Stupid Liberals, Scandals are for the NDP

The Liberal Party Estoppo (I just made this word up) is steadfast in its opinion that the current "in and out" scandal is the issue with which they will win the next election. Notwithstanding my previous position (read it here), let's lay this out so that it is perfectly clear:

The Conservatives have supposedly spent their money illegally in order to secure their election.

The Liberals illegally spent YOUR money to secure re-election.

Do you really want "government ethics" to be what you hang your hat on considering how the last election played out? Do you honestly think that Joe Citizen cares about violating the spending limit by less than 10% of the allowable total? Do you honestly think that Joe Citizen understands that?

Joe Citizen understands envelopes of cash being handed out to advertising firms.

Rather than getting into a pot/kettle situation when there are other kitchen utensils who can call you both black having never been in government, why don't we focus on the most pressing issue:

Its the ECONOMY stupid.

See, she is from BC...or some other part of Western Canada

Picture your ordinary Terminal B bar in Boston. Picture two old friends - one who now lives in Boston (R - Back Bay Cat Lady) and the other who is comfortably secure at home in Ottawa (L - Middle of the Road) who have spent the weekend together watching sports and shooting the shit. Picture game seven of the Bruins/Habs playoff series - in a bar in Boston, where almost everyone in the bar is from Canada.

I noticed the thin man when he sat down next to my friend and I. He looked kind of familiar, but only in that "Ottawa is the smallest town in the world" kind of way. Airport Bar, Air Canada terminal - he probably lives in my building...As my friend and I talked about people neither of us talked to anymore, but remembered fondly from one point in time. Who is working for what cabinet minister where now? Whose husband is doing her job while running his own lobby firm? Who still hasn't graduated? Who finally stopped dating her cousin? Who is trying to Elect Ron Paul?

You have all had this conversation. He watched somewhat quizzically, because - to be fair- he had no choice. We are pretty loud, and the television was on mute. A few times, one of us would say something just to goad the other - offensive perhaps, but funny nevertheless, and you could see him turn and start to say something, only to stop himself, and return to his blackberry and Beer/sprite combo.

As the game was about to begin - being the true patriot that I am- I wondered aloud if they could get the CBC. I missed Ron & Don, and really wanted to hear what Mr. Cherry had to say about the this particular game knowing just how OPEN MINDED HE IS!* I asked my friend if she could even get the CBC on her ridiculous 476 channel cable package. Without wondering why I was asking, she just exploded:

"I Hate the CBC!" implying, of course, that even if she could get it, she wouldn't.

Before I could even ask about Ron and Don - the thin man interrupted and said "what a terrible thing to say! How can you hate the CBC?" He said it in an earnest, believable tone - implying that he cared about our god-beloved national broadcaster (*no bias in my reporting of the facts, ma'am). Before she could answer, he slammed down his hat which proudly and prominently carried the corporation's logo.

My friend is no coward- and she rose to the challenge like the Trudeau hating, human rights lamenting, Alberta gets screwed every time the federal government does anything, unless it is saving the mad cow farmers, fire breathing emigrant that she is. She lamented the central bias of the broadcaster. It's liberal bias of course (she is a fire breathing reformer turned Red State republican in the bluest city in the East, after all)- and the fact that the state shouldn't be running the sitcoms of the nation - blah blah blah.

Our views are coloured only by being right. Even when we aren't.

Earlier in the conversation, before the intervention, I distinctly remember her lambasting the CBC's coverage of the 2006 Canadian Election - knowing that most of it focused on Ontario and Quebec. Far be it for me to editorialize, but that was WHERE THE STORY WAS! No one was shocked that the Tories won all of the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta ridings. I don't call that central bias- I call that reporting the "news." Tories win, even in Quebec! the headline read. But she complained, oh yes she did, wanting more coverage of Art Hanger carrying his riding with 92% of the vote. I rolled my eyes and watched the game.

Unfazed, our skinny man absorbed the criticism, and politely said that the corporation provided a valuable service - with which I whole-heartily agreed. God bless the CBC, is my motto. Moderately changing the subject matter - I asked him if he worked for the corporation, sensing that he probably did.

"I do. I am its President and CEO," he said with a stoic look that I couldn't possibly ever emulate because by the time he said "e" in CEO I was raucously laughing to the point that my belly actually hurt. My friend, however, turned a very pale shade of white - which for her is remarkable because I wasn't sure she could have gotten much paler.

Finally calming down, we continued to engage in idle chit chat about the profitability of the broadcaster in the event that Montreal lost tonight's game. His candid view on its future advertising revenues if the Habs (and the flames) lost was very refreshing to hear from the president of a Crown Corporation. I guess revenue matters after all. Moreover, he regailed us with interesting ways to get the CBC while abroad. Tax payers, and all that, right?

Every two or three minutes I would have that "pee in your pants" giggle remembering her face and his flawless delivery. This man should be ON TV, not running it.

On his way out of the bar, he turned back to her and hoped her views change. Knowing her, they won't because she will never take the time to ever watch the CBC again. Until the next election when the story will STILL be about Ontario and Quebec.

*the irony of what way he is biased isn't lost on anyone, I hope.

You are either In or you are Out - Right Now

And, if I was Matt Damon, I would take the ticket and say "in." What are we going to steal?

This is the perfect issue to illustrate how my liberalism and libertarianism are at odds. I don't know if the Conservatives violated the Elections Act or not - that is an evidentiary matter and, according to them, based on a legal interpretation of the campaign spending provisions of the Act. As one of Canada's few experts on the matter, I sluff it off and say "maybe they did, I don't know what their legal position is because I haven't read their claim, but either way - its a stupid provision that they are supposedly violating. I think dumb laws should be ignored. Lots of them are."

The Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of Association and the ability for ME to do with my property as I choose should always trump spending limits which are randomly precise in how they are set. They are regionally inconsistent and don't account for such rudimentary things like "market value" of advertising dollars.

Spending limits don't expand debate by making the space more affordable - in fact, spending limits make advertising time in major media MORE expensive at the bottom end as the retailers of that space realize that their product has a limited market to those with the most money. Canada is also far from the spending circus of the US Presidential system - yet we are far more tightly regulated in this regard. Thank you Jean Chretien (L - I imposed "legal" campaign financing limits, but not "illegal" ones) Somewhat ironically, Uncle Steve (C - I'm surprised Elections Canada even has funding at his point) made it harder despite being the namesake of the leading case hoping to expand those freedoms.

While the first tenants of Buckley v. Valeo may continue be true (money equals speech), in my opinion, it doesn't follow that limiting speech allows for more effective participation in the process.

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with me. Those Jerks. They don't even give a passing glance to these specific freedoms when determining the validity of spending limits and political financing - the look to section three and "effectively participating in the process."

And there is the rub - should the test for "effectively participating in the process" rest with the individuals who are trying to effectively participate in the process? What is good for Mr. Figueroa (Communist Party of Canada) and Mr. De Jong (Leader, Ontario Greens) who both argued for a broader definition of "Party" status under their respective acts in order to secure additional funding should also be good for whatever Tory, Liberal, Dipper or Bloqhead wants to spend more money. Their effective participation is based on what they think they need to do in order to effectively participate in the process. Similarly, their prospective voters are the beneficiaries of this Charter intervention - more information can only increase a voter's ability to effectively participate in the process. The Supremes convincingly made that point in Figueroa, and then completely ignored it when writing Harper. Those Jerks.

So, where does that leave us? Candidates, like Lobbyists, are more tightly regulated than guns. Parties, like Candidates, spend money to make their campaigns more attractive to voters. Some Candidates have problems securing funding. They should be able to spend their own limit in their riding notwithstanding the source of those funds. Because, if they aren't allowed to spend the legal limit- their prospective constituents are not, to use the court's words, able to as effectively participate in the process.

Solution - ban spending limits.

More likely solution - ensure local candidates have the authority to make expenditures that THEY want to make. In our democracy, it is a fools errand to suggest that local spending to put up posters of a national leader is somehow "local." Yet it would be fine under the Commissioners' narrow view.

My Second Favourite Hole at Augusta

God- I wish I was there RIGHT NOW!

Winter is officially over when...

The world's best golfers can't hit a 9 iron onto this green.

Swoooooon.

And this year I have a REEEEdiculous television to watch the Masters' on.

Boycotts, China and why the Olympics are aptly named

Because, by the time the games start, China will be limping.

Let me state for the record:

1) I don't care about the Olympics - except for Men's Basketball, Men's Hockey and Men's Curling. Most Olympic sports are the shit we do during gym when we aren't allowed to play soccer, dodgeball or other fun games. If you wanted to encourage me to watch, make it like the Olympics of old - have them engage in gladiatorial combat.

2) Olympic Boycotts often lead to the demise of Fast Food chain profitability because they load up their "win a burger when America wins gold" in sports where the soviet bloc dominates;

3) The fact that China is allowed to host any international event baffles the mind. So, will Taiwan be able to compete? It doesn't look like it or at least, China is using its position over the rest of the world.

Ok. Apparently the IOC wants to cancel the torch relay through parts of Europe and (presumably) Tibet. Good Luck with the latter part. When the Red Guard controls the border, you can't really tell them what they can/'t do inside their borders. Frankly, anyone in China who is upset because people are crashing their international relay to push a political agenda should go sit out in the cold, with but a torch to warm them.

China is a gigantic monolith of a consuming public. They make things poorly, dangerously, in an unsustainable way, in an energy inefficient way, they generate that electricity inefficiently, and they do questionable (if not EVIL) things to their people. Especially those who aren't friends with Mao. If the military-industrial complex is responsible for creating Climate Change, China will be responsible for ending it, or, the final change to the Climate. I could go on, but I don't have to - China is tolerated because they spend a lot of money.

We don't need China's cheap stuff. We can make our own expensive stuff.

China continues to desperately need our Energy, wood, water, food, and all other natural resources. China is a consumer. At some point in history, we need to look at the crap in the dollar store and say "I don't need this at all, let alone pay marginally less for it." While it is true that we compete both domestically and internationally with China (and others) to sell what they manufacture - at some point the human race is going to realize that price point is not the only consideration. When it happens, let me know.

In the mean time, I think it is time to stop placating China. They are oppressive and brutal in achieving their imperial goals. That was deliberate word choice. While they can feel free to participate in the games, hosting it sends the absolute wrong message - and boycotting it will accomplish less.

Until it does. Everyone forgets that it was the IOC that was the first to tell South Africa that they were being jerks. Russia didn't come to Los Angeles, and we didn't go to Moscow. Big deal. A generation of atheletes might not get their chance to throw their spear. while boycotts do nothing, maybe the IOC should ban Chinese atheletes from competing.

That would get someone's attention.

What the F$%K is wrong with the NBA?

Nothing - but it has far more in common with the script of a Soap opera than it does to a league which hasn't seen a season like this one in a long time.

In the West, it is not only possible - but probable, that a team will finish with a .600 record and NOT make the playoffs. While in the East, the likelihood of making the playoffs are .450 are very strong.

In the East - we have seen a single transaction irrevocably shift the balance of power (on paper). Do I think the Celtics are the best team? Hell yeah. Do I think they can beat the Pistons in a seven game series? Not willing to bet on that. Do I think they will win 65 plus games next year and go 16-0 in the playoffs after a season of getting used to playing together? Hell yeah.

Staying in the East- when did it become a good idea to trade four rock solid players to a team that is reminiscent of the 1987 Chicago Bulls? Minnesota deserves to get shot. They will be a great team for the Celtics to beat in the semi-finals next year, only to have them dominate for the next five after the Celtics all retire or move to LA for money.

Moving West - LA makes a deal land a centre- and go on a tear. The Suns make a deal - wobble slightly- then beat the Celtics and the Pistons. The Spurs don't want to feel left out, nor do the Mavericks. The team that did the least? The Rockets went 22-0.

Who did they all play for the last month- WNBA teams? How can all of these teams keep winning? Are they all playing against the Washington Generals or something?

And aren't in first place! Who is? New Orleans.

What? The Hornets?

Yes. Fresh off their move back from Oklahoma. The Hornets play really simple, point guard drive basketball - and they consistently beat teams with "All star" point guards and "MVP" point guards.

Let's head back to the East - Orlando is also a very strong team.

Here is what I know:

The East is somewhat easier to predict - The Pistons will defeat the Magic in 5 games, and the Celtics will evicerate the Cavs in 4.

The West is a total shit show. As of right now, I cannot predict who will finish first, let alone who can get out of the first round.

But, I can tell you that Dallas will choke. At some point.