Some addition thoughts - in no particular order

There has been more wild speculation about constitutionalism in the last four days than we have seen in eons. Please, let me add to it in separate posts over the next little while.

First of all - I find this utterly fascinating- it is proof that the conventions work. More on that below.

Any criticism of the situation that hinges on "you can't let the bloc" decide is silly. The bloc decided lots of stuff when Harper was in charge. Doesn't anyone remember the 2006 budget?

Any criticism of the situation that starts with "this is about a political subsidy" is silly. This is about an ill-fated economic strategy to do nothing and wait for things to right themselves. The subsidy, introduced in concert with the first true caps on donations (Jean Chretien) didn't exist four years ago. Yes, the BQ and NDP and Liberals will take a hit - but that will change. Everyone seems to think that the Conservatives are the only ones who know how to fund raise - all three did just fine in the 1990s, without massive corporate donations. All three do just fine at a riding by riding level. All three will change their strategy again. The Reform party turned Canadian Alliance turn Conservative party have just been doing it this way for longer.

Anyone who says taking the subsidy away isn't an affront to democracy are offending the scores of Canadians who cast votes specifically to ensure that a party got something for their vote. This particularly applies, for example, to Conservative voters in (say) Ottawa Centre. Where I live. Not that *I* did that, but I know people who did.

And $27 Million-ish isn't going to make a spit's worth of difference- if anything, they should cancel the tax-rebate for large contributions- that would same much more - and only applies to the quasi-rich who make personal donations over the $500 level. And are paying taxes. Duh.

Advancing the budget into January is not going to do anything because a) Obama won't have had time to jam his stimulus package through and b)

Convention v. Spirit of the law

In Canada, we do not enjoy the stability of a congressional model. We have a system where un-elected people can assume power. It has happened before - but not only when government's change.

Paul Martin, Kim Campbell, Pierre Trudeau, and Louis St. Laurent all became Prime Minister before they faced the people asking for the job.

Granted, none of them sought to reverse an election soon after one was held.

To that end, if we take a close look at the core of the CPC right now, their core would have little problem using this to go after another institution that has stuck in their craw for some time: the Governor General.

Steve is no dummy (tm). His word choice on Friday was spot on - The opposition can defeat the government whenever they want - but Mr. Dion has no right to form the government without facing the people.

Governor General Jean has that right silly. It is, after all, her majesty's (in the UK) government. And the PM serves her. Mr. Dion is the person who is best positioned right now to form that government.

While a technical argument, I think Steve is just that crafty - he is going to blame Dion for his problem- and Dion will end up wearing it as hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are sooooo bored with the shit-show in Ottawa decide that Steve is right.

Of course, there is a legal point to be made that CONVENTION has evolved into the point that the GG has no right to use her legal power. Yes, a legal point. The view is that by not using most of her legal powers in the last 75 years, she has vacated the right to use them. Kind of like how disallowance of provincial laws would be litigated very strongly. More on this view another day- but in the meantime- there are lots of books written on Canadian conventions- and that they ultimately supplant existing law.

It is the institution, after all, that will come under attack. How dare an Unelected CBC journalist take away our electorally secured right to govern. What authority was she appointed under? Paul Martin? What? How can she do this to Steve?

And the mob would rule again.

And, that is a debate I think the conservatives could win. Especially outside of the Queensway belt. Most Canadians do not understand the way our system works, and will wonder why Steve has to have this election again. And then vote for him - not the people who caused the 'crisis.'

I will join the chorus of proud Liberals who think, while interesting, that this Junta is going to hurt Liberals for a long time. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea - it means that in a year, when the coalition of the willing (tm) falls apart - the new Governor General (Ed Broadbent?) will ask the people to vote again.

In the mean time- the Opposition will attack that institution with the same gusto and vile that they have attacked the Senate and Quebec's constitutional position in Canada.

Am I Nostra-dam-us?

I called it

Let's take a deep breath.

For the record, I still think we can blink. I still think there is a way to get around it.

But, deep down, I love Constitutional Crisis- it gives me stuff to write books about.

This is not about $1.95

This is about telling the truth about the economic situation.

This is about admiting deficits are actually happening- and not trying to pin it on the opposition.

This is about the right to strike.

This is about pay equity.

This is about knowing that spending money can help the economy.

I hope they get taken down. I hate people who try to govern like they have 200 seats when they don't. You should only govern that way when you can.

This makes me Happy

Bill shouldn't be concerned - unlike Mr. Spock, he has had other roles.

Obamania

Why does anyone care who the Secretary of the Interior is going to be?

I am pretty sure the last time the words "Secretary of the Interior" were featured in any major publication was when President Bush nominated someone to fill the post.

"Team of Rivals" as part of a Cabinet worked well for Jean Chretien.

Of course, Paul Martin is no Hillary Clinton.

It's Cold

And Baseball gossip isn't picking up.

Alas, Mike Mussina has decided to retire. There are two questions:

1) Is he hall worthy; and
2) Would he go in as an Oriole/Yankee

There is no debate in my mind about the first question. There is considerable debate about the second.

Hall Worthy:

In today's game, having a winning record over 500 starts is impressive. Gone are the days of 60 starts a season.

In today's game- winning 20 games is really hard. There is a lot of debate about whether or not Tom Glavine will be the last 300 game winner. Tom Glavine will certainly be in the Hall. Compared to most pitchers in Cooperstown, he does not have the numbers to get in. There are a lot of pitchers in Cooperstown who wouldn't last through the first two innings of todays game.

That is why it is SOOOOO hard to compare players from different eras - and that is why Moose has to be compared against his peers - not against Sandy Koufax. When compared to today's crowd- Moose stands out.

Moose, however, did two different things. First, he pitched his ENTIRE career in the Hitting Heaven known as "The American League East." The fact that his ERA and WHIP are so low is impressive on its own. Second, he changed his style as he aged.

Unlike most power pitchers, once he lost his velocity, he started to pitch to spots. He proved he could do both things.

Yanks/Orioles:

I am pretty ambivalent about this - I think it is tough to win 5 world series games and countless playoff games and not have that be the resonating aspect of your career.

I also wonder how hard it was for him to lose those same types of games.

Oriole or Yankee- I think we should let the player decide. Gary Carter played his best years in Montreal, but he wanted to go into the Hall as a Met. Why? That is where he won his world series title. It is his career afterall, right?

I think that Moose should decide how he goes in.

And while they are at it, they should put Pete Rose in too.

Moose is Loose

I am sad to see Mike Mussina retire.

He could have been solid for two more years to get his 300.

I don't care which big name pitchers the yanks sign this off season- he was classy. I hope he goes into the Hall of Fame as a Yankee.

Left, Left, Left, Right Left.

The middle is crowded indeed. But when you really think about it, it isn't at all. the Left is crowded, and by crowding that space, the Liberals will be in opposition forever.

This is not intended to be a treatise on the future of the Liberal Party. It is a treatise on what I care about and how I think we can win.

With all due respect to Prime Minister Chretien (L - Dreamboat), he was more lucky than good. He has a divided opposition, and didn't even have to campaign in Ontario. Capitalizing on that luck, he led the country with grace and honour. Sadly, he was brought down by one of his own (L - Impatient) who thought he leaned too far left.

The tragedy of Stephane Dion (L - Wrong place, Wrong time) is that he is actually a very conservative thinker on many economic issues. That he was painted as a tax-spend lefty is a gross-overs implication of what he stood for.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a SD apologist. Far from it. I wasn't sure it was a good choice two years ago, and after watching for two years, I am sure there are better candidates.

There is significant media coverage about how the "Left" is divided. What I think that means is that there are two left of centre parties who are vying for similar votes. Maybe that is true, but I dont' think so. I think Jack Layton is in for a hell of a shock this morning when he gets to Caucus and the cadre of Northern Ontario MPs are now more than a rump in his team. His caucus is now much more than lefties and lesbians - they are also lumberjacks (get it?).

Their turn is going to be decidedly 'right' as a result. Or, which is more likely, there will be more internal push back against the 'Toronto Danforth' crowd on a lot of issues - starting with gay rights, gun rights, climate change - and the list goes on.

Let's look at a handful of successful 'liberals' in the past - Clinton (D- That is MR.), McGuinty (L-Sigh, why not?), McKenna (L- What are you waiting for), Charest (L- will have half of Quebec named after him by 2020) - all of them stood on the right hand side of the ledger. Trudeau (L- that is SENIOR), in many ways, also was a pragmatist before anything else. Yes, he implemented serious new programs and spending - but not what I would call 'lefty' spending.

Of course, maybe it is the term 'left' and 'right' that we have a problem with.

These are all examples to say that I don't think going to the left is going to solve anything. I think radiating outwards, left and right simultaneously, is a far better strategy.

And who starts encroaching from the right, with talk of anti-market bailouts and new wave environmentalism. Yup (C- I am as lucky as Chretien was), you guessed it.

So, when I see pundits squirrelling on the left for 'market share,' I roll my eyes and ask "what have we ever accomplished by tacking off the NDP or left of centre parties? A short history includes Mike Harris (C - Look ma, I'm Premier) Rodney MacDonald (C-Fiddle rhymes with Diddle) Mario Dumont as Leader of the Opposition (ADQ - I have been doing this since 1992, and I am still seen as young!) and lots of other examples. I know, times have an impact as well, and no example can be isolated for just that one issue.

I do know that the space to argue isn't on the left. Because every vote you might pick up there, will cost you two on the right.

Our society is changing - and as new voters enter the pool with the sense that living under a individualistic, unsympathetic government can be ok - the harder it will be in the future to make them come back.

Leadership is about more than having ideas - it is about inspiring others to have them. Right now, I am not inspired to do anything but look for other options.

Mr. Speaker...

I am watching with feigned interest on the election of a new speaker.

I have heard lots of MP challenges to incumbent Peter Milliken complain that 'decorum' and 'tone' in the House is at an all time low.

Isn't that kind of like a dog saying "why does my house smell like poop?" - It is because the dog shits in the House, dumbass.

I have a suggestion for all MPs who blame Peter Milliken for the poor decorum in the House - SHUT UP and be more respectful of the other Parliamentarians.

Yeesh.

Equalization

They say those who cannot describe with words use examples. The Family is always a good one for Canada.

I lived in my parent's basement for a long time after high school- through undergrad, the summers of grad school, my first year of law school. When I finally moved out, I took my dad out for a beer and paid.

That is what Ontario feels like right now. Like my Dad did in 2000.

Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia feel like the kid who got his first job at the Denny's and kicks into the family pot. That kid's Dad is still paying the mortgage, however.

Quebec has always gotten some. I think Quebec is like the Mom. She works, but doesn't make as much as the dad. She kicks into to pot, but takes out way more than she puts in. Its ok, she is part of the family.

But always threatening to leave. But not right now.

Since the beginning of time, Ontario has paid into the equalization formula. Since its inception, Ontario has always paid more than it received back.

That is STILL the case. Under the current formula, we now receive a modest stipend of 347 Million. What is not reported is the fact that the money for federal programs is still, more than any two provinces combined, paid for by Ontario tax payers. Yes, under the formula, when the "remainder" monies are doled out, we receive $347 Million more for those specific programs than we are "allocated" - that doesn't mean we get all of our money back. Journalists are lazy that way.

There are BOOKS written about the funding formula. Let me assure you it is not "You pay X, you get X plus 347 million."

What also isn't reported is the multiple BILLIONS of dollars that Ontario has paid in historically. That 347 doesn't even cover the INTEREST that accrued on the last four years of payments we have made into the family pot.

I like to think of 2008 equalization as a pension.

Ontario still pays more into the federal coffers than any other province. By a lot.

And, so what if we get an equalization payment. Its about friggin' time. From a financial standpoint, this is the first "dividend" on the longest investment cycle in the history of investment cycles. I hope they keep coming - because it means everyone else is FINALLY building on the billions Ontario has given out over the past four decades.

I Remember. I propose Restitution Day.

Too bad the French and the British don't do anything above and beyond saying "thank you." Do they even do that anymore?

I really wish the PM would send the British and the French an invoice for "services" rendered in World War 1 and WWII. In today's universe, UN missions are really more about allocating resources then they are about "doing the right thing." So why can't we retroactively get the same thing.

At least the Dutch send flowers. Thanks for that - it drives tourism dollars in Ottawa.

Seriously- the cost savings associated with not translating text books into German alone should merit a check of some amount.

I can't think of a day in Canada that is more controversial. I respect our war dead and what they gave up for their country (or England/France, as the case may be), but we need to take a very serious look at changing what Remembrance Day is all about.

For example, a surviving French solider (living in Canada) who fought to defend his own land - and fought alongside Canadians who were reclaiming that land for the French - cannot march during the national parade. But, a conscripted Indian soldier who was ripped out of his life in Bangalore to support the defence of Africa can? God save our King.

That is an absurd example that proves a point- there is honour in war - no matter whose flag you fight under. Canada's example, while laudable, is starting to miss the point. The point should be that we should approach remembrance day as a rebuke of tyranny - not a celebration of what we and the Empire (irony, indeed) did to combat it.

This will be the first of many posts...

Because I haven't had time to complain about all the stuff that I wanted to complain about.

In no particular order, very soon, I will rant about the following things

1) Equalization - is it really an Equalization payment if we are just getting the money back after 40 years of "investing" in Canada. I call it recapitalization.

2) Yes we can? Yeah, you did. So, what now?

3) We have 38 Cabinet Minsiters. So much for smaller government. That, and other musings about the new Conservative Cabinet.

4) Marois can't control the radicals, Dumont can't control the radicals, Harper can't control the radicals - who are these radicals, and what are they doing in political parties as opposed to protests?

And, finally...

5) The Yankees have 80 Million to spend, and I have a feeling they are going to end up worse then they were last year. Oy.

HOPE

HOPE


Today is, hopefully, the last we have to hear from these clowns for at least four more years.