Scalia Lite

Well, Harper just couldn't keep his inner "Refooorrrm" quiet any longer -- its been two months since he could actually say what he thought, and the real Harper just had to break loose.
Here was today's Globe and Mail headline, above the fold: Harper warns of activist judges.

. . ."I am merely pointing out a fact that courts, for the most part, have been appointed by another political party. But courts are supposed to be independent regardless of who appoints them and they are an independent check and balance," he said. When one reporter asked if he believed judges are activists with their own social agenda, Mr. Harper replied: "Some are, some aren't." . . . Mr. Harper's former Reform and Canadian Alliance allies have cried loudly about judicial activism, with many complaining that liberal judges have imposed such things as same-sex marriage upon an unwilling populace.
Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler responded with a scathing attack on Mr. Harper, arguing that his opinions are unfit for a man who aspires to lead the country. "To me, [it] is irresponsible for a political leader to be impugning the independence and the integrity of the very institutions he should be protecting," he said. "We need someone who will respect the rule of law, who will respect the independence of the judiciary." Mr. Cotler said that the suggestion judges are Liberal-biased demeans and insults the judicial system. And he defended his own judicial appointments, saying they have been scrupulously apolitical.
In 2003, after courts in British Columbia and Ontario recognized the legality of same-sex unions, Mr. Harper, who was then the leader of the Canadian Alliance, accused former prime minister Jean Chrétien of stacking the courts with sympathetic judges for that very purpose.
"They didn't want to come to Parliament, they didn't want to go to the Canadian people and be honest that this is what they wanted," he said at that time of the Liberals. "They had the courts do it for them; they put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal, failed to fight the case in court."
. . . Mr. Harper says there is a particular type of person who would get those jobs if he were prime minister. "What we will be looking for is what I call the judicial temperament," he told reporters. "And that is the ability to competently and shrewdly and wisely apply the laws that are passed by the Parliament of Canada."

Sounds like the Conservatives will be looking for men like Antonin Scalia.
Oh, Myrtle, we're in trouble now...

Trend is up

.SES tracking poll Jan 18 -- Conservatives 37, Liberals 32.
Finally, the Liberals seem to hae stopped sliding and they have found a ladder to climb.

Some good news

Here: Poll suggests Liberals back in lead in Ontario
And here: Martin's Values, Hopes, Dreams ad

Already with the excuses...

What is Harper doing here? Not even elected yet, but he's already setting up the civil service or the Senate or the courts to take the blame for his failure.
Are there some promises he had made that he doesn't really want to keep? Harper said today that a Tory majority would not have 'absolute power'. Well, that will be news to the voters. The Liberals did it their way for 12 years; now if the Conservatives win a majority then the voters will expect them to do what they promised. And if they don't, they really can't blame it on the Liberals.

Who not to vote for

Vote Marriage Coalition has published their list of 150 candidates who they say do not support gay marriage.
Well, now you know who NOT to support in Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, New Brunswick , Newfoundland and Labrador , Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia , Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan , Yukon .
Its notable that so many of these bigots are Conservatives -- which means that if the Conservatives win this election then they will have enough votes in the Commons to overturn the gay marriage bill.
And now 100 legal beagles have sent Harper a letter about how stupid this all is: "It appears to be your intention to pass a law that you know is almost certainly unconstitutional and then leave it to the courts to clean up the mess."
But these law professors don't understand priorities here -- given the choice between taking a responsible approach to governing, and pandering to their base, which way does everyone think the Conservatives will go?

"The best record in Canadian history'

Rob McGowan, editor of Politics Canada endorses the Liberals -- he finds too much that is wrong with the Conservatives, and lots that is right with the Liberals:

Paul Martin assumed the mantle of power in December 2003 bringing about a series of significant changes to accountability, a new accord on Healthcare emphasizing wait-time improvements, the Atlantic Accord, funding for cities, Parliamentary Reforms, free votes, terminating the Sponsorship Program, increased military funding, signed the helicopter contract, tightened financial controls, greater co-operation with the provinces, resolved the BSE cattle export dispute, and achieved a drop in duties on softwood lumber. He did this while dealing with the aftermath of Chretien's ill-fated Sponsorship Program as well in a minority setting passing more legislation than any other Prime Minister in a minority. Should the Conservatives take power they will inherit a country in much better shape than the last Conservative government left it. In 1993 interest rates and unemployment were high, and a government burdened with two decades of deficit financing and burgeoning debt. Today the Liberal record of sustained economic growth, balanced budgets, debt repayment, exceptionally low interest and low unemployment rates is the best record in Canadian history as well as the best record among the G7 countries.

Yes, this sums it up quite well.

$388

As The East End-Underground reports, the Conservative's child care allowance proposal evaporates once you figure in the income taxes. From a Caledone Institute study: "a two-earner couple in Ontario raising two children (one under 6) and earning $36,000 . . . would end up with a net Child Care Allowance worth just $388 - only 32.3 percent of the $1,200 face value payment."

Great line of the day

In my Comments page for the last post, the Dave the Galloping Beaver writes: "All platforms being equal (relatively worthless), the indicator of the real agenda of a political party and its leader is the direction of those organizations which support them. In checking them all, Harper's leave me cold." Emphasis mine. And I will keep checking his blog for more on this topic.

Cheshire economics

If the media are now going to blunt every criticism of the Conservative budget by describing it as just another attack on Harper, then neither the Liberals nor the NDP will be able to generate any traction.
What we are seeing now from the Conservatives is what I am calling Cheshire economics -- promises appearing from thin air like the Cheshire Cat's smile, then quickly disappearing before they can be pinned down.
This CP story is headlined Federal election campaign enters final week with attacks focused on Harper, which trivializes some serious concerns:

A Tory government would boost user fees to finance costly election promises, Layton warned. . . "They relieve you of your cash in other ways, with user fees and charges and things they don't call taxes," he told supporters . . . Martin was also in warn mode, saying the Conservative platform doesn't add up and costly pledges to help cities build infrastructure, housing and sports facilities could suffer. "Mr. Harper won't tell us what he'll cut, he won't tell us which programs he's going to cut and which services he's going to cut," Martin said . . . "But let me tell you, something is going to have to give."

Meanwhile, we're already seeing some Conservative cutbacks appear and promises disappear. When Harper released the Conservative budget, it included a letter from the Conference Board of Canada (pdf) trumpeting its affordability.
So Saturday we got the news that the budget had been quietly reissued because originally it hadn't listed $26 billion in hidden spending cuts.
Today we find out that the budget approved by the Conference Board didn't include billions Harper has now promised to Quebec, nor does it include his promise that Canadians can go elsewhere for health care if necessary:

[Conference Board economist]Darby says the version of the platform he was given to vet didn't include a Conservative party health-care guarantee which states patients will be transported to another jurisdiction if they can't get timely care at home. It also omitted a Tory platform promise to redress the so-called "fiscal imbalance" between Ottawa and the provinces. Darby wouldn't comment on whether the timely health-care guarantee would bear a significant cost. "Talk to Harper," he said. "It is not in the platform I received from them." It's also not clear what the Conservatives expect to pay to redress the fiscal imbalance . . .

Now, Goodale and the Liberals argue that the so-called fiscal imbalance doesn't really exist. So maybe this explains it -- the Conservatives were promising anything to sound good in Quebec, but later on they intended to announce that -- surprise, surprise -- they actually don't owe the provinces anything after all.
But beware, Ontarians -- don't make that appointment at the Mayo clinic just yet.
'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
' That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
'I don’t much care where--' said Alice.
' Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,' said the Cat.
' --so long as I get SOMEWHERE,' Alice added as an explanation.
' Oh, you’re sure to do that,' said the Cat.
UPDATE: And as POGGE notes, check out Tilting at Windmills where Ian Welsh says the capital gains tax exemption will distort the Canadian economy by encouraging speculation in housing and in securities.

Where have these people been?

A coalition of progressive groups calling themselves the Think Twice coalition has FINALLY stepped forward to warn of the danger of Conservative victory.
Its about time.
Members include Maude Barlow, Council of Canadians; Buzz Hargrove, Canadian Auto Workers; Kira Heineck, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada; Linda Silas, Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions; Bonnie Diamond, National Association of Women and the Law; and Elizabeth May, Sierra Club; plus the Canadian Federation of Students, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, Egale Canada, Prevent Cancer Coalition, and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
Other than Buzz Hargrove, I haven't heard about any of these groups speaking out in support of the Liberals. There was no coverage that I saw on Friday for the coalition's announcement -- I found this story on Rabble, and that's just preaching to the choir.
But for the record, here's what they are sayng:

What would Conservative policies mean for Canadians?:
They mean privatization and deregulation, and more cuts to social programs.
They mean the end of the national child-care program, and the rollback of the $5 billion deal between 10 provinces and the federal government. This is the beginning of the first new national social program since medicare, but Harper says he will cancel it in exchange for a dollar a day sent to Canadians, burdened with securing and financing their own child care.
They mean abandonment of the agreement just achieved with First Nations at the Aboriginal Summit, and reneging on promised spending to alleviate a housing and health care crisis for some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, women and children.
They mean more greenhouse gas emissions, the end of the domestic Kyoto plan to reduce emissions by 2012, and moving Canada from a strong supporter of further emission cuts to supporting George Bush's camp.
They mean a health care system based on commercialization, not patient needs; based on competition between health care providers, not collaborative practice; a health care system that would allocate public health care dollars to for-profit business, rather than improving primary health care for our families; and a continuing absence of national standards for home care and inadequate long-term care for our seniors.
They mean the loss of at least $1 billion for affordable housing, and the potential loss of a Canadian housing framework.
They mean no commitment to the income measures and services needed to reduce poverty.
They mean abandoning efforts to protect workers' wages, pensions and benefits in cases of corporate bankruptcy.
They mean massive tuition fee increases for university and college students.
They mean greater trade and foreign policy integration with the U.S., particularly joint military ventures (including participation in foreign conflicts and space-based military systems).
They mean new risks to Canadian women's right to reproductive choice and access to abortion.
They mean abandoning plans for new pay equity legislation.
They mean abandoning plans for a new national strategy for people with disabilities.
They mean less government support for the arts and for public broadcasting.
They mean re-opening the debate over equal marriage rights for same sex couples, and the introduction of unconstitutional legislation.
They mean re-opening the Charter to protect private property rights, which have major implications for environmental protection, labour rights and equality rights.
They mean big tax cuts for corporations, and fewer pollution regulations.

All this, and missile defense, too.
But it may be too late to persuade people to think twice about their votes -- the "racist, homophobic, anti-feminist bigots" have already booked their flights to Ottawa.
It ain't no use in callin' out my name, gal
Like you never did before
It ain't no use in callin' out my name, gal
I can't hear you any more . . .
I ain't sayin' you treated me unkind
You could have done better but I don't mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time
But don't think twice, it's all right

TV Iraq

Billmon is back with a post about the newest in reality TV, Iraq style - The Abu Zarqawi Hour:

The video ends with Abu Zemen being shot in the back of the head, as well as having his house blown up.

Let's see Kiefer Sutherland top that . . . the terrorists appear to be getting a much bigger bang for their propaganda buck than the U.S. military is for its. With all due respects to the Lincoln Group, planting phony op-eds in Iraqi newspapers and blasting out text messages praising the democratic process is pretty thin gruel compared to exploding Humvees and videotaped executions. . . .
an insurgent group that operates its own clandestine TV studio and runs promos for future programming is not exactly a fly-by-night operation, constantly on the run from safe house to safe house. To me, it's just another sign that the Sunni insurgency -- or at least the homegrown parts -- is evolving into a complex enterprise, one that has a mix of clandestine, semi-clandestine components, as well as public "front" organizations. The result might be something like the old IRA/Sinn Fein apparatus, with a similar strategy of combining guns and politics . . . the metamorphosis of the Sunni insurgency into a multi-faceted, multi-layered resistance movement makes counterinsurgency an even more complicated task, and makes the U.S. military's emphasis on brute force (i.e. dropping 500 lb bombs on safe houses and leveling entire neighborhoods to chase out a few hundred rag tag guerrillas, even more inappropriate. The strategy and politics of it aside, though, the most striking thing about the "Abu Zarqawi Hour" is how it demonstrates the deranged, almost hallucinatory, quality of our 21st century global village . . . just as Paddy Chayefsky predicted 30 years ago.

The season premier of 24 is on tomorrow night -- I stopped watching at about the 2-3 pm show on the first year of the series but I gather they have dumped that day-in-the-life format and that Jack Bauer is still saving the world weekly by torturing some brown-toned person about whether to cut the blue wire or the green wire, or something like that. It does seem that what is on TV in Iraq these days is miles ahead of any Hollywood fantasy.
And what is Washington's response to all the problems in Iraq? Swiftboat Jack Murtha. Yeah, that'll do it.

Oh, lighten up!

Late Night Political Jokes from the last week:

"Doctors in Israel are now slowly drawing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon out of his coma to see what his remaining brain function is. Political experts say it is unlikely someone could run a country with a severe loss of brain activity. I beg to differ." --Jay Leno
"Doctors say that Ariel Sharon is emerging from his coma and can move his hand. The first thing he did was give Pat Robertson the finger." --Jay Leno
"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has regained some brain function. The bad news: Pat Robertson, still no brain function at all. You know about this -- last week Pat Robertson said Ariel Sharon had a stroke because God was punishing him for dividing Israel. You remember a couple of years ago Pat Robertson announced he had prostate cancer? You think God was punishing him for being a pain in the ass?" -- Jay Leno
"There was also the emotionally-charged saga of Mrs. Alito. I myself will never forget the sight of her crying as she listened to Sen. Lindsey Graham defend her husband from Democratic attacks on his character. It was a sign of how brutal and hard-hitting these hearings can be, especially for a woman who, due to a tragic laundry accident, was forced to show up wearing her grandmother's couch." --"Daily Show" correspondent Ed Helms
"Senators were shocked that Alito would belong to a group made up of exclusively white males, as opposed to the Senate, which is, of course, overwhelmingly husky white males. If your organization is all white and all male, make sure they're all fat." --Jon Stewart
"Have you been watching the Alito Supreme Court nomination hearings? The Democrats are upset, they're crazy, they're already accusing him of giving vague, contradictory answers. And Alito was on that, he shot back, 'Maybe, maybe not.'" --David Letterman
"Supreme Court confirmation hearings are under way for Judge Samuel Alito. It's pretty interesting. Democrats want to know his position on privacy, while Republicans want to know his position on prison terms for bribery." --Jay Leno
"This week, New Jersey voted to temporarily suspend the death penalty. Lawmakers say it sends a strong message to death row inmates: If we can't leave New Jersey, neither can you." --Conan O'Brien
"Last Thursday, the president tried to counter the growing criticism of his Iraq policy by gathering together 13 former secretaries of defense and state, a regular who's who of who's blown up what. ... Also on the guest list, Robert McNamara, defense secretary during the Vietnam era. The White House invited him to ensure that at least someone in the room had fu*ked up more than they have." --Jon Stewart
"Indicted Congressman Tom DeLay announced that he will not run for re-election as House Majority Leader but that he will run for re-election to Congress. So apparently he thinks he's too corrupt to be a leader, but not too corrupt to be just an ordinary congressman." --Jay Leno
"In Washington, the Justice Department was evacuated because of a suspicious package. It was okay, it just turned out to be a bag of cash dropped off by Jack Abramoff." --David Letterman
"So what? A lobbyist cheated Indian tribes out of $25 million then laundered their money through phony Christian charities trying to stop other Indian tribes from getting casinos [on screen: 'Thou Shalt Not Compete'] and bribe congressmen in the process. Know what I call that? I call that business as usual in Washington. [on screen: 'Screwing Indians']" --Stephen Colbert

And how could we end without another great Non Sequitur:


Reminds me of many of the scintillating conversations that go on in our house every day!

Dyn-o-mite

I haven't read Paper Dynamite Online before but found this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It expresses my sentiments exactly, so therefore I do believe it is brilliant!
PD criticizes the Globe and Mail for its lukewarm Harper endorsement this morning -- he says they are letting a self-indulgent preference for Harper's style overwhelm their objective judgement about what is really the best for the country. What he says applies to all of us, I think:

I, like many Liberals and Canadians in general, have been disappointed with the Liberal campaign. But beyond the chaotic messaging and themeless Liberal campaign, there does exist rational arguments for voting Liberal.
The three great challenges that will confront Canadians in the next five to ten years are; 1) the innovation economy and globalization, 2) the environment and 3) increasing pressures on the health care system from aging Baby Boomers. The Conservatives are ideologically ill equiped to meet these challenges which will require more government involvement in key areas like research and development, higher education as well as a strong commitment to Kyoto. Furthermore, the impending strain on the health care system means that the Federal government must remain on the path of fiscal prudence. On the other hand, Harper has said during this campaign that 'all taxes are bad' and he believes surpluses indicate Canadians are over taxed. That's exactly what George Bush said to justify his reckless tax cuts which have led to ballooning deficits in the States.
Over the past 12 years the Liberal government has taken Canada from the verge of becoming Argentina North to the most fiscally sound economy in the industrialized world. Recently they've outlined policies on innovation, education, and the environment that will serve Canadians well as we strive to meet the complex challenges awaiting us. And they've done so within the context of a meta-promise not to go back into deficit.
Anger, frustration and disillusionment are powerful psychological forces. We can indulge them or we can try to think clearly and rationally.

Absolutely correct, I think. Now, as my reader knows, I like Paul Martin -- not his style necessarily, but his substance. Overall, I think the Liberals have the right ideas for Canada.
I didn't always think this -- I disliked Trudeau's liberals and I rather liked Mulroney (yes, GST and NAFTA and all). I came around to the Liberals in the mid-90s -- though I must admit I never did like Chretien (who began his Prime Ministership with lies about abolishing the GST, and ended it with lies about the sponsorship scandal). As I have grown older, I have come to see the value of many of the Liberal ideas. Their policies, I think, have been good for the country.
And their courage on social issues is outstanding.
An ordinary government -- a cowardly one -- would have taken the easy way and just left gay marriage to be permitted province by province as the courts decided it. But Paul Martin not only brought the issue back to Parliament, but he led the way in getting MPs and Canadians to accept gay marriage by framing it as a civil rights issie.
It is an example of true and courageous political leadership -- for which Martin hasn't been given nearly the credit he deserves.

The woman beside the throne?

CP Photo Ryan Remiorz
If Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister, just how influential would Laureen Teskey Harper be in Canadian politics?
Today's CP story includes reference to a possible Conservative cabinet. But, it says, Harper "hasn't even started discussing cabinet jobs with Tory candidates. 'I have not sat down and had a discussion with anybody on that subject yet,' he said. 'I haven't even discussed it with my wife yet.'"
So the woman that the Globe and Mail described as "a party girl who likes to laugh . . . opinionated and not afraid to speak her mind -- just not to reporters" will be advising Harper on who should be in Cabinet?
This London Free Press article tells us more. First, a bizarre factoid leads us to suspect that he and Georgie will have even more in common than we already thought: "Strategists say that thanks to Harper's wife's influence, the Tory leader is much more comfortable working closely with women in his caucus than he is with the men."
But don't worry, Canada, as well as Laureen, there will be some old party hacks hands coming back to help our boy out. "Harper is expected to look to Tory Senator Hugh Segal and former prime minister Brian Mulroney to help him draft his front-line team."

Its everywhere

Now here's a series of photos I can support. The Freewayblogger is posting photos of "impeach" signs from across the United States. Well, its a lot more encouraging than those photos on Rush Limbaugh's website of people wearing his Gitmo gear.
And Freeway also has a funny post up showing the 'mass graves' of War on Christmas . . .