so far, it's interesting to see Michael Ignatieff out in a firm if not decisive lead. I am surprised to see Bob Rae trailing as much as he is ... but I think that has a lot to do with lingering anger about his time as the NDP Premier of Ontario and his decision to spend his way out of the recession instead of belt-tightening like most of the other provinces and territories did, even the ones under socialist administration (which at the time included British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Yukon).
In a normal process, I'd be tempted to vote for a straight delegate line for one candidate. Given the Liberals need to rebuild from the ground up so much, the second or third ballots will be crucial ... so, as I noted in a previous entry I'm going to allocate my votes based on my second, third and fourth choices. Gerard Kennedy (five delegate votes) is my first choice, as a matter of principle. However, recognizing he may not win outright, here's how I'm going to line up today.
My second choice (four votes) is Michael Ignatieff. As recently as a week ago, I didn't think a Harvard professor was serious enough a candidate to be Liberal leader. But his hawkish tendencies play well with pro-military families, and his broad view of a Liberal Party needing to be a big tent can't be ignored. Besides, I'm the kind of person who prefers a guy with brains and no heart rather than a guy with heart and no brains (I think you know who I'm talking about) but Ignatieff has brains and a heart, even if his sensitive side is often times suppressed or hard to come out. And quite honestly, he'd be a more suitable resident at 24 Sussex Drive than who's in there right now.
Third choice (three votes) is Ken Dryden. He has real world business experience which is essential to getting stuff done in politics. He's also a very compassionate person. I don't think he'll win this thing, but he's going to be a player when the Liberals come back to power and a strong base will bode well for any Cabinet post awaiting him. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he gets the Finance post.
That leaves my fourth pick. Until last night, I was going to give the remaining two slots on my ballot to Rae. But I just can't see this guy winning -- in fact some MPs have said they won't run again should be win the leadership. That's food for thought. A leader should unite the factions of a party, not divide them. Forcing people out doesn't bode well for the Liberals ... and where would they go? Some would go to the Conservatives, the rest to the NDP. It's hard to imagine the party of Alexander Mackenzie, Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King vanishing. But who would have thought the same would happen to the Progressive Conservatives -- the party of John A Macdonald, Robert Borden and Brian Mulroney?
So I'm going to give them to Martha Hall Findley. Not that I know too much about her -- still. But the fact remains people remember the Bob Rae who ran Ontario, not who brought down Joe Clark in 1979. I can see Rae in a future Cabinet post, but he'd have to win in his seat first and I think people in Weston have moved on. Prime Minister? Sorry ... I just can't. Findley would be a much better cheerleader for the party, in my opinion -- and on the outside chance she pulls the inside straight and wins an upset for the leadership, Harper would still lose in a general election against her.
As for exactly which delegates get my vote -- well, some other Liberal bloggers have said they don't even recognize most names on the ballot and I suspect that'll be the case when I show up at the banquet hall. Eenie meenie miney moe, I guess.
UPDATE (12:27 PM EDT, 1627 GMT): I was a bit shocked when I discovered Martha didn't even have any delegates listed for Hamilton Mountain. So my last two votes were split between Scott Bryson and Stéphane Dion.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
In a normal process, I'd be tempted to vote for a straight delegate line for one candidate. Given the Liberals need to rebuild from the ground up so much, the second or third ballots will be crucial ... so, as I noted in a previous entry I'm going to allocate my votes based on my second, third and fourth choices. Gerard Kennedy (five delegate votes) is my first choice, as a matter of principle. However, recognizing he may not win outright, here's how I'm going to line up today.
My second choice (four votes) is Michael Ignatieff. As recently as a week ago, I didn't think a Harvard professor was serious enough a candidate to be Liberal leader. But his hawkish tendencies play well with pro-military families, and his broad view of a Liberal Party needing to be a big tent can't be ignored. Besides, I'm the kind of person who prefers a guy with brains and no heart rather than a guy with heart and no brains (I think you know who I'm talking about) but Ignatieff has brains and a heart, even if his sensitive side is often times suppressed or hard to come out. And quite honestly, he'd be a more suitable resident at 24 Sussex Drive than who's in there right now.
Third choice (three votes) is Ken Dryden. He has real world business experience which is essential to getting stuff done in politics. He's also a very compassionate person. I don't think he'll win this thing, but he's going to be a player when the Liberals come back to power and a strong base will bode well for any Cabinet post awaiting him. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he gets the Finance post.
That leaves my fourth pick. Until last night, I was going to give the remaining two slots on my ballot to Rae. But I just can't see this guy winning -- in fact some MPs have said they won't run again should be win the leadership. That's food for thought. A leader should unite the factions of a party, not divide them. Forcing people out doesn't bode well for the Liberals ... and where would they go? Some would go to the Conservatives, the rest to the NDP. It's hard to imagine the party of Alexander Mackenzie, Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King vanishing. But who would have thought the same would happen to the Progressive Conservatives -- the party of John A Macdonald, Robert Borden and Brian Mulroney?
So I'm going to give them to Martha Hall Findley. Not that I know too much about her -- still. But the fact remains people remember the Bob Rae who ran Ontario, not who brought down Joe Clark in 1979. I can see Rae in a future Cabinet post, but he'd have to win in his seat first and I think people in Weston have moved on. Prime Minister? Sorry ... I just can't. Findley would be a much better cheerleader for the party, in my opinion -- and on the outside chance she pulls the inside straight and wins an upset for the leadership, Harper would still lose in a general election against her.
As for exactly which delegates get my vote -- well, some other Liberal bloggers have said they don't even recognize most names on the ballot and I suspect that'll be the case when I show up at the banquet hall. Eenie meenie miney moe, I guess.
UPDATE (12:27 PM EDT, 1627 GMT): I was a bit shocked when I discovered Martha didn't even have any delegates listed for Hamilton Mountain. So my last two votes were split between Scott Bryson and Stéphane Dion.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)