What Mrs. Dona Cadman doesn't have to say

Barely hours after the Super Secret Harper Imitation Tories threatened to sue the Liberals for libel, Dona Cadman released this statement today: (emphasis, mine)

...I recall specifically asking (Stephen Harper) if he was aware of a million dollar insurance policy offer, that upset Chuck so much.

He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes. He said, yes he'd had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he'd told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck.

From that point forward…. I didn't regard it as a “Party” initiative, but rather; the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals…. whose identity, Chuck never revealed to me.

The specificity of her question to him - as well as the response she attributes to Harper - leaves all kinds of possibilities open to Peevey Stevie to be "aware" of other things, things that could be close, but not quite actual "insurance policy offers" that "upset Chuck".

What she did not say is perhaps more noteworthy. She did not say, for example:

...that there was no bribe offered to her late husband by the Conservative Party of Canada.
...that Mr. Harper ever denied the existence of any bribe to her late husband.
...that Mr. Harper assured her he would never condone such a thing.
...that Mr. Harper in any way regretted anything done or offered by his party under his watch in regards to Mr. Cadman.
...that Mr. Harper, the leader of the CPC, intended to censure the individuals or take any other action in regards to getting to the bottom of her concerns.
...what she thinks her late husband might have thought of Mr. Harper's answer.

Yes, this story has legs and then some. It's as if the SSHITS are just enjoying the fire they started so much they just want to keeping laying on more fuel. I am reminded of Dion's question to Harper in the House last Thursday: "What was the Prime Minister thinking?"

- 30 -

Dear Mr. Prime Minister of Canada

I see today that your party is planning a libel suit against the leader of the opposition for two articles on the Liberal party website headlined: “Harper knew of Conservative bribery” and “Harper must come clean about allegations of Conservative Bribery.”

The suit, which also names Liberal Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff and House Leader Ralph Goodale, takes on the Opposition for saying that Mr. Harper knew Conservative party officials attempted to bribe Mr. Cadman to vote against a Liberal budget in the spring of 2005.

Mr. Cadman's wife, Dona Cadman – who is also a Conservative candidate – and her daughter and son-in-law say the dying MP told them that two men representing the Conservatives approached him in the days before the vote and offered a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his support in bringing down the Liberals.

Are you launching this lawsuit so that, no matter what anyone says about it or asks you about it, you can now reply flatly that you would be remiss to comment on the matter since it is now before the courts?

Are you hoping that this will scare away people from broadcasting further on the 2005 tape recording of you explaining that you knew of an offer made to Chuck Cadman by Conservative Party officials, made with your foreknowledge; where you are on record as having stated that you told them (prior to the meeting) they should "make the case" to Mr. Cadman?

"Of the offer to Chuck," (Tom Zytaruk) quotes Mr. Harper as saying, "it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election, OK. That's my understanding of what they were talking about.

"I don't know the details," he said. "I can tell you that I had told the individuals - I mean, they wanted to do it - but I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind he was going to vote with the Liberals. I knew why, and I respected the decision, but they were just, they were convinced there was, there was financial issues and, there may or may not.

"They were legitimately representing the party," Mr. Harper confirmed. "I said 'Don't press him, I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity, and you know, just, you know, if that's what you say make the case,' but I said 'Don't press it.' "

By launching this lawsuit, are you thinking people might stop mentioning this out of fear that they may also be eventually named in the suit?

Are you hoping that the sluggish rate of the courts will defuse this until such a time as you have a majority in the HoC, or that the country has forgotten the whole affair?

Are you counting on bullying your way through this crisis?

Is it because you can't deny it without lying through your teeth?

Crafty. (Too crafy by half? We shall see).

Because if we are to believe you (when you say today) that it's not true, then you are either splitting very fine hairs at best, or calling others liars - and presumably, the tape recording to be a forgery. After all, the Liberals didn't make it up; they quoted you from the source, journalist/author Tom Zytaruk; and his publisher, Harbour Press. But you're not suing them, are you? And I notice you chose not to sue Conservative candidate Dona Cadman nor her daughter, Jodi, nor Jodi's husband - who have all corroborated that Chuck Cadman told them in separate instances of the $1 million insurance offer in exchange for his Parliamentary vote - for slander (or not yet?)

Shame on you. The office of the Prime Minister of Canada has been tarnished before, as you were always very willing to point out as Opposition leader yourself. Since becoming PM yourself, you have taken it lower and lower and lower.

How much lower, Mr. Prime Minister? How much?

- 30 -

Here's What you have to do in 2008

As a Canadian voter...
You might be a Green, or a Dipper; a Tory, PC, Bloquistador or Liberal; or non-affiliated. But in the end, a plurality of you will be required to vote for Stéphane Dion and not Stephen Harper.

For one thing, the tax breaks coming into effect today (be still my beating heart: I just saved $1.95 on my new 8-gig IPOD nano...) are merely an empty sales pitch that will pointlessly put pressure on our public finances in order to create the necessary conditions to further "streamline" (we'll be told) and "reduce to a manageable size" our federal government services. Then they'll sell it in french to my fellow Québecois and Québecoise as a further reduction in the interference of the Canadian State into the unquestionably Correct and Good sovereignty of the so-called Québecois Nation in handling its own affairs, just as Camille Laurin and the tar-stained but beatified (n'est-ce pas?) Saint-Réné Levesque would have had it.

As sales pitches go, it's not unlike the time a couple of years ago when someone was asking us to "lend" them our votes.

For those with short memories, Jack Layton and his 30-strong caucus haven't exactly been able to curtail the most flagrant abuses of the SSHITs with all those "borrowed" votes. And I have a feeling Dion will be very effective reminding us of what we got for that trust once we get pulled to the polls at some point this year.

Like Australia's latest Johnny-come-lately to the greenhouse effect table (yeah, I'm talking about John Howard), Peevey Steevie is about as convincing an environmentalist as he is a field marshal; I am reminded of the image presented of him earlier in his term, clad in his button-testing flak jacket, presumably assessing military strategy with an actual CF officer at some hyper-photo-op Afghanistan lookout. With Australia now a signatory to Kyoto, and the international reputation of Canada now cemented as Bushco's unofficial water boy, (don't believe me? Besides the interference Baird ran for Bushco at the Bali talks, note how our Defense Minister is now baselessly blaming Iran for supplying Afghan Taliban rebels with war toys), I don't believe enough of the country's voters will rally for the re-election of this callous dimwit.

What's most curious about the present government is how ill-advised this policy is of being the lapdog to an outgoing and immensely unpopular U.S. administration. Doesn't Peevey Stevie realise it's a bit late to tie his fate to the lame duck Bush-Cheney tag team? That there is no strategic benefit to Canada in such brown-nosing to them of all American pols? As Nobel Laureate Al Gore pointed out in Bali, there will be a completely new American political reality to deal with this time next year.

No, the reasoning for this policy of full-on Bushco support by the SSHITs can only be rationalized under the most rueful and troublesome of scenarios (and I tremble at the thought): that Harper is the keeper of inside knowledge that some sort of Benazir Bhutto-type shenanigans is on the table for the coming year. That regardless of whether the assassination of Bhutto was the result of U.S. string-pulling, Bushco is prepared and willing to throw the United States into the kind of tizzy that would see them "be forced for security's sake" to postpone "indefinitely" the heretofore unstoppable 2008 U.S. elections, thereby prolonging their regime until some magical, elusive safe day in the future.

Here's hoping that is merely a paranoid ramble and that our "New Government" is just plain stupid. I would prefer to think that.

- 30 -

The Power and the Passion in Power

Oh the power and the passion, oh the temper of the time
Oh the power and the passion
Sometimes you've got to take the hardest line
--Midnight Oil

Congratulations to the Aussies, who have smartly elected themselves a new government with new ideas:

(Incoming Prime Minister Kevin) Rudd’s pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that made (former PM John) Howard one of Bush’s staunchest allies.

Rudd has promised to pull Australia’s 550 combat troops from Iraq in a phased withdrawal, and to quickly sign the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Howard had rejected withdrawal plans for Australia’s troops in Iraq, and said no to ratifying Kyoto.

This on a day when Peevie Stevie and the suddenly toothless outgoing Australian team shamefully ganged up on the rest of the Commonwealth to thwart any promise of real action, and undermine the Kyoto treaty to which Canada is a signatory.

"It simply calls for 'aspirational' targets. In other words, these are things the Commonwealth countries just hope will happen," (Opposition leader Stephane Dion) told Newsnet.

Canada had opposed language that would set firm, Kyoto-style targets. Harper said the original wording excluded developing countries that are also becoming major greenhouse gas emitters.

Environmentalists and Commonwealth sources claimed Canada stood only with Australia in opposing firm targets.

Well as of today, Australia is clearly mandated by its citizenry to sign Kyoto. That isolates Harper with another lame duck - that Bush guy. Either Harper will fold completely on this or he will be pushed out of the Prime Minister's chair within months. And it will be over this same issue that has walloped Howard, despite his furious back-peddling.

So if you're a Canadian opposition party that wants Canada firmly back on the Kyoto track (and that would include the Liberals, NDP, Greens and BQ) you can take solace from another Midnight Oil song whose 20-year-old promise has finally been realised. Last word back to the Oils' former frontman Peter Garrett (most recently Rudd's Environment critic and the logical choice to head that ministry) from the song "Sometimes":

Sometimes you're shaken to the core
Sometimes
Sometimes you're face is gonna' fall
But you don't give in

- 30 -

U.S. Senate matches Oilers' $50M offer for Bin Laden

The United States Senate voted to match the Edmonton Oilers' $50 million offer on Restricted Free Agent Osama bin Laden last week, thus thwarting Oilers GM Kevin Lowe from acquiring the highly sought-after veteran.

"Bin Laden is simply too important for us to let him go, no matter the cost," said the Senator who co-authored the measure.

In a hasitly-called press conference in Edmonton, Lowe was visibly distraught.

"We are sorry to miss out on him," Lowe said. "Scouting reports noted his toughness, and the inability of other teams to knock him off the puck. As a player, he has shown great tenacity and a truly explosive offensive capability."

Several commentators expressed unease over the implications this may have on the bounties put on other terrorists' heads.

"If the NHL allows its General Managers to continue down this reckless path in pursuing free agents, there's no telling what ceiling to expect in this post 9-11, post lock-out market," blasted the Hockey Snooze in an online editorial.

Others were openly questioning Lowe's sanity.

"We knew Lowe was desperate to add offense, but I don't even know if this guy can skate, and his health is certainly questionable," mused one hockey blogger. "Playing high-stakes chicken with the Buffalo Sabres is one thing, but first he threw away $27 Million at one defenseman with questionable health and skating ability, and now he offers $50 million for another? Going up against the U.S. Senate? It's time someone told Kevin there is good psychiatric help available."

- 30 -

A bit of Sanity in Ontario

Just when I thought things were all going kaflooey. It seems that a judge in Ontario has ruled that the marijuana possession laws are unconstitutional.

"The government told the public not to worry about access to marijuana," said Judge Howard Borenstein. "They have a policy but not law.… In my view that is unconstitutional."

Defence lawyer Brian McAllister, who represented the man, said the ramifications of the ruling have potential to be "pretty big."

"Obviously, there's thousands of people that get charged with this offence every year," he said.

McAllister said Ontario residents charged with possessing marijuana now have a new defence.

"That's probably why the government will likely appeal the decision," he said.

Borenstein has given prosecutors two weeks before he makes his ruling official. Prosecutors told CBC News they want a speedy appeal to overturn the decision.

Here's hoping that appeal gets shot down. Now I am not a user of the stuff myself (too old and responsible, don't you know, and unabashedly influenced by the Replacements). But far be it from me to get in the way of others' enjoyment of this substance that is likely less harmful than alcohol (my own one remaining crutch - when not driving). In fact I believe there is a good pragmatic argument for making all recreational drugs legal. If that day ever comes, then this ruling will be seen as a big step along the way.

Whatever you can say about Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the gift he gave us with the 1982 constitution is one that just keeps on giving. That's the man's true legacy IMHO.

- 30 -

On Boisclair's resignation and the gay double-standard

Today saw the sad spectacle of Andre Boisclair's past-due resignation as leader of the Parti Quebecois. It's a sad day for federalists as well, since he didn't have the good sense (unlike Paul Martin Jr.) to resign promptly on election night; which only served to drive fresh nails into the the separatist movement's coffin with every day of pointless hesitation.

But perhaps saddest of all is this little piece of ugly journalism buried within the Gazette's political obituary of the man:

Boisclair faced tough questions over his admitted use of cocaine while a cabinet minister and, as Quebec's first openly gay political leader, also faced questions about his homosexuality during the election campaign.

(Emphasis mine) What a bizarre thing to say. While I agree about the cocaine part (heck, I called that one back in 2005), I am completely confounded about the rest of that sentence. What sort of questions did he face about his homosexulity, so craftily juxtaposed in the sentence structure here as to subtly equate it with cocaine use? Think about it. No one would write that he "faced questions about his orientalness" or: "his lack of legs", or: "his asthma", or what have you...

And all day that's been there. I would have thought some editor would have retracted that line by now but it's been there for at least 15 hours!
Let's see if it makes it into the print version. I'm ashamed for them.

- 30 -

Update:(May 9, 09h23 EDT) The offending bit was not included in either Philip Authier's front page story, nor Hubert Bauch's analysis of the print version.

Live Free to Die: U.S. Gun Lobby

We're all looking for
The right kind
Of live free or die
--Jay Farrar (Son Volt)

The phrase, "Live Free or Die" first entered my vocabulary as a child. Whether I was first exposed to it watching U.S. of Archie or from a car trip to Santa's Village in Jefferson, New Hampshire (it appears on their licence plates), I had it seared into my consciousness by the time Rene Levesque put "Je Me Souviens" on our Quebec plates - or at least before I was ten.

The 1995 Son Volt song above asks what I think is the great question of America. What is the right balance? While the phrase was apparently derived from the writings of a U.S. Revolutionary War general, I think it has now morphed into a question that we ask ourselves whenever mass murderers carry out their hideous University of Texas Tower Massacres, their Columbines, their Dawsons and now their Virginia Techs. How free do you need to be?

If anyone is clamoring to answer that, it's the U.S. Gun Lobby, and their answer is: "Free enough to die." For only a gun lobby group could look upon the massacre of a week ago today and see a golden opportunity to - get ready for this - relax the restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in the state of Virginia.

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he told AFP.

"You want people to be able to defend themselves -- always," he said.

Van Cleave said the tragedy could give a boost to a years-long effort in Virginia to pass legislation allowing students to carry weapons on campus -- especially since existing laws failed to prevent Cho's murderous rampage.

"Gun control failed. That student under university rules was not to have a gun," Van Cleave said.

I'm not even going to weigh in on the twisted logic of gun-control being the culprit in the Virgina Tech massacre, except to say that in the context of a heavily-armed U.S. population, it may not sound as stupid to them as it does to me. My male Texas co-workers (quote: "I'm white, so I vote Republican") all own guns and consider them as normal an accessory as a wristwatch or cellphone. When you believe everyone else around you is packing, and that they may very well try to get the better of you, you need to know where your gun is so you can defend yourself. And for many Americans it's a measure of their freedom that they can do so unfettered.

At least that's how one middle-aged (white) church-going Texan described it to me.

To which my response was that in my neck of the woods, the assumption is no one else you bump into is likely to have one, and therefore why should you go to the trouble? And who would want to pull a gun on you anyway? Unless you're connected to the criminal underworld, it's really a non-issue.

But that's not the only response, because my American friends, when pressed, don't have a good answer about what happens on the day they do find themselves in the gunfight they've so diligently readied themselves for (not unlike their dusty Y2K bunkers)? Cause once the guns are out and being fired, I don't think it's going to end like a James Bond or Die Hard movie.

Anyone who thinks otherwise may be prone to other illogical fantasies - like that invading and occupying a country halfway around the world will provide them with freedom. Or that Jesus will save the believers on the Day of Reckoning. Or that deregulation can solve our problems because the companies care about people more than governments. Or that your society can carry on polluting and consuming with reckless abandon as an exercise of your God-given freedom to enjoy "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". The prospects of our planet sustaining human life in two generations be damned!

That's living. The American Way.

- 30 -

You know you've ignored your blog way too long when...

...you go to log-in and everything has changed, where suddenly the log-in name you chose for yourself is now deemed out-of-date by the all-powerful Oz (read: Google) and you have to re-validate yourself just to get into the editing room.

...yours is the only browser that's visited your site in something like three months.

...Scott Tribe sends you a gently-worded email wondering if you still exist.

...half your site's links are not good anymore (and you hadn't even noticed).

Oh I could go on, but what's the point? Basically, there is no good reason for my absence of posts - what net time I have put in has been devoted to my beloved Habs on the excellent new Habs Inside/Out site hosted by the Gazette. There, I have been ruminating upon the daily drama that is the life of a hopeless, hapless (again this year, Cup-less) Canadiens fan.

I've also been hesitant to add a mere ho-hum entry, especially given how accidentally prescient my last post turned out to be. Topping a correct prediction is next to impossible.

Anyway, stay tuned (both of you). There will be more to come soon, including a little spring cleaning of the links, which is way overdue.

- 30 -

Kennedy and Dion teaming up against Iggy

No, this Toronto Star piece is not rampant speculation; nor has its authenticity been denied by the Kennedy camp. In fact it's bloody well been put up on Stéphane Dion's own campaign website:

The outlines of a political alliance that could overtake Liberal leadership frontrunner Michael Ignatieff at next month's convention are beginning to take shape.

"There have been discussions between Dion and ourselves, not with Ignatieff," said Holland. "There have been informal conversations about the need to work more closely together. ... Stéphane's strength is in Quebec and it's francophone, Gerard Kennedy's support is more among anglo Canadians. Their policies work well together. It's a natural fit."

The Kennedy camp hasn't yet seen fit to post anything about this on their site, as far as I can click. Nevertheless, this is not good news for Ignatieff. And correct me if I'm wrong, but if Dion was serious about some kind of an alliance with Bob Rae (also mentioned in the Star piece) why on earth would he jeopardize that by posting this story on his own site? I mean, where does this leave Bob?

Bob?

I'm calling you Bob. Like you said.

Bob...?

- 30 -

If I was a Liberal, I'd go for Dion

I still can't believe the short-sightedness of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party in voting for a resolution recognizing Quebec as a nation last weekend.

In a show of incredibly reckless cynicism, Michael Ignatieff's team filled the room with his supporters bent on passing this resolution to drive a wedge between their candidate and the other front-runners. Ignatieff is the only Liberal leadership hopeful foolish enough to open such a messy can of worms, obviously calculating he'd get the proper knee-jerk response from the populace here, which he did.

And seeing Stéphane Dion later on the TV news berating the cackles of Iggy's supporters when they tried to shout him down was eerily reminiscent of this moment from the last real Liberal leadership race in 1990.

A key moment in that race took place at an all-candidates debate in Montreal, where the discussion quickly turned to the Meech Lake Accord. Paul Martin Jr. attempted to force Jean Chrétien to abandon his nuanced position on the deal and declare for or against it. When Chrétien refused to endorse the deal, young Liberal delegates crowding the hall began to chant "vendu" ("sellout" in French) and "Judas" at Chrétien. Martin continues to state he had nothing to do with the response from the floor, or a similar outburst by his supporters at the convention, in which Chrétien defeated Martin on the first and only ballot. However, his reputation in his home province never recovered.

...especially considering it was over essentially the same argument. But note who won the race and the Prime Minister's chair in the end.

And that's partly why I'm now more impressed with Dion than any of the others. Paul Wells has the translation of Dion's letter in yesterday's La Presse up on his site, and it should remind all Canadians why Chrétien so studiously avoided traipsing down this path (in fact let's just call it the Canadian equivalent of invading Iraq.)

Before asking other Canadians to support such a formal recognition (that is to say, almost certainly, in the constitution), we must first specify what we mean by such a recognnition. Currently the apparent Québécois consensus on this question hides at least three areas of disagreement.

First question: Do we want to be the only ones in Canada to be recognized as a nation, or would we accept that others, encouraged by our example, obtain in turn the same recognition? Would the pressure exerted by an indeterminate number of human groups in Canada, including in Quebec, in favour of being recognized as nations lead us to conclude that our own national recognition has been trivialized or diluted?

Second question: Is this recognition necessary for us or is it, rather, only desirable? Those who say it is necessary must follow their logic to its conclusion: they must say that unless they obtain this recognition, we Quebecers must leave Canada. Indeed one cannot live without something necessary.

Those who say, on the contrary, that this recognition is only desirable must resist putting it at the heart of the national unity debate: indeed, one does not divide a country over something that isn't necessary.

Third question: Do we want the recognition of Quebec to be purely symbolic or do we want it to have concrete consequences, in terms of division of powers, allocation of public funds, and so on? And how does this question work with the preceding question? It is contradictory to claim that the recognition of Quebec as a nation is necessary but purely symobolic. Yet this is the untenable position defended by Mr. Michael Ignatieff.

As in the period when Dion first came to Ottawa and eviscerated Lucien Bouchard with a string of public letters bursting the separatist movement's bubble with irrefutable logic, someone has to tell us Quebeckers the hard truth: that we may think of ourselves as a nation unto ourselves all we like. But in the end, we have to agree to disagree on the "Quebec as nation" question if we want to keep Canada together. In fact, we have already been doing so for, like, centuries.

- 30 -

This week's Peevey Stevie Outrages

My, they can sure pile them on. Though the week be young, our harvest is plentiful. Enough to add three more points to the list of Harper Horrors. It's as if the SSHITs sense their window of opportunity is shrinking; and if they're going to destroy everything good about Canada, they've no time to waste. What busy little expletives they are!

14) We begin with the admittedly unsurprising news that Michel Fortier won't run

...for a seat in the House of Commons. But staying in the Senate means he does still get to run in another way (and run he does, every day) -- running away from the proper scrutiny a Minister of Public Works should be under in a constitutional monarchy, where it is standard practice for a minister to be available and accountable to the House for Question Period.

15) Bad enough that first the cabinet and then the caucus have been muzzled unscrupulously by the PMO, but now it's spreading to the non-partisan bureaucrats?!. Shockingly, it would seem they have been pressured by their political masters not to appear before the Finance committee. Their absence can only serve to impede the work of Her Royal Majesty's government (just to remind you, Stephen, you don't own it yourself).

16) And finally, there was still no apology from MacKay - nor from his boss - after being put on the spot by the Opposition for referring to a woman as a dog. Whatever one thinks of Belinda Stronach, the reference is demeaning to all women and the least MacKay can do is apologise for such misogynistic crudeness. His lack of understanding is appalling and insulting. I find this particularly alarming considering this came from the mouth that represents Canada abroad as Foreign Affairs Minister. "This matter has to do with respect for women, acceptance of responsibility for one's actions, integrity, accountability for the truth and the dignity of the House of Commons," interim Liberal leader Bill Graham said. Well put.

But of course, the buffoonish Harper and his coterie still don't even begin to get it.

When I add it all up, I get it. It's time for the Opposition to pull the plug on this sad excuse for a government. A government whose entire vision of democracy is as something to be dumped on a shelf.

Mr. Harper, you are vile. I fart in your general direction.

- 30 -

Peevey Stevie's Shabby Record

Some folks are downright insulted at Stephen Harper’s line that he was not the one to ditch MP Garth Turner from his caucus. As usual, Scotian’s take on the situation is a good read and well researched. While I agree it's an insult to Canadians’ intelligence to make such a disingenuous claim, I simply can’t muster the same level of outrage. I believe this is a rather minor addition to this government’s growing list of lies and disrespect for democracy that includes:

1) The Emerson affrontery.
2) That and the Fortier appointment.
3) The continuing attempt to hide from the press and stifle dissenting views, no matter how harmless.
4) The cow-towing to Washington on our Afghanistan commitment.
5) The inexplicable $450 million gift to Bush to use as he sees fit (read: slush fund) in a heavily contested election year.
6) The sell-out on softwood lumber that #5 above was a part of.
7) The inaction on the health care proposal they made while on the campaign trail.
8) The refusal to honour our war dead with flags at half-mast and a ban on media pictures when the coffins return.
9) The slashing of funding to environmental groups and women's groups.
10) The announcement of new tax cuts on the heels of #9 above.
11) The plan to scrap the gun registry against the oft-expressed wishes of the nation’s police forces.
12) The cutting of funds for the Court Challenges Program to assist with Charter rights challenges.
13) The cagey "Reverse Onus" proposal.

So a blatant lie about something that is an internal party matter (except perhaps for Turner's constituents) is not a huge surprise to me. I am still more aghast at his government's increasingly horrendous rhetoric and record.

- 30 -

Parking it where the sun don't shine

Today's topic is how to canonize an inept former Premier Ministre du Quebec. The man who panicked and begged the feds to bring in the army and the War Measures Act during the October Crisis. The guy who called in the Canadian army again 20 years later during the Oka Crisis after his bumbling provincial police shamefully opened fire on the Kanesatake Mohawks, escalating a minor land dispute to a tribal war. The only politician to formally set aside the Charter of Rights and Freedoms using the infamous "Notwithstanding Clause" to pass an incredibly silly piece of legislation. Yes, good 'ol BooBoo.

He was a pol who never saw a bit of Quebec society's fabric he couldn't resist yanking on to the breaking point. The one thing he did right - although it disrupted the ecosystem terribly in the process - was to build mammoth hydro-electric projects in the James Bay region, thereby securing our energy needs with a renewable resource for decades afterward.

But that's not enough reason to rename Park Avenue (or Avenue du Parc) as Ave. Robert-Bourassa.

For one thing, we already have a major artery - not far away from Park - named Boul. Henri-Bourassa. Oh sure, it's not the same Bourassa, but tell that to confused out-of-towners who just want to know how the heck to find their way to the Grand Prix.

For another, I used to live on Park and have always appreciated the name for its blessed brevity - especially when filling out Quebec government forms that never seem to provide enough space to write such stuff as "Ave. Robert-Bourassa".

And yet another: Park (or Parc) could be confused as being vaguely english-sounding, as a friend of mine pointed out. No wonder the pencil pushers can't leave it be.

- 30 -

London (er... Laval) Bridges Falling Down

Over at MyBlahg, Robert questions whether tax cuts have starved our ability to keep USSR-style horrors like this from happening here in Canada. But this is a made-in-Quebec situation.

Consider:
1) The Quebec Transport ministry has a dismal record. Everyone knows we can't be bothered to build roads properly and, as evidenced by PQ leader Andre Boisclair's recent comment - that he knows an election is around the corner because he's "never smelled so much asphalt poured" - decisions regarding the building of infrastructure in this province have traditionally revolved around political considerations first and foremost. Laval is a perfect example, where Bernard Landry's former PQ government went the vote-buying route with its big-money pre-election decision - still under construction - to extend the orange line of the Metro into Laval for three needless new stations. Buses and trains currently do an adequate job for Laval's commuters, and this decision just encourages more urban sprawl.

2) For decades, we poured craploads of salt on our winter roads (in recent years in Montreal, we've turned to less damaging mixtures consisting of a little salt and a lot of sand). One engineer's perspective in this morning's Gazette was that the steel supports for the viaduct in question may have snapped in a domino effect due to salt-induced rust that took 15 years off its expected lifespan.

3. (Pure non-expert top-of-my-head speculation here): The acid rain factor. I have visited Columbus, Ohio a few times this year and the difference in the state of their concrete is staggeringly obvious. Here, a sidewalk or other concrete structure starts to erode after only a few years, damaged heavily by sulphur-dioxide laden acid rain (thanks in no small part to coal-fired electrical plants in places such as - you guessed it - Ohio).

4) Inspectors for Transport Quebec who are responsible for making annual check-ups on viaducts aren't themselves engineers (again, props to some excellent local reporting in this morning's Gazette). They have some training, but they aren't yet using the kinds of diagnostic tools that could've predicted the evidently sorry state of the viaduct in question. Add to that that it apparently hadn't received its supposedly annual inspection yet this year since Transport Quebec confirmed it was last inspected in 2005.

Now that we have four confirmed dead, a coroner's inquest is unquestionably in order. The big question will be why no action was taken to close off the roads immediately after it was reported by concerned citizens that concrete chunks had fallen from the structure. A precious hour was lost between the first such report and the eventual collapse of the viaduct. Prudence surely dictates that this sort of situation be taken more seriously in future.

This is indeed a wake-up call. I suspect this is a problem rooted more in typical Quebec provincial mismanagement than mis-allocation of tax dollars. When successive governments' attentions are focussed primarily on how to obtain more powers from the federal government to negate seperatists' debating points; or how to attain "winnable conditions" for a yes vote on separation, who does that leave to concentrate on making sure the trains run on time. Or in this case, that the bridges don't fall down?

- 30 -

Keith Olbermann, ladies and gentlemen

I honestly didn't think the U.S. media machine was capable of providing lucid and critical commentary like this anymore. (This is for you, Mum.)



It's ten minutes and 28 seconds of sheer courage. Edward R. Murrow reborn? Too damn bad I can't tune in MSNBC's Countdown.

For those who can't make the YouTube thingy work (or don't have high-speed), here's the full transcript.

OLBERMANN: Finally tonight, a special comment about President Clinton‘s interview. The headlines about it are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past present bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster finally lashed back. It is not important that the current president‘s portable public chorus has described his predecessor‘s tone as crazed. Our tone should be crazed. The nation‘s freedoms are under assault by an administration‘s policies can do us as much damage as al Qaeda. The nation‘s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would have quit.

Nonetheless, the headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years—he has spoken the truth about 9/11 and the current presidential administration. “At least I tried,” he said, of his own efforts, “to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. That‘s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try, they did not try, I tried.”

Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty and for us. Action as vital and courageous as any of his presidency. Action as startling and as liberating as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.

The Bush administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11. The Bush administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors. The Bush administration did not understand the daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The Bush administration did not try.

Moreover, for the five years, one month, and two weeks, the current administration and in particular the president has been given the greatest pass for incompetence and malfeasance in American history.

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs, some of them 17 years old before Pearl Harbor. President Hoover was correctly blamed for, if not the Great Depression itself, then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the stock market crash. Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War, though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But for this president. To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11, 2001 or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honestly nor manliness we expect of the executive. But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.

Except for this: After five years of skirting even the most inarguable facts that he was president on 9/11, he must bear some responsibility for his and our un-readiness, Mr. Bush has now moved on, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards rewriting history, and attempting to make the responsibility entirely Mr. Clinton‘s.

Of course, he is not honest enough to do that directly. As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.

Consider the timing: The very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is-not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.

It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted—promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.

And don‘t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for e-mailing you the question.

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth untold about this administration‘s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden. Mr. Clinton was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I, in one moment, surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon. Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with “The Path to 9/11.” Of that company‘s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: Someone there enabled an authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr.

Bush‘s new and improved history.

The basic plot-line was this: Because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.

The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the right wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.

Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden‘s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?

That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie “Wag the Dog.”

Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton‘s judgment.

Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general

echoed Coats.

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

And of course, were it true Clinton had been distracted by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?

Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?

Who corrupted the political media?

Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us here?

Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time?”

Who distracted whom?

This is, of course, where, as is inevitable, Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.

The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.

But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it‘s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.

The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected president.

Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.

Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us “safe” ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted tower in Los Angeles wrong.

Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack: You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor. You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people. Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be a textbook definition, sir, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past. That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair, writing as George Orwell, gave us in the book “1984.”

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power is power.”

Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the FOX ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln‘s State of the Union address from 1862.

“We must disenthrall ourselves.”

Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln‘s sentence. He might well have.

“We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.”

And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.

The free pass has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.

You did not act to prevent 9/11.

We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.

You have failed us-then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.

You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.

And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.

And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn‘t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.

And there it is, sir. Are yours the actions of a true American?

I‘m Keith Olbermann, good night and good luck.

Now who in Canada could you see being this tough on Stephen Harper?

- 30 -

Billy Bragg - Wisdom without Cynicism

Review: Billy Bragg, live at Club Soda (Montreal)

Sorry, Ottawa; I think we wore him out. Despite his pleading with the diehard fans at Club Soda to help save his Cockney voice for tomorrow night's gig at the New Capital Music Hall, we called him back for three encores. What's more, audience members down in front hung onto him during that third encore until he relented and played all seven tracks from his original 1983 release Life's a Riot with Spy Vs Spy.

But it wasn't merely to hear him play his songs that I went. Bragg's witty (and sometimes scathing) on-stage banter is worth the ticket price itself. While he does take time out during his act to peddle (of all things) his new book, The Progressive Patriot, he smoothes over the sales pitch by explaining in his own heartfelt way how he came to the conclusion cynicism is our biggest social problem.

We also got to hear him describe his odd life on the road as consisting of a mesmerizing flutter of planes, shows and time killed mindlessly in hotel rooms. He talked of the joys of sharing insights with his eight-year old son, such as a YouTube download of a cat caught in a precarious situation involving a ceiling fan. And the recurring theme of his bitter disappointment with Tony Blair, whom he refered to as Bush's poodle.

More sometimes gems were to be found in reworked lyrics from old songs, such as his update to the old Leadbelly staple Bourgeois Blues with new lines like I've got the Bush War Blues / He's making the world safe for Haliburton.

Perhaps the highlight of the night was a new song written in a style Bragg dubs "Johnny Clash", wherein he claims to have channeled Johnny Cash and Joe Strummer during its composition. (He had to prepare for it by turning to his amp and getting that "first Clash album" sound going). Always that big heart.

Assuming he hangs onto what's left of his voice, he's heading across Canada next week and will then play a few dates on the United States west coast. At 48 Bragg's still got a taste of the old punk in him, even if his style is primarily a mix of folk and soul. Tour Dates here.

- 30 -

Public Notice - Petition for the CRTC

The following is from a petition put up by Canwest Global. The link was sent to me by a friend who works on the newscast of the affiliate in question. For reasons only the CRTC can explain, the station is not available on any satellite services offered in Quebec. I edited some of the more eye-rolling parts out of the prepared letter (below) before putting my own name to it. You can probably guess which parts are my own.

CRTC

Dear Ms. Rhéaume;

Re: Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2006-5

I live in the province of Quebec and I can tell you that it is a disappointment to me that Bell Sympatico does not carry CKMI-TV, the regional Global Television station that serves Quebec City, Montreal, and Sherbrooke.

CKMI produces and broadcasts the only local and regional morning show, providing traffic, weather, news and community information (3 hours daily) for the benefit of viewers in the three Quebec cities served by CKMI. It is regrettable that English-language satellite subscribers in Quebec are denied access to this and other unique English-language programming.

Local and regional programming is expensive and its viability is dependent entirely on access of the television station and its advertising clients to the unique audiences served by the station. I believe that the current rules not requiring satellite services to carry this local station undermine the economic viability of the station, which is important to our community.

In particular, I consider their local news coverage to be a highly valuable asset to this community; and one which I presently am unable to receive via UHF due to poor reception in my corner of Montreal.

Furthermore, as a television viewer who currently relies on the antennae - and is contemplating other choices for television reception - I was quite disappointed to learn that I am unable to view this channel unless I subscribe to Videotron cable, or erect an expensive and ugly outdoors antennae.

Please give satellite subscribers access to CKMI-TV.

Sincerely,

Scott (in Montreal)

c.c.
Mr. Pat Button
Vice President, Marketing
Bell ExpressVu
100 Wynford Drive
Toronto, On
Email: Pat.button@bell.ca

Mr. Jim Cummins
Vice President, National Operations
Star Choice Communications
2924, 11th Street N.E.
Calgary, Ab.M
Email: Jim.Cummins@starchoice.com

Ms. Maria Mourani M.P.
mourama@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Irwin Cotler P.C., M.P.
Cotler.I@parl.gc.ca

Ms. Marlene Jennings M.P.
Jennings.M@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Jean C. Lapierre P.C., M.P.
Lapierre.J@parl.gc.ca

Ms. Vivian Barbot M.P.
Barbot.V@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Stephane Dion P.C., M.P.
Dion.S@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Lucienne Robilliard P.C., M.P.
robill@parl.gc.ca

Ms. Christiane Gagnon M.P.
gagnoc1@parl.gc.ca

Ms. Sylvie Boucher M.P.
Boucher.S@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Daniel Petit M.P.
Petit.D@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Luc Harvey M.P.
Harvey.L@parl.gc.ca

Ms. Josee Verner M.P.
Verner.J@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Serge Cardin M.P.
Cardin.S@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Christian Ouellet M.P.
Ouellet.C@parl.gc.ca

Ms. France Bonsant M.P.
Bonsant.F@parl.gc.ca

These folks put on a high quality newscast that covers the local community at least as well as the competition. The anchor, Jamie Orchard, was a colleague of mine at Concordia, and I can vouch for her as an intelligent and extremely competent journalist. Apparently, CKMI's reporters sometimes experience bewilderment from interviewees who have never even heard of the station. It just doesn't make sense not to include them in the package of roughly 8 gazillion channels - especially considering CKMI includes programming put together right in our own backyard. So click on the link and sign your name if you agree.

Cheers

- 30 -

Another Sociopath turned Psychopath

The silicon chip inside her head
Gets switched to overload
And nobody’s going to go to school today
She’s going to make them stay at home
--The Boomtown Rats

In lieu of yesterday's shooting spree at Dawson College, I couldn't agree more with the Amazing Wonderdog's conclusion that to have or not to have a long-gun resistry is not the question.

The real issue is how this nutcase slipped through the background checks and obtained this weapon. All the registries in the world are useless if they can't do what they're designed to, which is to control who can own guns.

That's certainly what I was thinking. I also can't believe the jerk's web host allowed all the crap he posted to stay up, until today anyway. Nor can I believe that a video game re-enacting the Columbine shootings even exists, and is available on the market (sorry but I can't bear to put up a link to that right now).

But I can believe a sociopath like this can be produced in a place like Laval. And that not so long ago in Beaconsfield - where I happened to spend my teenaged years - four screwed-up teenaged kids beat their elderly next door neighbours to death with a baseball bat.

Suburbia tends to breed more than its share of bored, screwed-up kids. And it will keep doing so, especially when the parents / guardians don't love their kids enough to goddamn pay attention to them and listen to them. Like Marilyn Manson said:

Michael Moore: Do you know that on the day of the Columbine massacre, the US dropped more bombs on Kosovo than any other day?

Marilyn Manson: I do know that, and I think that's really ironic, that nobody said 'well maybe the President had an influence on this violent behavior' Because that's not the way the media wants to take it and spin it, and turn it into fear, because then you're watching television, you're watching the news, you're being pumped full of fear, there's floods, there's AIDS, there's murder, cut to commercial, buy the Acura, buy the Colgate, if you have bad breath they're not going to talk to you, if you have pimples, the girl's not going to fuck you, and it's just this campaign of fear, and consumption, and that's what I think it's all based on, the whole idea of 'keep everyone afraid, and they'll consume.'

Michael Moore: If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine or the people in that community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?

Marilyn Manson: I wouldn't say a single word to them, I would listen to what they have to say and that's what no one did.

Even though Gill was reportedly a Manson fan himself, it seems he didn't get the message somehow. So don't try to blame Manson - or the goths, for that matter. They aren't the problem.

Instead, look in the mirror and think about what kids you pick(ed) on in school. Think about who you humiliated just to get a cheap laugh and a high-five from your friends so you could try to boost your own fragile self-esteem. Think about the strange co-worker you joke about behind his back because he's an oddball. And most of all, if you're a government bureacrat issuing gun ownership certificates, please - for all our sakes - think about that silicon chip that might be inside that person's head, and how the last thing we all need is for it to switch to overload when they've got access to deadly weapons.

- 30 -

How to piss off ALL your constituents in 2 easy steps, by Borys Wrzesnewskyj, MP

Wrzesnewskyj on Sunday:

When asked if he were in favour of Hezbollah being taken off the terror list, Etobicoke Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj said: "Yes, I would be."

He likened the situation in the Middle East to Northern Ireland, where "if there wasn't the possibility for London to negotiate with the IRA, you'd still have bombings."

"Hezbollah has a political wing, they have members of parliament, they have two cabinet ministers," Wrzesnewskyj said. "You want to encourage politicians in this military organization so that the centre of gravity shifts to them."

Brave, sensible words. The words of a realist with an understanding of the power shift in Lebanon that has taken hold in the midst of Israel's ruthless, yet ultimately impotent, response to the abduction of two of its soldiers.

Well, not so fast. Here's Wrzesnewskyj on Monday:

Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj has denied reports he said Hezbollah should be taken off Canada's terrorist list.
"I've said all along that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and will continue to be," Wrzesnewskyj said. "Where I have difficulty is with the legislation that says a group on the list cannot be communicated with."

And they called Kerry a flip-flopper. Free advice to you Borys: when the CBC has you on camera right at the top of their newshour, don't bother trying to deny what we clearly heard you say. Next time, just shut your yap if you're not ready to stand behind what comes out of it.

Leave that crap to the governing party.

- 30 -