From 14.5 back

And suddenly they are the presumptive World series favourite in Vegas.

I love this game (WAIT - that is the NBA, not MLB)

I will predict two things which are likely at odds-

1) If Arod goes for O for October he will be a Cub or an Angel by November 1st

2) If the Yankees win the world series, Arod will enter the Hall of Fame as a Yankee.

For those of you keeping score- the Yanks have at least four guaranteed Cooperstown entries (Rivera, Clemens, Jeter, Arod) and suddenly have six starters in a rotation.

For those of you stuck in Fenway - the Yanks have dominated the Sox in the season series.

For those of you that think the Yanks have bought their team- lets have a quick look at their roster - Jeter, Posada, Matsui, Rivera, Cano, Cabrerra, Chamberlain, Duncan have never played for another team. Many of the remaining players have been there for more than two years.

And their best player? The yanks aren't even paying his salary- those idiots in Texas are. Until November, anyway.

I love October.

How the APP stole Climate Change from Cindy Lou Who

It has gotten to the point where the Prime Minister just likes to join organizations that end with "P P" - of course, PP is our first emission when we are babies.

Far be it from me to say that the Prime Minister is doing something right, but the new coalition of the willing on climate change is, at least in part, a step in the right direction. I am not thrilled at the prospect of not having actual targets or a recourse mechanism for China and India - but having these particular countries at the table is an important first step.

Also- and let's get his over and done with - Kyoto, as the primary international lever for the reduction of anthropogenic gases, is dead. My views on the accord notwithstanding, as a matter of fact - the accord was a nothing more than a framework convention that would create a mechanism for monitoring and encouraging GHG abatement. In many ways, it has accomplished that goal, or at least gone a long way to pushing the conversation to the most important elements of the next ten years in battling climatic change: Energy Efficiency, Energy Sustainability and (you guessed it) World Economic and Population Growth. It isn't about cutting emissions - it should be about changing them.

Bluntly- it was a fools errand to suggest that a country whose economy grew by 25% since 1990 and whose population grew by 15% since 1990 would be in any position to reduce its emissions at all. People need power, the generation of which remains the number one source of emissions (at least in Canada.) Stop using your air conditioner, and we would go a long way to meeting our goals- but I digress.

In a post Kyoto debate, it would seem that many of our leaders have learned the virtues of conservation and intensity. But that isn't the end of it - there is a win/win for the first world that would create economic growth - and it was in Kyoto - and unfortunately is absent from the discourse on the APP.

The Clean Development Mechanism - CDM - wasn't perfect. It provided credit to countries that provided "clean technology" to developing countries. Instead of "credit" why don't we just provide MONEY. In a world shaped by Roddenberry, we can learn from past mistakes and provide technology to those who have not yet developed it themselves. The Prime Directive for Climate Change has to be solving a global problem - notwithstanding the technological ramifications for providing technology to those who can't develop it on their own.

And that is where the money comes in. It is somewhat ironic that Nuclear comes up now - given that India all but stole AECL's technology and the Chinese converted it into their mechanism for the development of its military Nuclear technology. Notwithstanding those facts, AECL's primary business model remains - sell, build, repair, repeat. In the 1993-2007 when they sold exactly zero reactors, they made a shit load of money servicing (known as refurbishing) the ones they had previously sold, and the ones in India.

The position isn't limited to Nuclear. The Norwegians are MILES ahead of Canada on Tidal, Wind, Biomass (to give three examples) but haven't had the access to export it. Kyoto was supposed to provide that through the CDM.

The APP is a collaborative effort to say the least - lets export technology to the partners who want it, and get going. China is opening a new coal fired plant every third day, and that is not helping anyone. They want to catch up - let's catch them up clean.

Super-GREAT

The people who know me know that I take movies very seriously.

Deep breath.

I just saw "Superbad"

My face actually hurts I was laughing so hard.

After careful consideration, it is without a doubt the funniest thing I have ever seen.

I fell out of my chair twice while watching it.

I am moving to Hawaii.

Wow.

I am actually crying it was so funny.

The new ranking is

1) Superbad


Insert huge gap.


2) Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
3) Old School


Insert huge gap.


4) There is something about Mary
5) Office Space
6) Brazil
7) Bad(der) Santa
8) Star Trek V
9) Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
10) Wedding Crashers

And leaving the list of Best Comedies is - La Cage aux Folles (which is a great movie, but not as funny as that which is above. Wink.)

Wow. I am going to have a smoke now that was so funny. Wow.

"You scratch my back, I will scratch yours."

"Sure, except my back is on my cawk."

Wow.

What the By-elections really mean

I don't have a lot of time- I will come back to this issue on the weekend- I promise.

The bottom line is that this election isn't nearly as bad for Stephane Dion as it was for Gilles Duceppe and the sovereignty movement in Quebec. Dion is in trouble too, but for very different reasons - with him, it is personal, not political.

As a result, expect there to be a Federal Election SOONER rather than later. Why sooner? Simple game theory.

The BQ knows that they are losing relevance. The longer they hold out, the more likely they are to be "Mulroneyed" out of relevance in Quebec. If there was an election today (or the second week of November) the BQ could probably still win 25-30 seats on name recognition, strong candidates, key issues and basic political organization. This would allow them to survive for four years of a razor thin Conservative Majority government.

They saw what happened to Boisclair (and blamed him) and they can see the writing on the wall. If Dumont brings down Charest in the next 12 months (very likely) the last thing the separatists want is to have the PQ trounced again before the BQ has the chance to rebuild and solidify the base.

The BQ are incredibly important to the continued relevance of the sovereignty movement for THREE reasons:

1) Money Money Money Money (those Elections Canada checks are worth twice their weight in gold);

2) There presence in Ottawa remains a very good training ground for leaders and PQ staffers (paid for by you and me); and

3) They talk about the issue - say what you want, but they have actually been a credible and effective opposition party. Their economics and econometrics (yes, that is right) aside, on most issues as it relates to Quebec's standing in the federation, their position is bang on.

The other thing is that a NATIONAL campaign is going to force the Conservatives to spread out their comparatively vast resources. Same for the still indebted Liberals. The BQ gets disproportionate value for their relatively small investment. They ignore the island, which they should, and it is literally pennies a glass to win their seats. Not to mention the fact that when they are fighting to keep their votes from a Kyoto hating, Kandahar invading Prime Minister, it is way easier than when they are fighting against one extremely popular local mayor.

And Gilles Duceppe is still, by a country mile, the best organizer in Quebec. Despite his flip flop, he remains personally popular. He will win a National campaign - or at least temporarily capture another plurality. Which is all they have to do to stay alive for four more years.

Elections Cover Up and Thinly Veiled Criticism

If Prime Minister Harper doesn't like what the Chief Electoral Officer says - he only has himself to blame. It is called Due Diligence - look into it. This was an issue when the CEO was being vetted for the position - maybe you should have ASKED him.

Dr. Hedy Fry (L - Yahoo!) is concerned that now all the Klansman in BC will not have to take off their hoods to vote.

Officer of Parliament-ial Activism. I-Love-It. I am not going to pretend that the idiocy that this has engendered has not benefited me personally. There are few experts on electoral law in Canada.

Here is what I *think* happened. Exactly NO one has actually complained about having to remove their veil. A Chief Electoral Officer, upset over the problems with "Reasonable Accommodation" in the most recent Quebec election decided he would use his considerable power (more below) as an Officer of Parliament to show that Canada, Quebec and small town French guys aren't crackers. Nice intention, but we all know what road is paved with good intentions.

That said - I agree 100% with the Chief Electoral Officer's decision and the rationale behind it. The point isn't that people aren't willing to remove their veil - the point is that someone may decide not to even attend at the polls because they believe that they may encounter some form of persecution- whether it is that they forced to remove their veil or that there will be any kind of annoyance because of their religion. The tripe we have seen from all four political parties is certainly evidence of that concern.

This statement was an olive branch to a community that is historically disenfranchised in Canada- and the CEO wants to ensure that no person feels that the process will exclude them or provide ANY disincentive to exercising their franchise.

Turning to Canberra, the Prime Minister takes a break from telling the descendants of criminals that they have Parliamentary reform correct to point out how absurd the decision of the CEO is. Except he does it in a way that doesn't make it look like he is reasonably accommodating - he does it in a way that appeals to his base - and rears the problem that the Tories are out of touch with minorities.

And he threatens to amend the Act. For the record, despite the idiocy of the BQ on this issue, the CEO is not flouting the will of Parliament. There is no provision that requires someone to show their face- in fact, the man/woman with no face at all could vote in the election as long as he/she has I.D. that says they are on the list or they are willing to swear and oath to that effect.

I know there are a lot of Tories who read this blog- so pay attention and don't fuck this up.

The Chief Electoral Officer is an Officer of Parliament who has far more influence than any Activist Judge will ever have. Any amendments to the Act made cannot single out any minority for fear of charter challenge, but will have to ensure internal legislative consistency. The most important section to amend is Section 17. This is the "I can do whatever I want" section of the act - it allows the CEO to suspend parts of the Act for "emergency or unusual" circumstances- neither of which are defined in the Act. It probably needs some refined parameters anyway.

That having been said - even if the Chief Electoral Officer issues an edict about veiled voters - it doesn't necessarily make the problem go away.

The Act provides all kinds of administrative discretion to Deputy Returning Officers to establish identity. For example -

143(4) If the deputy returning officer is satisfied that an elector’s identity and residence have been proven in accordance with subsection (2) or (3), the elector’s name shall be crossed off the list and, subject to section 144, the elector shall be immediately allowed to vote

There is no section that says "The DRO must listen to the CEO" - the DRO is a creature of statute and is empowered by the statute directly. They don't have to believe a woman who refuses to lift her veil. Period. Don't worry- some BQ political hack who, by virtue of the same part of the act, is entitled to challenge any elector who refuses to unveil or provide proof of identity, will demand it. I can't wait for my phone to ring on that one.

Except - the only thing they (the candidate rep by way of the DRO) can do is make sure that the elector takes an oath confirming their identity pursuant to section 144. Violating that provision can carry a prison sentence.

So where does that leave us? Well, we have had a very ill-informed and culturally insensitive (bordering on imperialist) discussion on what doesn't constitute proving identity in Canada. When the principles of democracy include tolerance and understanding - why does the level of debate have to go down to this level? Are any elected officials genuinely concerned that there are going to be 10,000 people dressed as ghosts show up at the polls to vote? If they are, they are idiots because that would create a situation where people attempting to commit electoral fraud are forced to take the oath - fraudulently doing so carries a SERIOUS penalty. Why don't we focus on fixing problems that actually exist and see the statement by the CEO as what it is - enfranchising.

The Hunt for Red January

So, Fred Thompson is finally officially a candidate. Ya. Hoo.

On Foreign Policy "Listen son, Russians don't take a dump without having a plan."

Seriously - he is a small "C" "conservative" who is far more of a Libertarian than he is a Republican. His painfully long campaign launch video goes a long way to proving that.

But, of the republican candidates, the hound-dog is the closest thing to Reagan they have - consider

• Rudy (R - NY, which is pretty much the same as D - California) is a divorced baby killing social liberal;
• Mitt (R- Utah, D- Michigan, I - MA) is a born again Republican who governed like a blue-stater;
• McCain (R - Arizona by way of Hanoi) is the walking dead on all of his issues and probably isn't too far off;
• Mike Huckabee (likely running mate? HA - Tennessee/Arkansas would NEVER work) thinks that the Canadian Legislature is an igloo;
• Brownback (R - Scopes) is pretty much a cave dweller;
• And the only serious Republican non-entrant left, Newt (R -The Gingrinch who stole Liberty) is already out of money and seriously over-estimated his impact from 1994-2000.

Thompson will do THREE things that no other candidate can do -

1) He will get folksy - everyone expected Huckabee to fill this void, but he hasn't. Thompson CAN be very plainspoken which resonates exceptionally well with primary voters. Without exception, the folksiest candidate has won every presidential election (except possibly 1972). And yes, Bush I (R- 4 more years) was folksier than the last Mass Governor (D- I am a Greek-American) to run.

2) He will push the lesser than candidates out of the race. Their fundraising will dry up once they realize that Thompson will actually talk about their issues.

3) He just won't pander. He will (try to) convince and galvanize.

Thompson will also refuse to do two things: attack anyone other than democrats and stand down on the war on terror. This is why his success is hinged, for the most part, to the democratic nominee. If it isn't Clinton, a lot of his positive attributes are lost.

The Song Never Sounded Sweeter

The Greatest Voice of this Century


You have brought me much joy, and have been a muse for many.

May the voices that serenade your entry into Heaven sound as sweet as yours.

Militant Feminism or a Girl with a Problem?

I apologize for being away for so long. It is almost fall, and I just need to take some time off.

At a cottage party this weekend - which was a bizarre mix of "The Big Chill" and "Le Déclin de l'empire américain" - we sat around a fire and stared into it without saying all that much.

If only to break the silence, I began "I have a feminist question..."

And before I could even get it out - four different women simultaneously chimed in about how unacceptable it was to breast feed at the dinner table. The setting isn't all that more complicated: a woman, who has a baby, finished her dinner and whipped it out to feed her kid. I wouldn't have even noticed if it wasn't for my D-dar. I just shrugged it off and smiled knowing that there would be that much more wine for me as she couldn't have any.

We all love her, and personally, I don't give a shit because if I eat at the table, why shouldn't the baby - but not everyone at the cottage knew her as well as I did.

Frankly, I don't have really strong feelings on the matter. Some times, it just can't wait. Other times, however, when there are lots of other available options for privacy, I have to wonder what is the point of militancy for the point of being militant? She is militant about it - good for her. In a private setting, she doesn't have anything to prove, does she?

If the "sexualization" of the female breast is "problem" that can only be combated by taking it back, so to speak, then - by all means - take it back. If, the breast has multiple purposes, then maybe it should be shrouded moderately. In either case, at least part of it is a "bodily function" and I get up to go to the bathroom. And, if it is the latter, would the same militancy on the other side of the empowerment equation require anyone who wanted a snack the right to get busy in public, right? Decency and manners are sometimes easily confused.

After careful consideration my view is "breast feeding if necessary, but have a look around first." If you can find a place that is even moderately private, why not use it? Is there value in creating a scene if you can avoid it?

I think some A-hole who evicts a woman who has a youngling hanging off of her is just asking for a "get out of heaven free" card. A baby who is crying, looking for a snack from a mother who is out of options should be able to be fed without being harassed. Please, have a seat and feed the little trooper - but invest in a privacy blanket. Is that too much to ask? I don't have to celebrate the joys of motherhood with you, do I?

Remember- I am way more open minded than your average bear- why provoke confrontation? To prove you can do it? Doesn't that seem awfully silly?