Well, I'm trying

I'm really trying.
I really do want to give Harper the benefit of the doubt, to accentuate the positive and elminate the negative, all we are saying is give peace a chance, and all that touchy-feely 60s stuff about peace and love and stop with the negative vibes.
But it gets a lot harder when I read articles like this one (thanks to Cynic for finding it) -- Harper's grand plan:

On the one hand, he wants to radically decentralize power and taxing authority so that the federal government no longer plays a significant role in social areas, like medicare, that Canadians regard as national institutions.
On the other, he wants to focus and strengthen Ottawa's role in areas such as defence so that Canada can more effectively join the United States in what Harper has called the great moral battle against tyranny and terror.

Sorry, but I just can't help it -- when I read stuff like this my inner-Yosemite Sam starts to explode into the mother of all Snark attacks and I burst forth with "Oh, great, guys, just what we need, George Bush Lite -- all the incompetence without those bloated deficits -- yet! Does he think this is what Canadians elected him to do? Well, he's got another think coming . . . (yadda, yadda, yadda, you know the rest!)"

We can only choose our side

We don't get to choose the battle. We only get to choose our side.
I have been thinking lately about how to reply to the apparently-reasonable-sounding argument that I hear from Conservatives and religious people that a person can support gay rights without supporting gay marriage.
But you can't. Not anymore.
We don't get to choose the battle.
No one decided that the second world war would start in defense of Poland. But once Germany invaded, no one could just sit back any longer and say "Sorry, boys, can't fight now because we just aren't organized well enough quite yet. Let's put this off until something else outrageous happens."
No one decided that the right to have an abortion should define the women's movement. But this issue came to symbolize the most basic right, for women to control their own bodies, and therefore people who do not support a woman's right to choose are not feminists and cannot claim to be.
No one decided that the black civil rights movement would make its bones through a bus boycott in Montgomery. But once this boycott began, the black people of Montgomery had to keep on walking no matter how tired they were and how violent things became. The people couldn't say "Sorry, boys, this is really inconvenient for everybody, so can you please take your cause to some other city?" No, Montgomery became a battle that had to be won.
And so it is now with gay marriage. The battle is real and immediate and personal to many gay people, but its has also become symbolic. The Christian Right hysteria against gay marriage is one of the factors that has made this battle so important, because the core of their opposition to gay marriage is bigotry and hate against gay people, which cannot be allowed to win.
When someone says "I don't support gay marriage but this doesn't mean I am a bigot", this simply isn't true. Not anymore. The battle lines have been drawn.
The choice is which side you are on.
You ARE a bigot if you don't support gay marriage.

Horse with no name

Come on, Liberals, get on with it!
According to this article, some of the least-likely leadership candidates in the country -- people whose horses are so dark they are effectively invisible -- want to give Harper all sorts of time in power by delaying the leadership convention until late 2007, so they can sell a few more memberships.
Along with likely candidates Frank McKenna, Brian Tobin, John Manley and Alan Rock -- as if this weren't enough -- the article also mentions dark-horse candidates Martin Cauchon, Stephane Dion, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, Ken Dryden, Anne McLellan, Joe Volpe, Michael Ignatieff, and Denis Coderre. Coderre is quoted in the article as saying that Liberals should delay their leadership convention until they "conduct a thorough post-mortem on the losing election campaign, reunite the warring factions and allow plenty of time for new ideas and new leadership contenders to emerge."
But Canada doesn't have "plenty of time".
On this agenda, the Liberals wouldn't really be ready to fight another election until 2008. And by then, the Canada that the Liberals built will be on the way to being dismantled. We may well be in Iran with Bush. Customs and immigration integration may be implemented. The CRTC and the CBC will be unrecognizabble. Kyoto and the Kelowna accord will be toast. We may well be allowing two-tier health care.
So a crew of no-name Liberals want to give a Harper government the time to do all this, just so that they can try to promote themselves into a spoiler role in a leadership race?
Thanks a bunch.

First, we gut the CRTC!

Wow -- less than 24 hours and the CSA (Conservative secret agenda) is already up and running!
Kate McMillan's final CBC election blog post -Morning in Canada- says that as well as doing the things Harper actually told Canadians he would do -- like the accountability act, tax cuts, etc -- he should also immediately start doing things he DIDN'T tell anyone about, like gutting the CRTC and the CBC so that Canada can have its very own rightwingnut Rush Limbaugh-types dominating our radios.

. . . the single most important change he [Harper] can make to restore balance to Canadian democracy is to begin breaking down the stranglehold of government and the Liberal apparatchik on the communications industry by eliminating or radically restricting the authority of the CRTC, restoring political balance on the board of the CBC and moving the network to a model of market self-sufficiency, and closing the generous pasture land of government funded "think tanks" where deposed and unemployed Liberals retire to lobby the government at government expense - and inform Canadians of our "Canadian values."
For until and unless conservatives can look forward to hearing their voice, their issues, their world view expressed as part of - as opposed to subject matter for - mainstream Canadian media, the prospects for the election of Stephen Harper to bring "Morning to Canada" will be remembered only as a brief time out for Canada's unnaturally governing party.

Its going to be a fun year, isn't it?

Great line of the day

From Keith in the comments to Steve Gilliard's Canadian election post:

If one looks over the totals, one almost got the impression that the Canadian public stood the four leaders up against the wall and read them all the riot act. "Harper, we'll let you try things out but we don't trust you and if you get out of line, you're toast. Martin, go stand in the corner and get your shit in order. Duceppe, don't be getting any ideas about trying for independence because we're not in the mood. And Layton, you still don't have enough votes to be a power broker so shut the hell up and reign in your ego."

Emphasis mine. Hey, I think he's got it!

Update on my son

And just a quick update on my son -- he got 1284 votes with 182 out of 184 polls reporting -- a couple of hundred more votes than the Greens got last time in the Blackstrap riding, so we were pretty pleased about it. Thanks, everyone, for your good wishes.

Martin resigning

Well, this is sad news -- Paul Martin says he won't lead the Liberals through another election.
So I'll bet Jean Chretien thinks now that he won.
Maybe he did, but the people of Canada have lost.

Harper + Duceppe="several years of rule"

An article "Grit Removal" in today's American Spectator blog, John Tabin writes:

. . . It's possible, though not likely, that the Conservatives will win an outright majority in Parliament. But even if they don't, and need to form a coalition government, they will have more of a chance to move an agenda than one would expect. As a political consultant explained to me in Washington a few months ago before heading north to work for the Conservatives, the leaders of the Tories' prospective coalition partner, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, are willing to give Harper several years of rule (but expect lots of Tory reforms to exempt Quebec) . . .

Emphasis mine.

My son, the candidate

Mike is running for the Greens in Blackstrap. What an experience it has been for Mike -- I know it would never ever have occured to me to run for federal office at the age of 22. We're very proud parents, of course, and we've been helping out wherever we can.
Mike is his own person, with his own political ideas, running his own campaign, and filming everything as he goes. His film project will be unique.
In the last election, the Green candidate in Blackstrap got a thousand votes, compared to the winner's 15,000. But Mike's argument is this: if Blackstrap elects Canada's first Green MP, then tens of thousands of Greens from across Canada will want to move here, and that will be great for the constituency and the province.
Mike has a point, doesn't he?
His sister wrote this about him:

. . . his approach is novel. He's seeking to bring an important aspect of Canadian society into the lime-light, so to speak. Our political processes are often a complete mystery to those who are not involved directly and many have no idea what it takes, who to talk with, or how to go about becoming a Member of Parliament in this country. One thing I have always appreciated about Mike is his unique vision for the world, his ability to sort through the political BS to the core of the issue, and more than anything his unending sense of humor - which I believe to be the most important for a candidate in his position. And you may write this off as a proud, perhap boastful, sister of similar political mind - but when it comes to the seriousness of the leadership hopefuls in this country I make no false claims. Mike Fornssler is going to change the face of politics in this country, one film, one election, one speech, one interview at a time.

Good and hard

First, Brian Gable from Friday's Globe and Mail:


Now, here are a few apt H. L. Mencken quotes about politics and democracy:

A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in.

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.

And finally, my personal favorite:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard.

Hello, breakfast!

I haven't been keeping up with Oddball News lately -- though with the amount of blogging I am doing about the election, my reader could beg to differ.
Anyway, here's one of the stories I missed -- Hamster, snake make a strange pair:

Zookeepers at Tokyo's Mutsugoro Okoku zoo presented the hamster - whose name [Gohan] means meal in Japanese - to Aochan [a Japanese rat snake] as a tasty morsel in October, after the snake refused to eat frozen mice. But instead of indulging, Aochan decided to make friends with the furry rodent, according to keeper Kazuya Yamamoto. The pair have shared a cage since. "I've never seen anything like it. Gohan sometimes even climbs onto Aochan to take a nap on his back," Yamamoto said.

Oh, if only our politicians could get along so well, eh?
(AP Photo/Mutsugoro Okoku Zoo, Kyota Nomura)

Conservatives + Bloc = Government

Remember -- the magic number is 156 (including the Speaker).
Jason Cherniak has got a much better handle than I have on what is happening in the ridings across the country. Here is his best-case/worst-case scenario, which provides us with the likely range of results:

. . . in the best case scenario, a Liberal loss of 13 in Atlantic and Quebec, a Tory gain of 10 in Atlantic and Quebec and a BQ gain of 3 in Quebec . . .
Lib - 120
Con - 108
BQ - 56
NDP - 24
At worst for the Liberals, they lose 8 in Atlantic, 10 in Quebec and 20 in Ontario. That would give approximate numbers of:
Con - 130
Lib - 94
BQ - 56
NDP - 28

This prediction is also quite close to the Canadian Election Project numbers, which presently predict:
Con - 108
Lib - 93
NDP - 23
BQ - 58
Other - 1
Too close to call - 25
So the question of the day is - what happens next?
Only in the Cherniak best case scenario is there a chance that Martin remains as Prime Minister, and even then he would need NDP support plus some of the Bloc or Conservatives to vote with him.
In either of Cherniak's scenarios, if the Conservativea and the Bloc form an alliance then Harper would be Prime Minister. So does anyone think Harper wouldn't do exactly this -- work out a deal with Duceppe so that Harper can be PM and Quebec can be de facto independent?
Is this the government that Canada actually wants?
Well, if you vote Conservative on Monday, this is the government you will get.

Great line of the day

In Comments, The Rev referred us to his election post, and it was certainly worthwhile to click the link. Here is some of what he says:

Given the state of the polls in Canada at the moment, it would appear that Canadian voters, having seen how things have gone south of the border for the last six months, have said to themselves, "enough of the this solid economic development and sane, sensible, progressive social policy - gimme some incompetent bible-thumping yahoos who want to disassemble the government and fast, before its too late for us to get in on all the fun and games in Iraq." They appear to have decided that because Paul Martin and the Liberals are 'arrogant' and the previous Liberal administration probably skimmed some money from the till, they are going to vote for the Bush-Lite Conservatives.
Great idea Canada. Very clever.
Babies and bathwater, amputated noses and spite-worthy faces - pick your similie my fellow Canucks, but the bottom line is that you're making a horrible mistake.

Emphasis mine. Read the whole thing -- it gets even better after this part.

In the stars

Now a psychic is predicting a Liberal minority:

A psychic and an astrologer who claim to have predicted past political winners and losers say Martin is destined for a second minority government. "I look at him and I see his aura. It is so strong that it is clear this election is meant to be his,' said Marra, a psychic at the Psychic Boutique at Yonge St. and Wilson Ave. . . . In his 35 years as an astrologer, Robin Armstrong, who works in Aurora, said he has rarely seen an election where the media opinion of who is going to win has contrasted so much with the star charts. Armstrong also predicted a Liberal minority . . .

And just for fun, here are the horoscopes for Monday that I found on the net:

Paul Martin's horoscope : You will be the focus of attention today and, yes, you'll like it. There is, however, a danger that the suspicious side of your nature will get the upper hand and instead of just enjoying being everyone's pet you will try to rationalize why you are so popular. Put your mind in neutral for the next 24 hours and let your feelings guide you.
Stephen Harper: What's done is done and cannot be undone, so stop looking back and wishing things had been different because it is a total waste of your time and energy. The only things that matter are where you are now and where you intend to be in the very near future. Mars in your birth sign will provide the momentum you need.

Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are both Cancers and have the same intriguing horoscope for Monday:

Venus, planet of love, in your opposite sign of Capricorn brings relationship issues to the fore, and because Venus links with Mars, planet of passion, today you will leave the object of your affection in no doubt at all how much you care for them. But don't go overboard about it -- love is one thing, emotionalism quite another.

And for Jim Harris, well, he's an Aquarius:
When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius . . .

Take a guess

Is DarkSyde describing the Christian Right, or fundamentalist Wahhabism?

They are vehemently against abortion, they resist progressive woman's rights. They view homosexuality as a crime against nature and God, some advocate the death penalty as an option for it. Separation of Church and State is despised by these folks; they insist the nation is founded on the principles of their religion, and they work hard to bring that de facto theocracy about. They deplore strong language, gay characters, and sexual content on TV and in the media. And they ignore the Geneva Convention when it suits their ideological purposes, including provisions against torture or due process. They're anti-stem cell research, pro-creationism, and generally distrustful of science. These folks are easily whipped into a state of frenzy with ideological manipulation to the point where they will commit violence, or at least tacitly endorse that violence is acceptable, if it advances their Divine agenda. They then take great pains to justify that violence, including unprovoked attack of civilian areas, under certain conditions, with convoluted theological gymnastics. They are almost to the man pro-death penalty . . .

You'll have to click the link to find out which group DarkSyde is referring to, I think. Its a scary thought, too.