Harper: Not a leader

Constitutional crisis

Canada is in serious danger of becoming a banana republic.

I am fearful for my country. Stephen Harper may stay in power, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

The negative forces he has unleashed will reverberate for year. I'm disgusted with his behaviour.

His use of the word 'separatist' every second word, his ABSOLUTELY FALSE claim that the three leaders refused to have the Canadian flag behind them at their press
conference.

His constant Quebec bashing is not only going to cost him and the conservatives in Quebec, it may well empower the separatists he despises so much.

He should know better than to claim that the opposition parties do not have the 'democratic right' to form a coalition government. What a load of crap, it doesn't even withstand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. It's as if he made it up on the back of a napkin and now is trying to use that as an argument.

We for better or for worse, live in a parliamentary system. We elect MPs, not governments.

I have to admit I feel a bit like I'm in the twilight zone, I can't believe it's come to this.

I am truly truly disgusted with the actions of Stephen Harper.

Interesting times..

It has been a surreal two days in Ottawa and it looks like another week of this, before it's resolved.

It appear Stephen Harper in a fit of arrogance, is trying to screw the other political parties by eliminating the subsidy parties get of 1.95$ per vote.

I'm not sure why that should be a matter of confidence regardless of one's position on it.

I think in a fit of stupidity, they also provided cover for the other opposition parties by refusing to do anything on the economic front.

So it looks like we may have Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister after all.

If there's anyone the tories have to blame it's Stephen Harper.

The new "Bond"

So i just saw the latest Bond movei and I thought it was pretty good, it's much darker.

I seem to agree with most critics that the plot was pretty thing, but I think it's normal for that to be the case in bond movies.

I think there was a lot of stuff to get rid of from the last movie so that they can move on to a new one. It'll be interesting to see the next one, as it'll be one of the first stand alone bond film that isn't based on the novels.

I'm looking forward to it.

For those who have seen the movie:

I thought the Canadian spy agent thing was hilarious and a bit over the top, especially as Canada doesn't have a foreign spy network.. so what the hell was one doing is Russia?

Ottawa International Writer's Festival

I really enjoyed 3 sessions at the Ottawa Writer's fest today. Luckily for me, Carleton University offered 500 free tickets to the festival, and I took full advantage.

There were 3 sessions:

The first , John Ralston Saul speaking about his new book A Fair Country. which is fantastic, and the presentation was just as good. This is a great book, though in many ways I like Reflections of a Siamese Twin better. Maybe because it was my first experience in reading Saul. What I like best about Saul is that he always challenges and provokes thought. I've never read anyone who confused and delighted me as much.

The second, was a bit more of a discussion between Tarek Fatah and Michael Adams on mutliculturalism. This was a bit of a disappointment because there was little dicussion and a air amount of hyperbole. The defence of multiculturalism was also pretty weak I though.

He actually summed it up saying that it was about creating "mixed race babies".

The third was a presentation by Major Gen. (ret.) Lewis Mackenzie.

I found it interesting to look at someone who i fundamentally disagree with in the eyes, and realize that they have reason behind what they say and they have charisma and intelligence and passion. This is important, and I find more and more that there seems to be less room for intelligent well informed debate and now you see more about style. More debate on form than content. This is no doubt important but it reminded me that it is possible to debate ideas.

The writer's festival which I attended for the first time in several years is an enjoyable experience for me, and I'm glad Carleton decided to purchase 500 tickets and distribute them for free to students. The intellectual stimulation will be with me for a long time, I always find my own ideas, challenged supported, and sometimes confirmed. It's always fascinating to see the authors of some of my favorite books, defend them in public and speak about them. I remember how fascinating it was to hear Yann Martel talk about his book the life of Pi, and how much more depth and understanding his presentation added to my appreciation of his book.

I hope I can keep attending, as this really is a wonderful festival.

Ah.. Quebec

It's been interesting redaing Chantal Hébert's book French Kiss during this period in the election.

Although slightly dated (and you can tell when she talks about the NDP in Quebec), it's a fascinating read.

I find that the opening section, where she deals with more current events better than the 2nd half of the book,where she delves into more history. Although interesting, I don't find it as well written, or the insights as piercing.

What I found most interesting, was not that the Liberal party was in trouble because they had nowhere to grow. I've been thinking that for quite some time, but the fact that the Chrétien and Martin governments were so dominated by Ontario.

To me the way she is able to reveal the structural weakness of the Liberals behind the scenes, makes this book worth reading.

I think this election campaign we have seen Stephen Harper make his first mistake in relation to dealing with Quebec. It's the culture issue, and I don't think it's really about the substance of the issue. I really believe is is the way he handled it, and his comments about 'the rich gala', which he refused to say in French made it a bigger story than otherwise necessary. It didn't help that Minister Verneer was pretty incompetent and ridiculous in her defence of it.

The one thing that has to be said about Stephen Harper is that he seems to be willing to learn from his mistakes, so hopefully he won't repeat this one. It's given the Bloc a second wind in this campaign. He seems to take a longer view, and this mistake is relatively minor.

Election post

So I dreamed up a fantastic post, and now can't seem to remember what I was going to say.

I guess I'm a bit torn about who to vote for this election, though I know it won't be conservative.

It's been interesting watching the campaign and so far no one has really convinced me that they really and truly have anything interesting to say.

I think the problem is that Stephen Harper's success has convinced everyone to run a small campaign, no big ideas, nothing interesting no vision, etc.

Actually Jeffrey Simpson wrote an interesting article about how these techniques have been imported from Australia and the United States.

The idea seems to me to be "death by a thousand cuts" to the public sector. Stupid tax cuts, no real policies and hope for the best. Actually what Stephen Harper touts as tax cuts (like the transit credit, the 705$ to defray my house closing costs) are actually subsidies to people who are already doing these things.

Does anyone really imagine that 750$ is going to make the difference between spending 300,000$ on a house or not. Ridiculous! Same thing with the transit pass, find me one Canadian that actually decided to take transit because he gets 20$ back on his taxes.

To call these things incentives, is quite the stretch, they are really subsidies to the voters that the Conservatives are targeting. Not only that, they increase the difficulty and opaqueness of the tax system. Real Conservatives would call for a simpler fairer tax system or even a flat tax, but the Conservatives we have here, just want to give out money in stupid tax cuts (read subsidies) that have no policy objective and don't really make any sense at all.

I wish we had a party that would provide a bigger vision and treat us like adults, however it seems increasingly unlikely. Maybe after the Liberals have spent some time in the wilderness they can come back with some real ideas..

Exciting times this fall

So it looks like we'll be heading into an election soon. That's pretty exciting at least for a political junkie like me. There's also the US election of course, which everyone here seems to be following, some a lot more closely than the Canadian election that's coming up.

There's also the fact that I'll be heavily involved with my school's student society, while working and taking a course.

Boy it sure sounds busy.

I think it'll be alright though. I feel like I'm better organized that I have been in a while.

It's been fun to meet the new incoming MA students, I'm fairly impressed so far, and times will tell how they fare. A lot of intriguing interests, and reasons for studying public policy. Some had a really clear idea, while others it seemed like they hadn't thought of it at all.

I'm looking forward to all the busyness this fall.

As for the election, I'm thinking it could be a conservative majority. If that happens, i have a feeling we might be back to deficit territory given their penchant for irresponsible tax cuts. Should that happen, it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the Conservatives are trusted to manage the economy, given that they reduced us from surplus to near deficit ( not that I think the huge surpluses weren't too high). Irresponsible tax cutting, basically wasting what could have been significant productivity enhancing income tax cuts with populism.

Talk to any economist and they'll tell you it was stupid. GST cuts encourage consumption and do nothing for productivity. Some economists feel that GST are the most neutral taxes because they don't distort people's decisions to work and invest.

But hey, I guess to a populist conservative, economists are just liberal elitists. Then again isn't Stephen Harper an economist?

Note to Conservatives: We already have and have always had fixed election dates

See the story here by Andrew Potter, he tells it better than I could.

Since that post I've never really understood the fetish for this whole 4 year thing, fixed election date thing. I don't think it's a systemic problem, but a problem with the politicians.

I also think the point about having elections on serious issues a la 1988 is a useful aspect of the current system as Potter describes.

Link

Quebec as a "nation"

So I had an interesting debate with some colleagues at work, one of whom happens to be from Quebec.

It all started because of comments Gilles Duceppe had made about recognizing the first nations as nations, and talking about the importance of the nation to nation relationship.

One of my colleagues then started talking about how Quebec was much further ahead in terms of its relationship with First Nations, in part because of their similar fears about assimilation.

The misunderstandings about the term nation were pretty clear from the outset however.Especially when it came to the so called nation resolution passed by the house of commons.

The statement was made "It is clear that Quebec is a nation"

This statement is patently false as anybody who actually reads the motion should understand this. If anyone doubts that listen to Lawrence Cannon trying to explain it to journalists. It was one of the most excruciating and inadvertently hilarious sessions I've ever seen an MP subjected to. [you can see one bloggers coverage of the period here ]

First of all, the motion in the house of commons declares that 'the Quebecois' form a nation within a united Canada. Why use the French term rather than its English translation Quebecker?

Therefore to say that the house of commons recognized 'Quebec' as a nation is false, they recognized the Quebecois. This is code language for the fact that they are talking about French speaking Quebeckers only and that the rest of Quebec is excluded.

Nationalism seems to me to be largely about defining us and them. This is why the frustration Parizeau felt in 1995, became crystallized in his famous "we got beat by the moneyed [ie the Jews] and the ethnic vote". They were clearly not part of the nation that he dreamed of.

My point is simply this, it is clear that most nationalist /sovereigntist politicians hide the fact that the nation they talk about, is the French speaking mostly pure laine Quebeckers.

when they talk about being "maîtres chez nous", it is important to understand who is included in the "nous". Does it include the Haitian immigrant who arrived in the past six months? Does it include the child of Korean immigrants who grew up in Atlantic Canada and ended up in Montreal? Does it include a 3rd generation Montrealer who doesn't speak a word of French?

Fundamentally if we want to boil it down to sociological terms, French speaking quebeckers, maybe you could even call them Quebecois are a nation.

However to translate that into either Quebec is a nation, or to the more difficult and dangerous notion that Quebec is a country is going too far.

The world is moving in the opposite direction, most nation-states are increasingly multi-ethnic states like Canada and the United States. The days of the [imaginarily] pure ethnic nation state is fading.

P.S if anyone has a transcript of the Lawrence Cannon debacle I'd appreciate you send me the link

Making "globalization" work

After one reads a book like The Collapse of Globalism by John Ralston Saul, one is forced to look at globalization in a different light.

I just finished reading Making Globalization Workby Joseph Stiglitz, and for all its good intentions and its good analysis, particularly on the trade front as well as interesting insight into the reserve system, the author refuses to make that break from using the term globalization.

I find it fascinating that the two books will make the same point, but Saul is willing to point out that the word "globalization" used in the early 1990s at least popularly, is not used in the same way today.

We have in fact moved into a post globalization era. I think that once we recognize this and start using new language, we can begin to truly change things. Language is important and I think the more we hang on to the terminology of globalization which has been captured largely by the economist and right wingers the longer it will take for real change to occur.

I really think the book by Stiglitz really demonstrates the point that Saul makes, that the term has become so broad as to be meaningless. It can mean one thing and it's opposite, the use of the term economic globalization and other such terms merely serve to obscure the fundamental point that when one uses the term globalization it has no meaning at all anymore.

Obama on race

Having listened to and read Obama's speech on race this past week, I have become even more impressed with his intelligence and poise.

As a friend remarked it seems to be a generational thing, to admit there's a problem and then say we need to deal with it.

It would nice if this were politics as usual!

Obama dealt with the issue and really challenged America to look beyond the stereotypes on both sides and really as John Stewart said, he talked to us about race as if we were adults.

I have read his first book dreams of my father and he deals with the race issue there. When I first read it, the thing I kept remarking about was how different his experience of race was from mine. Even though we are both the product of a black father and a white mother, my experience in Canada was different. He adopted the black side of his experience and worked in a black neighbourhood in Chicago. I feel a much stronger attachment to the more general immigrant experience, and although black do not necessarily identify with a larger black culture.

The other book which I found fascinating was my Lawrence Hill, on growing up mixed race in Canada. I found some of his descriptions outside of my experience, while others were bang on. A hilarious one, was how he began playing badminton in Canada, and when he went to the U.S he was told that badminton was a white man's sport [despite of course that Asians are dominant]. Now I am a badminton player, but have never seen that reaction, though to be honest I can picture it easily.

One of the interesting things for me, is the difference between how blacks are seen in Canada and the United States. Here we don't talk about race, or if we do it doesn't easily include black, it sits beneath the surface and is in some ways overshadowed by a debate about multiculturalism. However it can flare up, as in the debate in Toronto over an Afro centric school.

I'll always remember the fact that most people I know, never really remark on my race. On occasion when people are trying to identify me they will mention my race, but it's rare.

Now the one exception which made me strongly aware of my identity was an old roommate who was from the U.S. I was always very clearly identified as his black friend. It was a bit discomforting, but it also made me realize how no one else really referred to me that way, though perhaps it was beneath the surface. There were a few occasions when I remarked about being black, and was greeted with a shocked or surprised look, followed by "you're black?"

Obama speech was a reminder of the difference between race relations here and in the United States. It was a call to dialogue and discussion, and I leave even more impressed than before.

The city of words

I recommend that people should listen or read the latest Massey Lecture by Alberto Manguel. What a special lecture series, it's something that I have often enjoyed and it's been nice to hear them the last few times.

I enjoyed hearing Stephen Lewis when he did it a few years ago. He is an amazing speaker, and the words can't really do justice to the passion of his voice. My university, Carleton hosted one of the Massey Lectures by Ronald Wright a few years ago and I think I missed out, even though that series wasn't as interesting to me as the last one.

I have to say that the 2007 iteration was and is fantastic. I find Alberto Manguel and engaging and interesting speaker, on a fascinating topic. He is obviously someone who is well read and he makes literature relevant for me in a way I think few others have.

I find it interesting that I could engage with what he was saying and yet I used to hate and dread English class in high school. It wasn't until I took a course in grade 12 that I even realized how interesting that class could be. I think he was the only male English teacher I had in high school and he introduced me to John Ralston Saul. I think that was a brave act, especially as the material was over the head of many of the other grade 12 students. It wasn't all perfect, I think I read the worst piece of Canadian fiction they could drag up at my school, it wasn't fifth business of anything by Margaret Lawrence. I don't even remember who the author was.

I think it's a shame that so many boys in particular become alienated from reading through the horrors of English class.

Simcity fun

So I've been playing Simicity 4 a bit more recently. I connected one of my cities to a bigger city through a subway line. I returned to my bigger city to play around and start building it up. Then all of a sudden I noticed this:

I was suddenly making 10,000$ a month! and my transit revenue was 10,000$ a month. I have never hit this high before. So I decided to look around and see what was happening. Lo an behold I ran into this!

That's all for today folks.

Oh and I expect to have more time (hopefully/maybe) to start updating more regularly. I'm taking one less course this semester, and have 2 days off a week. The other thing I am hoping to do is some serious reading. I have 2 main classic sort of books to hit this semester. Adam Smith's Wealth on nations, and On the road to serfdom by Hayek. We'll see how that goes. I'm thinking I should maybe read Smith's Theory of Moral sentiments first, but I'm not sure. The next big classic book will be by Keynes.