Bus Strike Emergency Debate

I am glad they are having it, but there was a really funny moment yesterday when the Emergency Debate was tabled in the house.

The speaker said something along the lines of "given the weather and the difficulty staff have at getting home, we will postpone the debate until tomorrow."

Sorry, did he postpone the bus strike debate because of the bus strike?

Gold Jerry. Gold.

Supply Side v. Demand Side

The only problem I can see with the budget is that it is purporting to solve the wrong problem - by providing cash to businesses to help their faltering bottom lines, they should be able to pass those benefits onto consumers.

Except, now, manufacturers are going to have a bunch of stuff that people are still hesitant to buy, and some of their money to make it marginally cheaper.

They didn't fix the demand- that is what created the problem in the first place.

Thank You Yankees

You made the right decision - Andy is back!

And you did it in a classy way that protects YOUR interest. He sucks it up, he gets pulled and doesn't earn as much. He pitches well, he makes more money.

Bravo.

Now, if only the Dodgers' Manager would stop messing about...

Throne Speech - LOGO style

10 The Economy is worse now that it was two months ago
20 The Government is going to fix it by spending money
30 All other priorities were outlined in the last speech from the throne
40 We need stability in government
50 Goto 10

Usher of the Black Rod applies for overtime

The second time the usher has to work in like three months!

That has to be some kind of record. And if it isn't, the payscale for the position should be pro-rated.

Each knock used to be worth about $35,000 a piece.

Federal Budget Suggestion #1 - The Winter Infrastructure Removal Initiative.

The Honourable Jim Flaherty, M.P. P.C

- Check against Delivery -

Mr. Speaker, another key aspect of our plan to renew our economy is to fight against the falling snow. While the 2006 climate change plan didn't exist, and both plans released in 2007 have all but disappeared, we think that for the immediate time being, relying on climate change to get rid of our snow is not working. It is time for action.

Every winter, millions of Canadians stare out at their driveways, and say "I will do it tomorrow." By the time they get to it, they have driven in and out of their driveways, packing the snow down further. In many cases, they build up a layer of ice that takes months to fully dissipate and makes it harder for them to get to work. Throw a bus strike into the mix, and it is surprising Canadians bother working at all.

Canada's Conservative government is going to attack the one truly unifying enemy for all Canadians: Snow. Admittedly, the people in Vancouver who don't' vote for us anyway won't benefit from this program. The key benefit is that it will reduce the current resource strain on the department of national defence when and if it snows in Toronto. Snow. Budget 2009- which is shovelling a lot more than cash to various industries, wants to make it more affordable to shovel.

We have a plan that will encourage investment in three strategic areas.

Canada's Youth - The first job most Canadian kids have is being responsible for clearing the driveways of their parents and neighbours. There is no standard pay for this task - Canada's poorest families force their children to do this task as a chore, and Canada's middle class offer

Gone are the days of helping our our elders - if they are even in Canada right now. Gone are the "Jesus Christ of latter day saints, Canada edition" commercials of a gang of tuffs clearing old ms' hatchets driveway in exchange for a smile and cookies. Today's kids want cash- and they want it now.

Budget 2009 creates a new program - the Winter Infrastructure Removal Initiative (WIRI). As you know, we are spending a lot of money on new infrastructure projects- this program is in place to ensure that once we build it, we can use it.

The first phase of the program is the Snow Removal Tax Credit (SRTC) which will provide direct incentives to Canadians to hire their children , or their neighbours children, or the children of people living in neighbours on the other side of town - to keep their driveways clear. A full 100% of all capital expended will be tax deductible.

The funds will be recuperated by chances to the Income Tax Act that removes the current exemption to income earned by people under the age of 18.

The second phase of SRTC - is the development of white jobs. We are sick and tired of hearing about green jobs. For further clarity, these white jobs are for rural areas of the country where the economies are particularly hard hit by green job advocates. By clearing the roads quicker and more thoroughly, we can ensure that people headed to the slopes on the weekend can get there more safely. More importantly, truck transportation on the major thoroughfares will no longer imperil smaller vehicles who are forced to reduce speed. We will use existing highway infrastructure programs to get the highways electrified and melt the snow right off of it.

The final phase of the WIRI is the Snow Transportation and Dumping program. We have to put all this stuff somewhere. Knowing how the developing world is straining for new water supply, and given our reluctance to parch their thirst with our 4% of the worlds fresh water, we plan to recycle plastic water bottles, fill them with the snow we push of the roads, and send them to developing countries.

That has to be better than dumping ii into the harbour or piling into giant mountains of snow for children to play - when they should be working to clear it away.

Deep Breaths

Iggy says the last thing we need is another federal election.

NDP and BQ think we need coalition. They are making noise about it. Again.

Polls are finally starting to level out (after teh 47% disaster from December).

I, for one, am not going to draw bright lines that Federal Budgets can miss completely, Mr. Ignatief would be wise to do the same.

So now what?

I am reminded of a story I was told by a White South African in 1997. It is pretty bad, so I won't share it, but the basic premise of the story was "yes, he is in control, but nothing has actually happened yet. His promises aren't policy."

Don't get me wrong- I am a HUGE fan of the things he says.

I am worried that I will be disappointed if he doesn't do the things he said he would do.

I am also worried that 150 Million enfranchised Americans will become further disenfranchised if he doesn't deliver.

I am EVEN more worried that if he doesn't deliver, it will be attributed to his race. That would set white/not-white relations in America back about 100 years.

I remain hopeful. I just like to keep an eye on the whole board.

Don't forget the Hype

I really hope the Obama Presidency is as wicked as the hype building it up.

For the record, I don't think there was this much hype over perestroika.

Insecurity Regulator

I don't have a strong position on "a national securities regulator" other than I am always a fan of strong federal institutions. I don't like relying on a document that assigns Natural Resource rights to the provinces despite the fact that "oil" didn't exist.

That said, I am really puzzled by this. I have a few friends who follow the issue, and frankly, they like the idea of a strong federal regulator too.

As I said above, if a government is going to be involved, I would prefer it be the federal government. Historically, in terms of 'loopy' one-offs, the feds have a better record of "not crazy" than the provinces do.

What I don't get is "why?" Both from a practical measure and from a political one.

Practically, I have been told by everyone who claims to know shit about this that Canada's regulations for financial institutions that they are the best in the world. This includes securities.

I have also been told that (looking both ways) there isn't a lot of substantive difference in how the provinces regulate securities trading. In many cases, the statutes and regulations suffer from "photocopy-rudence."

Politically - it is my understanding that the Conservative government hate the federal government doing anything that is not 100% their purview. Get the federal government out of provincial jurisdiction, they say.

Also, this is an issue in exactly two places - Quebec and Alberta. Both known for their opposition to the feds doing anything they are not allowed to do.

Now, I am not so naive as to think that the "expert" report wasn't written before they started, and that the "master strategistician" (*I made this word up) had his eyes on this prize for a long time.

I guess their position on renewed federalism is no longer principle based, it is exception based. "Provincial jurisdiction will be protected until we say it shouldn't be."

POGG indeed.

So, do we need a national security regulator? When in doubt, I always fall back to the needs/plan analysis. As Vanilla Ice sais "If you gotta problem, yo I'll solve it." The experts say Canada does the best job in the world, do we need to fix a machine that isn't broken? This seems to create more problems than it purports to fix.

My gut tells me that "modernizing" institutions that are undergoing world-wide renewal is probably a good idea. My head tells me that this is a fight that the federal government don't need to engage in. My solution - treat securities like health care - establish a national standard, allow provinces to meet that standard by either a) following the terms and conditions of the federal standard in their own way or b) not doing it, and not getting any financial help to do so.

If we can have federal and provincial corporations, surely to god we can have the shares of those companies traded in different markets whose rules for trading are different. I don't think that having a different lead regulator is going to make that much of a difference - why?

We (canada) haven't seen the problems in securities seen elsewhere.

I have always believed in evidence based decision making as opposed to decision based evidence making.

Oh, the irony- my 300th post is about baseball

So many things in baseball make 300 important -

300 Home runs, wins - both huge plateaus to surpass in a career. Now, apparently irrelevant...

I am happy for Ricky Henderson. He was the best base-stealer of all time. No doubt. Arguably the best lead off man.

He did a LOT of drugs. But, he did coke instead of steroids. He ACTUALLY violated the league's drug policy, as opposed to Mark McGuire, who used growth hormones which were illegal, but not a violation of the policy.

I am sad that Mark McGuire's vote total did not increase significantly. If the test for keeping him out was that he cheated/broke the law, it should apply to Ricky as well. Yeah, coke probably didn't help him perform, but it is analogous to the 'image' issue that hurts McGuire.

The implication of the McGuire decision is horrible on several stars. The most obvious is Barry Bonds, who is a walking pharmaceutical company. He deserves to be in the Hall - he has hit the most home runs. The other is Roger Clemens. He was the MOST dominant pitcher in Baseball in the late 80s and early 90s. Then he kept going in the late 1990s. There remains exactly NO evidence that he did steroids other than the uncorroborated anecdotes of a personal trainers who has every reason in the world to lie.

I think that the goofballs at the BWAA should look at what people actually did as opposed to what might have helped them do that.

No 'Big Love' in BC - Bring 'em Young, indeed.

The leader of the Mormon sect in Bountiful British Columbia is right about one thing - something changed over the holidays.

I don't know if it was a direction from PVL (C - I can't get one wife, let alone six) or from the PMO but something happened. A tolerated scar was surgically operated on. Or is it the BC crown moving in preparation of a BC Election? Who knows- the only thing we know is that FINALLY someone has the stones to charge the polygamists with the charge that bears their name.

While the facts of the case are not shocking to anyone, the bottom line is how this will play out when the Charter Challenge is initiated. I could make a joke about free association or free speech (the right to say I DO more than once) but is this really about religious persecution.

I say it is, but it doesn't matter. There is no freedom protected in the Charter that puts the value of the rights of a 'religion' above the practical rights of women, children and 'devoted' followers.

For me, plural marriage has always been about assholes who want to have power. In the name of god, they abused people in a power vacuum. It is fucking shameful.

My opinions aside, can section 293 withstand a charter challenge?

Well, let's ask the first question? Is it a right to practice polygamy. No - it is a right to be free of conscience and religion - and to have the freedom of thought and belief. There is no guarantee in the Charter that protects the practice of those rights persae. The act of plural marriage is an integral part of that aspect of Mormonism (shouldn't it be MorWOmanism?) but it isn't essential for the belief.

There has been exactly NO case that I have seen that defends an illegal practice on religious grounds provided that the practice has other victims. For example, defending human or animal sacrifice as a tenant of voodooism (I made this up) is the absurd example that proves the finer point. There is no blanket protection for freedom of religion in the way envisioned by the opponents of section 293.

In fact, religious freedom has been curtailed numerous times as it pertains to medical decisions made on behalf of individual who cannot form the capacity to make a decision (child blood transfusions).

So, let's assume then that there is a violation and that plural marriage is a right that is protected by the Charter. Is section 293 a reasonable limitation on that right?

I think that the four pronged test would come under attack in the event of a sustained charter challenge - and that is a good thing. Oakes is over 20 years old, and desperately needs overhaul on what should be protected and what shouldn't. There are numerous elements of the test - and all of them are measured on a civil standard. That seems low when you are talking about rights, doesn't it?

So, looking at section 1 - The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society

1) What does demonstrably justified mean?

In a crazy world, a legislature can say "we need to ignore some rights for a while because we are elected and we have a problem." In a moderate world, we can forgo section three rights by forming a coalition government. In a 'pressing and substantial' analysis, section 293 fails because, to be blunt- this has been the ignored law of the land since Jesus was a Cowboy and before "bring 'em young" meant anything.

Demonstrably justified/pressing and substantial SHOULD mean - we have such a huge problem with your practices because your rights are infringing the rights of others - and in many cases, that means the people you are married to. And your spawn.

It is also very hard to guarantee that a solution to a given malady would be forthcoming. They could just get nannies (see below).

2) Rational Connection

No rational man would have two wives. Who does he spend valentines day with? If you are still able to get married once, are you still being persecuted?

I am afraid I find invoking persecution to defend your ability to over-power weaker, abused and brainwashed women/children to be so ghastly that you deserve to burn in hell. Jews were persecuted. You were left alone for a LONG time. Time to clean up your act.

Sadly, this is the first problem with the existing test. In a post 9/11 world, the rational connection to the limitation has already started to be eroded. The leading case (RJR MacDonald) was about advertising cigarettes and why a ban was an acceptable limitation to free speech. A health objective was attained by limiting speech.

Here, limiting religious freedom by banning extra wives from someone who wants extra wives for the purpose of having extra wives is either a) completely rationally connected or b) so bizarrely irrelevant as to say "there can't be a connection" because it is so intimately connected. Instead of limiting the rights of person A in practice A to protect B,C and beyond - we are actually limiting the Right Z of Persons Y and X and W (and on) for THEIR OWN protection. We are substituting a moral judgement where none should exist.

While you and both know that we are protecting the rights of women and children - we can't prove it the same way. There is a stage of proof, or a burden, that is not easily satisfied. Especially when the wife/wives takes the stand.

Here we have to substituted judgement. We have to say "we believe in this type of marriage" because of what it adds to society.

Or, we could be clever and tell pluralists that gay rights are different than theirs, and worth protecting. It would drive them bonkers. Except in that case, it is about affording someone a legal right to property, support, tax benefit and recognition as equals- not allowing them to have plural marriages which are by definition not equal.

3) Is the right minimally impaired?

I would argue that it is - I mean, you can still have one wife, right? Plural defenders would say that anything that keeps them from a second marriage is a black/white violation of the rights, and to minimally impair the right is to completely impair it.

Why can't they just get nannies like people in the suburbs? The effect is that making something illegal will just drive it underground. The Government of Texas learned the hard way that the best way to stop sinister behaviour wasn't to cut off the head of the beast - but to take away the tendrils (rescue children who are being abused rather than arresting an abuser.)

4) Means/Ends/Proportionality

The meat, as it were. For me, this is a no brainer. Your rights to have more than one wife are not so valuable so as to give affront to the rest of the community and the victims of your crime - presumably the wife, kids and rest of the community.

I don't think that is beyond reasonable proportionality to limit the right of practicing religion in this particular way. I think that the sheer fact that there are Sikhs that don't carry daggers to school, and are still Sikhs, speaks to that. They say that their entire religion is undermined because they can't be plurally married.

I don't know if that is true, because, I am not mormon. If it is true, does the law diminish the religious view? If it does, I am fine with that.

How many Senators are there, anyway

We have three from Minnesota. We will lose one of them soon.

We have one from New York - and a litany of dauphin candidates who are not entitled to anything, I would argue.

We have one from Illinois - and a legally appointed second. He will be impeached, I suspect.

We have one from Colorado - and no clear favourite to replace him.

We have one from Delaware. And another dauphin to repalce him.

What is Obama trying to do, appoint enough Senators to ensure that they lose their majority?

Petit Pettitte

Ok- the Yankees have endures a spending ogre over the last month.

I get it.

Before they went on their drunken adventures, they offered Andy Pettitte - a rock solid performer and playoff hero from the past - 10 Million a year for one year. It is a retirement contract.

He made 16 Million last year and performed well. Not 1998 well, but well.

He has recently rejected their 10 Million dollar offer. That was probably dumb, but he did it.

The Yankees could do a HUGE service to their own PR and legacy by offering him the full 16 Million. Here is what is wrong with the Yankees - through examples...

1) Bernie Williams - a legend in centre field for the Yankees. He wanted to play one more year! They didn't even invite him to camp. He hasn't even officially retired yet.

2) Reggie Jackson - he wanted to extend his contract into the 80s. The Yanks thought he was done- he signed with the Angels and did just fine.

3) Babe Ruth - the man built Yankee Stadium, and all he wanted was a say in how the team was run. They wouldn't let him stay in a Yankee uniform for an extra year. So, he went and played for the Reds as a Player/Manager.

All three examples prove the same point - the Yankees are a team that is steeped in their own history, but when that "history" wants to do their "farewell" tour (like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar did in LA for the Lakers - and they let him, despite the fact he was dragging the team down) the Yanks are not willing to let them take the stage.

This year, despite their mega signings - they passed on lots of great players who were productive, and could have come back - Giambi, Abreu, and now, presumably Pettitte.

They don't want to be the hero anymore, they just want to be there.

Opening day without Andy Pettitte at the new stadium would be a crime against Yankee-anity.

It is only six million for Christ's sake- you will probably make that much on Pettitte merchandise over the year. You just spent 435 Million on people who have NEVER contributed to the Yankee legacy.

You know who is watching?

Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera.

Be careful Steinbrenners. Or Maybe AROD's record breaking Home-run will be hit in Chicago.

So, what is new...

I leave for TWO weeks and exactly nothing has changed. Except that it is still cold. Brrr.

While the PM's Critics complain about his Senate stacking, no one seems to care about his Supreme Court stacking - without the benefit of his own Parliamentary review. Can't do that without a Parliament I suppose...

And, the Bus strike rages on. Still an essensial service as far as I am concerned...Interesting way to get out of a coalition deal signed by your predecessor for Prof. Ignatief.

Seriously, when the Tories try legislate them back to work - which is the only other solution if the vote on thursday fails - they will need a dozen liberals to suppor them. I am not so naive to think that this legislation would be tied to the budget - but after the economic statement, nothing would surprise me.

Regardless, the NDP and the Bloq would NEVER support that kind of bill- would probably even call it "anti-union." Prof. Ignatief, however, would have to call upon his Ottawa experts (L - Look ma, I am almost as great as my older brother) who has been virulent in his crticism of the operators.

Fun times...