The Toronto Bills

As you may or may not have heard the Buffalo Bills have announced that they will play 8 games over the next five years at the stadium formerly known as the Skydome. The announcement yesterday has caused a whole slew of reactions. Stephen Brunt is convinced the Bills are moving north the moment their ancient owner, Ralph Wilson, shuffles off this mortal coil. The Hamilton Ti-Cats are furious seeing the move as an intrusion on CFL territory. The Argos on the other hand see it as a nice way to sign up season ticket holders (Argos season ticket holders get first dibs on Bills tickets). Let's parse this one step at at a time.

Firstly, this is not a move north. This is a money grab by Wilson. If you could play one game a year in Toronto and make as much as you'll make the entire year in Buffalo, wouldn't you do it? I sincerely doubt that Mr. Wilson who has stuck with the city of Buffalo through thick and thin is going to abandon it in his later years. However, when Mr. Wilson is dead and buried the dynamic changes significantly. Mr. Wilson has already said that the team will be sold not inherited upon his death making it available to the highest bidder. Who at this point would the highest bidder be? Three obvious possibilities:

1. A local Buffalo person or group tries to save the team. This is a possibility. This scenario recently played out in the NHL in Nashville. However, the Nashville deal was facilitated by the killing of a higher bid from a bidder looking to move the team to Hamilton. The Toronto Maple Leafs are majorly implicated in that move. There also is not a lot of money floating around Buffalo these days. Wilson himself is not a Buffalonian. However, a future owner would undoubtedly seek greener pastures. Where?
2. Los Angeles. Los Angeles is the one blemish for the great and mighty NFL. The largest sports league in the United States is conspicuously absent from its second largest market. The main obstacle to success in LA is the stadium. The old LA Colosseum is just that, it's old. No luxury boxes, not enough seats. There is simply no willingness right now in LA to build a new stadium. Without some sort of government assistance, stadiums are an expensive proposition. Partially because of this stadium problem, there isn't anyone beating down the NFL's door for a team in LA. This isn't the case in...
3. Toronto. The 5th largest market in North America is much more likely scenario. First of all, the NFL (as is made clear by this deal) considers Toronto to be part of the Buffalo market. Thus, a move to Toronto would not be so much a relocation as a shift in an existing location. Second, the stadium issue is not as big a deal in Toronto. Toronto has built 3 stadiums in the last 25 years - the Dome, the ACC, and BMO field. All were done with significant public involvement. There is no indication that the city would balk at building an NFL stadium, particularly if it improved the city's perennial Olympic hopes. There is also a group willing and able to own an NFL team in this city. The trio on hand yesterday, Tannenbaum, Godfrey and Rogers, have deep pockets. The pockets get even deeper if Mr. Tannenbaum can convince his partners over at MLSE to expand their empire into football.
   

So, what's stopping an NFL move to Toronto? The border is an issue. The NFL has international designs but has so far been reluctant to put teams on foreign soil. The CFL also has major objections to such a move. The Argos are fine with a game a year, but a team in their market may change their opinion pretty quickly. The CFL commissioner, Mark Cohon, has already said on record that he would fight an NFL intrusion into Canada with every resource he has. Included in his bag of tricks is trying to wrestle up some political opposition. Another factor oft cited by Bob McCown is money. The NFL's primary source of revenue is from domestic television. A weak market in Buffalo is better for the domestic interest than a non-market in Toronto. However, there is one significant problem with this line of reasoning. While Toronto means nothing to American advertisers. It means quite a bit to Canadian ones. The value of the Canadian television contract would presumably go up if it included a Canadian team.

At the end of the day, I think there's a 60% chance the Bills are in Toronto in the next ten years. What this does to the CFL is unknown. If Toronto fails in the CFL, the league is in big trouble. So, while, as a Bills fan I'd like to see my team in my city, I worry about the impact of the NFL on Canadian Football.

Race for the Exits: Super Tuesday Post Mortem

I think the best way to tackle this is to divide the post between the Republicans and Democrats. Let's start with the Republicans.

John McCain

Positives: He won the most states and the most delegates. He cleaned up in the three biggest states: California, New York and Illinois. He is the front runner for the Republican nomination.

Negatives: He won only three red states last night. One of them was Arizona, where he is senator. The second was a nailbiter in Missouri over Mike Huckabee (9,000 vote margin). The only impressive red state win came in Oklahoma. This is important not only in terms of assessing McCain's appeal with The Base but also in terms of his chances of winning the nomination. Republicans (unlike Democrats) award more delegates to states that tend to vote for them. Thus, there is one delegate for every 91,335 registered voters in California and one delegate for every 60,516 voters in Alabama. So while Huckabee and Romney won smaller states, they will be better rewarded (proportionately) than McCain.

Mitt Romney:

Positives: Impressive wins in the mountains and desserts (and tundra) where Romney won every state save Arizona. Still the choice for non-southern conservatives. He still has enough money to keep fighting. He's one every state that nobody's paid attention to. See: Maine, Wyoming, Nevada, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota.

Negatives: In a word: Huckabee. Romney needed to win the states that Huckabee took on Super Tuesday. It is difficult for a candidate who is campaigning as the conservative hope to be shut out in the South. People don't pay attention to the states where he has one because, well, nobody lives there (Nevada excluded). He is apparently assessing his situation today which is polspeak for he may not be long for this race.

Mike Huckabee:

Positives: He cleaned up in the South winning Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Arkansas. He was handed West Virginia by the McCain people earlier in the day. If Romney decided to call it quites he might have the opportunity to go head to head with McCain.

Negatives: Outside of the South, Huckabee barely beat 20% of the vote all night. An abysmal 4% in Mass., 8% in New Jersey, 11% in New York, 12% in California. Those numbers tell me that in a head to head race with McCain he would lose and lose badly.

Republican Overview: The race is McCain's to lose. However, he is not the nominee just yet.

On to the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton:

Positives: She won California by an impressive margin. Picked up good victories in Tennessee and Arizona. Won Mass. in spite of the endorsements. Leads delegate count going out of Super Tuesday.

Negatives: Lost the majority of states yesterday. She also lost pretty badly in a bunch of states out West. She lost two to one in Georgia which was polling much closer than that. In a proportional race, losing by wide margins is a good way to lose delegates. All the pundits say the next week will be rough for the Clinton campaign.

Barack Obama:

Positives: Won the majority of states. Carried every close race of the night. Cleaned up out West by impressive margins. Apparently, has smooth sailing for the next week.

Negatives: Lost California by 10 points. Lost in Tennessee badly. Failed to capitalize in Mass. He trails in the delegate count.

Democratic Overview: I think this is the definition of a toss-up. Hillary has more delegates but it would be absurd to call her the front runner.

Overall thoughts: The AP called Missouri incorrectly on both sides (called for Clinton and Huckabee went Obama and McCain). A fairly major screw up given Florida 2000. Not enough emphasis in the media on the delegate numbers on the Democratic side. Winning states is really quite irrelevant. This is PR, it's margins that matter.

Everything Else

This blog has become overwhelmed by the US presidential election. I suppose that is natural but I thought it necessary to chime in on a few other things in the news.

• Albertans are off to the polls in March. I really hope for the sake of democracy that someone other than the Conservatives win. However, hopes for a right wing split have been hurt by news that the newly merged Wildrose Alliance Party is having serious issues. What serious issues? Well, the president resigning on the eve of an election call is not a good sign.
• Of course, the call of the Alberta election means that the federal election is postponed until the vote is done. Still could be looking at a spring election.
• Toronto appears to have a balanced budget for the first time in recent memory. Yes, it involves a massive tax hike but at least its balanced.
• Can't put down the PS3 guys? Well, apparently you're hardwired that way.
• Okay, I know I said this wasn't going to be about the US election and this sort of isn't. But, wouldn't it be nice if we could get the boost in voter turnout that they are seeing in the US primaries? If you say it's because some of the primaries are proportional, I may scream. I mean I wish we could have candidates that actually get young people to the polls.
• I love this political cartoon in The Star.
• I know it has gone under the radar a bit, but John Tory is still fighting for his political life. He also still doesn't have a seat in the legislature.

Either later tonight or tomorrow I will post a Super Tuesday post mortem. I've considered live blogging it but honestly I don't see the appeal of live blogging. Have you ever gone back and read those posts? They are boring as white bread with the crusts cut off. Hindsight is 20/20 and I intend to take advantage of it.

Prediction Time

I may not have predicted the Giants shocking the Pats in the Super Bowl last night, but you should still read my predictions for the Super Tuesday states. State by state, All Politics is Local is prepared to tell you who's going to win in each party.

Alabama:

Obama, McCain

Alaska:

Clinton, Romney

Arizona:

Clinton, McCain

Arkansas:

Clinton, Huckabee

California:

Obama, Romney

Colorado:

Obama, Romney

Connecticut:

Clinton, McCain

Delaware:

Clinton, Romney

Georgia:

Obama, Huckabee

Idaho (DEM ONLY):

Obama

Illinois:

Obama, Romney

Kansas (DEM ONLY):

Obama

Massachusetts:

Obama, Romney

Minnesota:

Clinton, McCain

Missouri:

Clinton, McCain

Montana (REP ONLY):

Romney

New Jersey:

Clinton, McCain

New Mexico (DEM ONLY):

Clinton

New York:

Clinton, McCain

North Dakota:

Obama, Romney

Oklahoma:

Clinton, McCain

Tennessee:

Clinton, Huckabee

Utah:

Obama, Romney

West Virginia (REP ONLY):

McCain

There you go folks. No need to tune in tomorrow night. You heard it here first.

McGuinty Sends Right Message

Here's the Toronto Star article on McGuinty's response to black-focused schooling. He's get it exactly right. Now, no doubt Andrew Coyne will attribute this response to Islamophobia like he did McGuinty's response to Tory's segregation of Ontario's schools.

Giuliani and Edwards

Another two candidates have dropped out of the race for the White House. One was expected, the other one a bit of a shock. The expected one first. Giuliani now knows how Al Gore feels. He lost this campaign in large measure because of his strategists. I think there was the sense that, much like Mitt Romney, Giuliani would not go over well in the coffee shops of Iowa and New Hampshire. Running for Mayor of New York involves shockingly little retail politics for a municipal position. Giuliani doesn't know how to do it and frankly wouldn't be good at it. You didn't want a lot of tough questions and intense scrutiny of some of those not so Republican ideas of his. Having said that, Romney is still alive having fought and lost in Iowa and New Hampshire and Giuiliani is done. The lesson here is that even if it hurts (and losing both hurt Romney) you have to campaign in the holy states of American politics. The impact of Giuliani's exit and support for McCain at the polls may be minimal. However, Giuliani was the best fundraiser the Republicans had. McCain had such significant fundraising issues that he had to lay-off his staff in the summer due to insufficient funds. Romney's been paying for this largely from his own savings, something not even he can sustain. Huckabee has been unable to open the church coffers. Paul has had some success but none of the other candidates want any part of Ron Paul or his money. For the first time in at least thirty years the Democrats have a commanding lead in the fundraising department. Clinton's war chest is legendary and Obama keeps churning it out (CNN's reporting 32 million in January alone!). Giuiliani may have been the only candidate able to spend like a Democrat in the national election. The Republicans with 5 senate vacancies to defend and more house vacancies then they want to count are looking for their presidential candidate to rake in some hay. I don't know that either of the remaining front runners have that potential. In other words, the largest beneficiary of the Giuliani loss may be Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Edwards impact is very different. First of all, why he didn't go to the floor and play king maker, I don't know. Perhaps he couldn't pay for it financially. Maybe he decided to spend some time with his wife who is battling cancer yet again (never a good sign) instead of running a hopeless campaign. At any rate, he's out. The question becomes who was supporting John Edwards? Was it a) people looking for change (i.e. not Hillary), b) people looking for policy and experience (i.e. not Obama) or c) people who just liked John Edwards (i.e. will likely now stay home). My guess is that his support is about 50% a, 30% b and 20% c. It's a complete guess. However, if accurate, it would be good news for Obama. The difference between Obama and Clinton in most of the Super Tuesday states is covered by Edwards' support. This changes the dynamic dramatically. A two horse race (apologies to the stubborn Mike Gravel) is a different kettle of fish (if I may mix my metaphors). It allows for a lot more negative campaigning (there's only one other option so criticizing one automatically boosts the other). It also narrows the focus. The PR nature of the Democratic primary selection means that in terms of delegates we will not have a nominee on Super Tuesday. However, if one candidate manages to win a vast majority of the states (irregardless of margin and therefore delegate count), the perception may be enough to name a winner. I'd be surprised if that happens at this point.

A Little Absurdity

I don't know how many of you caught this story. The long and short of it is that the local chapter of the National Organization for Women in New York has criticized Ted Kennedy saying,

"We are repaid with his abandonment. He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."

Given this All Politics is Local is happy to provide like criticisms of other presidential candidates' supporters:
(NOTE: THIS IS A JOKE)

The NAACP responds to Wesley Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton:

Mr. Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a betrayal. The NAACP has stood by Mr. Clark throughout his career and is shocked by Mr. Clark's betrayal. The fact that he would pick a white person over Barack Obama proves that he is just not comfortable with the idea of an African-American president. For shame.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints responds to Chuck Norris' endorsement of Mike Huckabee:

How could you Chuck? We supported you throughout your career. We've watched all 99 episodes of Walker: Texas Ranger and this how you repay us? Clearly, this demonstrates that you are just uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon president. Your endorsement of Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romney proves that you are in fact a bigot. You are no longer welcome in Utah.

AWOL

I really hope there was a damn good reason that my school trustee missed the vote on black-focused schools yesterday. If anyone knows why Cathy Dandy was AWOL, please leave me a comment. This was probably the most important vote the board has taken since it refused to balance its budget under the Tories. Barring major illness or a death in the family there is simply no excuse to miss this vote. By the way, this is a horrible decision. A major step backwards. John Tory was wrong when he proposed giving government money to ethnically divide our schools. The 11 members of the board are wrong. I hope this dies in the bureaucracy.

Follow the Money

In my efforts to better gauge support on the ground in Super Tuesday states I have raided CNN's handy-dandy campaign contribution maps to find the leader in donations for each party in each state. Note: these numbers reflect last year's contributions only. No momentum from the early races here. Thus, Huckabee has no money. Also, just because they raised a lot in a given state doesn't mean they are spending it there. A lot of this money has gone into the contests already finished. What fundraising does demonstrate is some sort of local organization (with the exception of the internet based Paul campaign).

Without further ado here's the list of the states each candidate leads the money race in:

Democrats:

Clinton: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oklahoma

Obama: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah

Edwards: Alabama

Republicans:

Romney: California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, Utah

Giuliani: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, West Virginia

McCain: Arizona, Minnnesota

Huckabee: Arkansas

Paul: North Dakota

The Democratic side is fairly predictable and not all that surprising. The Republican side is worth paying attention to. McCain has all the momentum but does not have much money in the bank. Huckabee had almost no ground game in these states (most of his numbers are under $10,000). It will be interesting to see if he has been able to catch up in a month. Giuliani is nowhere in the polls but has more money than McCain and Huckabee combined. Politically, Giuliani may be forced out after Florida. Economically, he can live to fight another week. Unlike the rest of the candidates, Giuliani spent a relatively small amount in the early states leaving him lots of money for Super Tuesday. This was Giuliani's strategy.

Wide Open

The nomination of the Democratic party for the presidency of the United States is anyone's game. Barack Obama won an overwhelming victory in South Carolina last night. The next Democratic primaries of consequence occur on Super Tuesday (Florida, like Michigan, has been disenfranchised). Obama and Clinton both face real challenges if they are to win the White House. Obama is behind. Recent polls in many of the big Super Tuesday states show him well back of Hillary. Obama needs to translate what has been an effective ground campaign into an effective national campaign. If I was advising the Obama campaign I would tell them not to try to take Hillary head on in New York and California. There are some states that should play well for Obama and he should focus on winning those. There are only two states where Obama is ahead in the recent state wide poll: Illinois and Georgia. Illinois is a non-issue and requires little attention. Georgia should be bolstered by his win in South Carolina. Alabama was close (3 points) in the most recent poll and should also be a target. Obama should also be out beating the bushes out West. Arizona and California may be lost causes but Idaho, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico are all in play. Obama did well in rural Nevada and may be able to carry that success forward.

The Clinton strategy is all about holding on for dear life. Clinton needs to make sure the leads she has don't disappear once Barack Obama starts actively campaigning. Clinton has a national network at her disposal and is going to have to use it. She was in Tennessee last night and it states like it (where she holds leads in states that look vulnerable) that Hillary's fate will be determined.

Edwards' strategy at this point is a bit of a mystery. He is clearly no longer a viable candidate for the presidency. My guess is that he's hoping that this race will go to the convention floor where he could play the role of king maker. This would mean keeping both Obama and Clinton under the magic number of delegates. I don't know that he even has the support do this.

Quick hits

Some thoughts and suggestions as you browse the interweb:

• Electoral-Vote has a great piece today on how the conventions actually work. In general, it is one of the most reliable sources of Presidential and Congressional races out there.
• Social Credit is back in vogue in the United States. All aboard the quick boat to hell because that's where this economy is heading. Seriously, your best idea on how to fix the economy is giving everybody a cheque? This was bi-partisan!!!! Heaven help us.
  
• More big promises with lots of smoke and mirrors on the environment from the EU. Ok, all countries that already produce a lot of renewable energy will have high targets. Those that don't will have low targets. See, if you set the bar low enough, even Bulgaria can get over! Of course, if you really want to you could always build the power plant in Eastern Europe and have the power go into the West. I love EU rhetoric on the environment but their actions are pathetic.
  
• By the way, a few months back I posted on the importance of air conditioning in meeting or more accurately not meeting Kyoto Targets. I did the math thanks to the government's website, it looks to my calculations that about 3% of Canada's emissions growth is due to residential and commercial cooling. That might not sound like much but think about it this way. That's about 5.6 Megatonnes of C02 per year. That's over 300% more than in 1990. Residential and commercial lighting (which has become the first front in the war against climate change) has increased by about 0.9 Megatonnes. The other big non-industrial culprit? Well, you're using one: computers.
• I'm pulling for Obama in South Carolina. I don't know that there's much between him and Clinton but isn't it nicer listening to him?
• Giuliani's radical strategy is producing expected results. I don't expect his campaign manager to be working in November.
• If anyone cares, I'm backing the OYL Roots team at the meeting in March.
• For the no readers I actually have at Queen's University I am unlikely to vote in the upcoming AMS elections. Two reasons. One, I don't have class Tuesday or Wednesday and making a special trip to vote in an election that won't affect me when I graduate in April doesn't seem worth it. Two, the most inspiring platform belongs to the joke team which isn't on the ballot. The AMS is big government at its worst. If anyone wants to know how to lose money selling alcohol to students, ask the AMS. Pathetic. Four years of different executives with identical results.
• Fred Thompson has dropped out of the Republican race. Now, if someone could wake the Senator and tell him the news we can proceed with our regularly scheduled programming.
• Speaking of regularly scheduled programming. How y'all liking the reality TV-a-thon that is prime time TV? Yay for corporate greed and internet piracy!

PR Continues to Fail Italy

Another Italian parliament has bitten the dust under the weight of their broken electoral system.

Manley's Musings

I have been perusing John Manley's report on Afghanistan. Manley argues that the Afghan mission is important for four reasons:

1. Counter-Terrorism
2. Bolster the UN
3. Support NATO
4. Help the Afghan People

I get point 1 and point 4. The middle two are a little bit of a stretch. The United Nations is not going to live or die by the Afghan mission. While the mission is UN authorized, this is NATO's baby. If the UN wanted to help Afghanistan it could try to get more troops from non-NATO countries. The third point bothers me because outside of the United States and occasionally the UK no one else in NATO cares enough about this mission to risk lives. France, Germany et al. are content to let Canadians die. I support an active Canadian presence in NATO. However, there is a major difference between participating in a mission and getting the proverbial shaft. Canadian troops right now are getting the latter. Canadians should be equal partners not cannon fodder. Mr. Manley recommends that we make our extension conditional upon getting more assistance from our NATO allies. If the mission is important and worthwhile our extension should be unconditional. If not, we should pull out. Our European allies will not change their minds because of a Canadian ultimatum. For the Germans and French (the two most capable armies), such a change would mark a major shift in foreign policy. We simply do not have that kind of power.

Manley then argues that Canadians should stay in Kandahar past 2009 because there is no strategic reason to exit earlier. Mr. Manley is confident that the Afghan National Army will at some point be able to step up so we can step down. I can not share his optimism. I do not foresee the day when Hamid Karzai is going to call up the Prime Minister and say, "we've got this now, you guys can head home." The insurgency is strengthening year by year. The poppy trade grows exponentially. All this, and the Afghan government remains little more than a Kabul based neighbourhood watch.

Seventy-seven brave Canadian soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan. This fact is barely mentioned in Mr. Manley's report. This remains the crux of the matter. To quote, "How many deaths will it take 'til he knows that too many people have died?" I am reminded of The Simpsons episode where Homer is slowly sinking in tar and attempts to extricate himself. Mr. Manley's recommendations are akin to trying to get your arms out with your mouth. While it would be tragic to leave Afghanistan again to its own decay and devastation, it is simply not within our military powers to help. Our soldiers may be able to pacify one area for a few months as long as they maintain a presence. However, it is simply not reasonable for our troops to try to hold down the fort forever. We can and should help Afghanistan in other ways. Our aid agencies are at work on the ground and should continue that work. Canada has a good reputation in assisting fledgling democracies with the institutions requisite for effective government and we should play that role in Afghanistan. We should assist the UN in its health and social development projects. The only way to end the insurgency is to make it clear that a peaceful, democratic, prosperous Afghanistan is not only the inevitable future but also in the clear best interests of all Afghans. We cannot achieve that goal with bullets and bombs.

I commend Mr. Manley and his team for many of his recommendations. I agree that we need to be pushing for more help from our NATO allies and other partners. I am weary, for the reasons noted above and others, of the chances of our success. I agree that more effort should be placed on development. However, on the crucial question Mr. Manley has bought into the false promise of state-building and imperial counter-insurgencies. To quote Ogden Nash, "Man is a victim of dope, in the incurable form of hope." Mr. Manley is no exception. It is tragic that Canadian soldiers will die for his false optimism. At the end of the day, the Government of Canada must act in the best interests of Canadians. Our duty as a people and a government to aid others around the world does not extend to instances where the Canadian national interest is being sacrificed. The lives of our citizens must come first. Seventy-seven deaths are too many, the cost has become too high. It is time to leave Kandahar with our heads held high, knowing that for the past six years we have fought for the people of Afghanistan and given them a chance for a better life.

Monday Thoughts

Quick thoughts on the start of this new week:

• Don Wittman was a great broadcaster. He will be missed by all Canadian sports fans.
• I'm getting really tired of the debate over hand guns and Toronto. Of course they should be banned. Will it change anything? Probably not. It's like the ban on heroin. It doesn't stop heroin but it does make it a little harder to access.
• Good editorial from the Star today about racially divided scholing. I agree. It's a desperate idea and not a good one. We absolutely have a major problem. Segregation is definitely not the answer.
  
• Brady plays badly and the Pats still win? I give you your Super Bowl Champs. It will be a game but Brady has had his one bad game. He's not going to miss against the Giants.
• A huge win for Eli and the boys up at Lambeau field. Winning on the frozen tundra in January is no easy feat. Their reward? See above.
• The right is reorganizing itself again in Alberta. Not an issue in the next election I wouldn't think. However, if Stelmach continues to bleed support, we could see this new Wildrose Alliance Party making a play. Kind of like the Québec Solidaire. Could be something, but isn't quite there yet. I'm sure that comparison would make members of both parties shudder.
• I disagree with Cherniak on local nominations. Yes, instant members are not reliable partisans. However, the ability to sign up instant members and get them to vote for you at a nomination is a good facsimile of a candidate's ability to recruit volunteers and voters. Much like university skills are not horribly relevant in most work places but are still a valuable asset, nomination skills, while not directly transferable, are a good predictor of success. Also, appointing candidates gives your opponents a free cheap shot. "My opponent? She's the Ottawa choice. I am the local here." Does a leader have the right to appoint? Sure. Should he (or she)? No.
  
• We are rapidly approaching 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq. The deaths on September 11th were just under 3,000. The two events are not all that related but it does give you a sense of scale.
• This is folly. There simply is not sufficient transit to try to force people out of their cars. Get on the TTC in rush hour. There isn't much room left. We need more public transit infrastructure before we start imposing tolls.
  

Nevada and South Carolina

Results are in from the latest caucuses and primary. On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton eked out a victory over Barack Obama. The real story here (given the almost identical delegate count of Clinton and Obama) is that John Edwards is done. He says he is going to stay on in spite of getting an abysmal 4% of the vote. In my opinion, the Nevada result is a more accurate gauge of Edwards' national popularity. Edwards did well in Iowa and New Hampshire because he was able to revive the infrastructure he had from his 2004 run. Without the organizational advantage, the campaign collapsed. Now, he may still do well in his native South Carolina (he was born there but later moved to North Carolina), but his campaign is over. This is a two horse race from here on in.

On the Republican side, Romney continued to show that he is the man to beat nationally with his win in Nevada. Much like the Democratic race, Nevada involved little of the retail politics of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. This meant that Romney's money paid off handsomely. The real question is can Romney actually fundraise. He may be able to pay for the Republican nomination by himself, the presidency is a much more expensive kettle of fish. However, no other Republican seems able to get their name out without a long intensive ground war. John McCain, facing a problem similar to John Edwards, garnered only 13% of the vote. Mike Huckabee who has almost no money was a distant fourth at 8.2%. Ron Paul continued his strange and fascinating run, picking up his first second place finish. Rudy Giuliani still believes that he can compete with Romney in an air war but he may have kept his powder dry a little too long. There are only so many sixth place finishes a candidate can take.

In South Carolina, the Republicans had a completely different result. Those who argue that Romney will never win the nomination can point to South Carolina with confidence. There, John McCain, with no Karl Rove to attack him, exorcised his 2000 ghosts and held off Mike Huckabee for the win. South Carolina is the first state from the South to vote and is thus crucial in reading the Republican Base. Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states and Nevada, while traditionally Republican has in the past and may in the future vote for a Democrat. South Carolina is as red as they come and the failure of the Romney campaign in that state should not be overlooked. Romney has a real problem in that the more people see him the less they like him (see Iowa and New Hampshire). As a result he didn't go hard to ground in South Carolina. The other candidates were far more invested here and were rewarded by the locals. McCain's win here makes him nationally viable in a way that his repeat in New Hampshire did not.

Long story short, I don't know who wins in either party. Hillary has the momentum but an Obama win in South Carolina (the first state with a significant African-American population) would swing the Mo back to the junior senator from Illinois. The Republican race is as wide open as ever. I would be shocked at this point if the race is over after Mega Tuesday (February 5).

Hail to the Victors Valiant

Mitt Romney has won his SECOND state of the primary season. Yes, CBC, John Ibbitson et al. that's his SECOND victory. Mr. Romney, of course, won the great state of Wyoming on January 5th. The Democratic non-primary saw Clinton beat uncommitted. Romney's victory in Michigan means the Repubican race is wide open. I mean wide. It becomes even wider when you factor in that South Carolina will almost certainly not vote for Mr. Romney. Fred Thompson's non-race for the presidency likely faces its Waterloo in South Carolina. Barring an unexpected victory there, he's done. The x factor in all of this is Rudy Giuliani, who although he has yet to win a state or finish better than 4th in a major contest, is expected to be competitive when about half the country votes on February 5th.

Other news? Gary Lunn's getting grilled over isotopes. Yawn! The Guergis thing is shocking but I doubt actually malicious in intent. The premiers are mad at the feds. Well, that is news. When something actually happens in Canadian politics, let me know.

Sometimes it isn't fun...

...being a Liberal in Toronto-Danforth. First, our big star provincial candidate, Ben Chin, decides he's better off working in Dalton McGuinty's war room forcing the local riding association to scramble and find Joyce Rowlands to throw under the wheels of the NDP juggernaut. Now, Deborah Coyne, the 2006 candidate for the federal Liberals in Toronto-Danforth, is seemingly being rewarded for her bravery in facing down Layton and now is running in Don Valley West to replace the retiring John Godfrey. Coyne is a great candidate and will make a great MP assuming she can win in Don Valley West (an almost certainty if she can get the nomination). However, I can't help but feel a little bit frustrated with the party. I don't blame Chin and Coyne for pursuing greener pastures. However, I would like to think that someone, somewhere thinks that a Liberal can win in Toronto-Danforth. It might not happen soon federally (beating a sitting NDP leader is no easy task), but I would like to see a little more fight.

Golden Globes Lose Their Shine

The Golden Globe Awards will not be televised due to the writers' strike State side. I know for many the return of Stewart and Colbert last night marked a return to normalcy, however, the strike continues. The next major casualty may be the Oscars which would be a far bigger ratings hit for the networks. Stay tuned.

Chantal Hebert is Colour Blind

Or at least somewhat forgetful. Here's a quote from her most recent offering:

"when the Prime Minister hosts the premiers later this week, it will be an all-white all-male gathering."

This will no doubt be news to Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik.

This really is more funny than anything else. I am just so angered by Ms. Hebert so much of the time that I get a little joy by pointing out her typos.

Romney for Wyoming

In case you missed it, Mitt Romney has won the Wyoming Republican Caucuses in an impressive victory. He won 8 of 12 available delegates. Fred Thompson finished second garnering three delegates and long shot Duncan Hunter picked up the one remaining delegate. Why are these results not getting the Iowa caucus/New Hampshire primary treatment? Your guess is as good as mine. Here is an example of Huckabee's lack of cash and organization hurting. If Huckabee could have campaigned in Wyoming, a state filled with Christian conservatives, he could have been competitive. Unfortunately for Huckabee he couldn't and Romney won in a cakewalk. On to New Hampshire. Keep your eyes open for the Maine caucuses on February 3rd. Another state no one is paying attention to that is voting before Super Tuesday.

4-Peat

Great win for Canada. The juniors have made this country proud once again.

More Caucus and Other Random Thoughts

So, two am postings are clearly a poor way to get readers. The before bed thing posting thing worked a lot better when I was six hours ahead and was posting in prime time eastern. At any rate, my first thoughts on Iowa are below. Here are some more with some assorted stuff thrown in.

• Joe Biden has called it quits. What a shock! I didn't hear it... who's concession speech did he use?
• Romney's people goofed big time. His speech overlapped with Huckabee making him the only major Iowa contender not to get air time on CNN. Terrible gaffe.
• Brad Marchand has turned his game around. So has the team, great game today. Sweden's going down! Please JFJ, if you can, draft Luke Schenn. The kid is great. Reminds me of the job Dion Phaneuf did in Grand Forks.
  
• The Leafs don't just suck. They sizzuck. They seem to come to play about one night in four.
• I know less than nothing about the politics of northern Saskatchewan. I do know that my principles say that local membership, not Ottawa should choose their candidates. This might be the politically astute move, it is not the principled one.
• That said, Dion screwing his own guy (Orchard) is kind of strange. Normally, you screw your opponents lieutenants not your own.
• Clinton's speech was a stinker last night. Hard speech to write, but still. It was downright awful.
• Mason was fabulous today in net. The only goal was a scrambling mess that was frankly the fault of the defense (Pyett and Godfrey I believe) not Mason. Good decision by Hartsburg to keep him in.
• Did you see my Wolverines knock off the Gators? I have said it before and I'll say it again, the SEC is overrated.
• Kenya is depressing. Actually, beyond depressing. It just makes you want to curl up into a ball and cry. The alternative is doing something but for the life of me I can't see much for the world to do. Maybe peacekeepers but I don't know that the Kenyans would be all that keen.
  
• Isn't Canada a utopia now that the GST is at five percent? What's that? The big three are still shedding jobs? The world is still getting warmer? The PQ are surging in the polls? Damn! Better knock off another point.
  
• Oil around a hundred dollars a barrel means one thing and one thing only, Alberta's about to get even richer.

That's it for now. Enjoy the game tomorrow. Go Canada Go!

Caucus, Caucus, Caucus!

The results are in from Iowa. Yes, after only twelve months of endless polls and speculation we have results. Here they are:

Democrats:

Obama: 38% (16 delegates)
Edwards: 30% (14 delegates)
Clinton: 29% (15 delegates)
Richardson: 2%
Biden 1%

Republicans:

Huckabee: 34% (17 delegates)
Romney: 25% (12 delegates)
Thompson: 13% (3 delegates)
McCain: 13% (3 delegates)
Paul: 10% (2 delegates)
Giuliani: 4%
Hunter: 1%

The important numbers should actually be the ones in brackets. These include delegates who are selected by the voters and those super delegates who can choose who they want to vote for. Thus, Clinton leads Edwards and the huge gap in the Republican race. I hate how CNN reports this as a winner take all thing. It isn't. This is PR and they are reporting it as First past the post. The real story is here. However, super delegates are notoriously disloyal and are likely to jump ship if it looks like one of the other ships is going to win the race. Please note how well PR treated the small candidates on the Democratic side. The most interesting thing on the Republican side is the performance of Congressman Paul. Paul has fundraised better than almost anyone on the republican side (Romney's spending more but that's a lot of his own money). Now, Paul's support up to now has been a little shady. Largely web-based and not all from the most reputable sources (conspiracy theorists/racists). However, a ten percent showing in Iowa shows that he has a real following. Will he win the nomination? Of course not. Is it a trend to look for in American politics? Maybe. The congressman's message may resonate even more in the Granite state where Republicans are more interested in their wallet and big government than the God-fearing Iowans. So, I will be watching that with great interest. Outside of that, bad night for the inevitables. Romney is in trouble. As is Clinton. Edwards has to pray Clinton wins New Hampshire and he can play the native son card in the now Colbert-free South Carolina primary, otherwise he's done. The delegate count is close. Dodd is gone which means there are 11 Connecticut super delegates looking for a home. However, as is often the case in politics perception is way more important than reality and the title of Winner of the Iowa Caucus goes a long way in America.

I'm not hugely surprised by the result. I thought both results were going to be closer but aside from that. I am leaning towards the junior senator from Illinois, so I am pleased with the results. Huckabee, like a lot of the Christian right, scares the pants off me but I am glad he kicked Romney's butt. I am still confused by Rudy's strategy. If he was just avoiding Iowa or just avoiding Iowa and New Hampshire okay. However, I can't see him bursting on to the scene in South Carolina either. Michigan was governed by Romney's father and McCain did well there in 2000 so I don't see that one happening. Poor Nevada moved up their caucuses and nobody cares (with the possible exception of Richardson) so a win there is unlikely to generate much buzz going into the February 5th. I just can't see the big states bailing him out at that point. Anyhoo, that's enough random ramblings for one night. We shall see what Tuesday brings.

10 Lessons from 2007 pt. 2

Am I the only one fed up with the national junior team? As far as I can tell there are about three guys (Tavares, Matthias, Schenn) actually playing over the last four periods. Pathetic. The so-called big line has been particularly disappointing. Brad Marchand's only contribution was giving up the puck and the game against Sweden. Brandon Sutter is clearly hurt and should not be playing. I think Craig Hartsburg should be replaced for next year. Anyway, on we go with the lessons from 2007.

5. The Environment is Actually Politically Important

The lesson we began to learn with Dion's Green victory in December of 2006 continued to be learned in 2007. Be it the rise of the Green Party of Canada in national polls or the increasing success of the Ontario Green Party in the provincial election (particularly Shane Jolley in Owen Sound), the environment is resonating with Canadians. As Mr. Jolley's result indicates its more than urban hippies who care about this issue these days. Harper's dance on the issue would be funny if the consequences of his inaction were not so dire.

4. Immigration is the Defining Issue for the West

This is more relevant for other countries with more serious immigration problems (rioting in France; panic and legal chaos in the United States) but Canada must do better by its new immigrants. We are too often failing to ensure that the newest Canadians can integrate successfully into Canadian society. Our past successes are wonderful and we should celebrate them. We need to work hard to ensure that immigrants arriving today have the same success. Canada is a leader on this issue. We must continue to lead. The West is aging and our economies are teetering. Immigration is the best path to economic and social progress, countries that fail to grasp this will be left behind.

3. The American Primary System is Beyond Broken

The state of Michigan has been disenfranchised by the Democratic party and nobody seems to have noticed. Michigan is not exactly a small insignificant state. However, they angered the DNC gods by moving their primary up so that candidates actually bother to visit their little state. As a result, the Michigan primary is little more than a straw poll. This disturbing incident combined with the insanity that is the Iowa Caucuses, leads to one conclusion. The Americans need to change their system and now. All the states should vote the second Tuesday after New Year's day. Iowans are upset at how early they have to vote this year. The second Tuesday would ensure that the holidays are not overwhelmed by elections. By having all states vote early, they would finally have equity in the primary process.

2. Pakistan is in Deep Trouble

Martial law. The assassination of an opposition leader. The opposition being taken over by a 19 year old. This country is in trouble. The tension between secular democrats, the military and militant Islamic extremists is tearing the country apart. This is scary stuff. Even if you don't care about Pakistan and its people (and as human beings we should), you must remember this country is a nuclear power. The future of Pakistan could shape all of our futures. I don't know what the outside world can do to help the Pakistani people. I do know that we are all going to be holding our breaths until this mess is sorted out one way or another.

1. The Internet is Killing Traditional Entertainment

Don't think this is as relevant as some of the other stuff? You could make the argument. I've posted on the writer's strike before, but it is worth some repetition. What this strike is about (internet revenues) is about how to slice up an increasingly small and insignificant pie. Consider this, what is the top rated live-action TV sitcom still on the air? I have no clue. Do you? The most popular comedies are probably cartoons: The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park etc. This lack of quality television combined with the download disease which has spread with technology from music to television and movies is killing Hollywood and its related affiliates north of the border. The strike by the writers may prove to be one more nail in the coffin. The collapse of an industry that has sustained North America for generations is not in any way insignificant. It has been confirmed in 2007. Enjoy your reality TV folks, its all that's profitable these days.

On that note, Happy New Year. May 2008 find you well.

Movie Thoughts

I've seen two movies in theatres in the last couple of weeks. I don't usually see two movies in theatre in a year so this is something to write home about or at least post. Since I believe both to be somewhat political, my thoughts.

The Golden Compass:

I wrote about this when the preview came out. I loved the books. Huge fan. I was somewhat disappointed in the movie. All the nuance is gone. So is most of the character. Lee Scoresby comes off as a pervert. The bears have lost all their nature. Is the film anit-Catholic? No. It's anti-Calvinist. Read the books. In all seriousness, it's anti-repression of nature and independent thought especially when done so by religion. If Catholics feel that this criticism is leveled most heavily against them it reflects their own self-image and not reality or Pullman. The movie wears kid gloves compared to the novel. Serafina Pekkala's anti-religious rant has become muted. The true horror of the intercision process is lost (the victim appears to have survived). If religious critics want to be offended, they should read the books, particularly the last one. As for the movie... I hate how they mangled the order of the plot. I hate ending the film early. The Subtle Knife has a different feel and to start the next movie (assuming they make it) with the arctic sacrifice would be improper. The Golden Compass (first titled The Northern Lights) is heavily concerned with snow and ice. Neither The Subtle Knife nor The Amber Spyglass share this fascination. The former focuses on trees and desert and the latter on rock and earth. This thematic division is part of the elegance of the trilogy. To change it loses more nuance. Also, separating Lyra's loss of her best friend from the meeting of her future lover is nice. A little more loyalty to the book may have helped here. On the bright side, the CG is great particularly the polar bears.

I am Legend:

I got asked to see this one today. Not my type of movie frankly. Although, I have trouble finding a genre for this. It isn't really horror or sci-fi although it borrows heavily from both. However, my distaste has nothing to do with what type of movie it is. You may be wondering why this movie is political. Well, I need to be a spoiler to explain. So if you want to wait to see the movie stop reading now. The movie has heavy religious overtones in its ending. Robert Neville (Will Smith) is saved from hell (well mutated humanoid vampires) by the shining lights of a religious prophet and her mute son. He then redeems humanity by having a religious epiphany. The movie's premise is that a scientifically engineered virus has wiped out/mutated most of humanity. Neville and his saviour have a fierce theological debate. Posters in the destroyed New York proclaim God's love. The prophet has spent most of the plague on a boat. His daughter (not saved from damnation) complains that the destruction of mankind will prevent her from getting her Christmas presents and never shuts up (compare with the saved and mute/obedient son of the prophet). The building most prominent in the last bastion of humanity is a church. All in all the movie has a distinctive Noah's Ark (God has killed the wicked and saved the righteous) overtone that I find creepy as all get out (way creepier than the CG vampires). The lesson seems to be that science and perhaps commercialism have distracted humanity from God (the prophet hears God's voice because the world is quiet post-plague). The path to salvation is to bring God back into the centre of our lives and let Him guide our actions. If the Golden Compass is the anti-religion movie for the holidays, this is the pro-religion movie. I have nothing against religion. In fact I am proud of my Jewish faith. However, I don't think it should dictate all of our actions. I don't care if Mike Huckabee wants to wish people a merry Christmas. I just don't want the fact that a kid was born in Nazareth a couple thousand of years ago to dictate policy. You can apply this to any religion, I am just using Christianity as an example. I don't care if you wear a headscarf. I care when a woman is sentenced to be beaten for being raped because that is the interpretation of God's will. I have no objection to a faith based reality as long as the sense and reason based reality comes first.

Hmm... two movies that I saw in theatres... didn't really like either one. Maybe I should stick to not paying an arm and a leg for bad entertainment. If you want an interesting religiously themed movie this holiday season try to dig up a copy of the Hungarian movie Kontroll. That one I liked.

10 Lessons From 2007 pt. 1

Christmas is upon us. A merry Christmas to those who celebrate. Not being Christian, I take no particular note of the day. I do note that in a week's time it will no longer be 2007 and instead be 2008. So, before time passes this year into dust, a quick review of what we've learned over the past year.

10. There is no such thing as an inevitability in politics

Inevitable has been tossed around a lot this year. A spring election was inevitable. Jean Charest's defeat was inevitable. A fall election was inevitable. Hillary Clinton's nomination was inevitable. None of these things have come to pass. The lesson: don't believe the hype. The media (both mainstream and otherwise) make money (okay mostly the mainstream here... yay adsense!) on helping their audience understand the news and come to some sort of conclusions. These conclusions are often incorrect. Not to say that I will stop making predictions on this blog (half the fun in blogging after all). I'm just saying nothing is inevitable. Things may be more likely than not, but sometimes things change. In fact, things change most of the time.

9. A week is a lifetime in politics

So, we should have known this a long time ago. This year made the point standout. John Tory was seen as being tough competition for Dalton McGuinty, that is until the religious school flap blew up in his face. Mulroney was Harper's mentor until Karlheinz Schreiber reared his head. Things change quickly in politics. This is related to the point above. We should be weary of making predictions because we never know what the future may hold.

8. Records are meant to be broken (or at least asterisked)

Readers of this blog (all three of you) will know that I occasionally dip into the sports world for my posts. So here's the sports entry for the list. This year saw the breaking of the all-time home run record in baseball (Bonds), the youngest winner of the Hart in a generation (Crosby), and is on the verge of producing a perfect football team (the Pats). In the case of both baseball and football those records come amidst scandal. The Patriots were caught taping the signals of the New York Jets on opening day resulting in massive fines and the loss of a draft pick. Barry Bonds chase of the home run record was dogged by allegations of steroid use. Since then, Mr. Bonds has been indicted by a grand jury for perjury and has been named in the increasingly infamous Mitchell Report. In both cases, some have wondered whether or not the records should stand. I have no qualms with the Pats records. I don't think Spygate helped them in the least. Was it foolish and illegal? Yes. Does it change one of the best offenses ever fielded? No. That's what matters. That's why I feel very differently about Barry Bonds. Steroid use did help him hit all those home runs. While not banned by baseball, they were banned substances. He cheated and that directly impacted his performance. I don't accept that he is the greatest home run hitter in history. I can't.

7. Quebec is undergoing another political revolution

The continued strength of Stephen Harper's Tories combined with the rise of the ADQ in the spring election tells me that something big is going down in Quebec. Add to that the hearings on immigration and what you come up with is this: rural, conservative Quebeckers are tired of voting for socialists just because they agree with their position on independence. I think we are slowly seeing the evolution of a more accurately represented Quebec.

6. Nation building cannot work if the nation does not want to be built

2007 should prove once and for all that these misguided occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq are doomed to fail. Is the consequence of leaving potentially disastrous? Yes. That's why this debate isn't easy. What should be easy is the answer next time someone asks us to help occupy a resistant country. NO! We have not learned from history (Vietnam, Somalia etc.) and now we are repeating it. It is a great tragedy that so many people died this year for nothing. At the end of the day, the result of the mission will be the same: failure.

Harper's Running Scared

After nearly six months, Stephen Harper has decided to call the rest of the by-elections. He could have called them at the same time as the Quebec by-elections but that didn't suit his narrative. See, he wanted to show that the Liberal party was weak, conflicted and poorly organized. So he called the by-elections in Quebec first where the LPC(Q) is probably best described as weak conflicted and poorly organized. The rest of the Liberal party on the other hand is doing fine. Add to that, Harper's majority train hasn't run through Toronto or Vancouver yet. Saskatchewan (which features the only by-election likely to be close) is more of a mystery. However, I think it confirms what I have believed for months, Saskatchewan is politically restless. They just threw out a government in the middle of an economic boom. That, political scientists will tell you, is not an everyday phenomenon. Did they go to the political right? Sure. However, federally the Tories have raised a lot of anger over their meddling in the Canadian Wheat Board (I don't understand this issue, so I won't get into details. I just know people are upset). If Harper thought there was a political gain to be made in Saskatchewan he would have called that by-election a long time ago. The reality is that Harper does not want the headline "Liberals Sweep By-Elections" to appear before an election. That would mean Stephane Dion might not be a bumbling incompetent as the Tories have sought to portray him. That would mean that maybe the Liberals are a viable alternative. And that thought, has Stephen Harper running scared.

Now that I've ended it so nicely, one more thing. I think it behooves us to change the rules regarding by-elections. They should be set 60 days after the retirement of the MP or MPP. Giving the government this kind of manipulative power is ridiculous. There we go folks another bit of electoral reform I support. More democracy, more representation. What's not to like?

Monday Snapshots

Some quick thoughts for the new week:

• Bali ended in a compromise even more useless than the one agreed to in Kyoto ten years ago. The agreement by the current responsible signatories of Kyoto means less than nothing. The world will get warmer and not one world leader has a plan to stop it.
• This weekend did not look much like global warming in Southern Ontario. I ache from the shoveling. If Canadians are a little thinner than their American neighbours, I think shoveling has to contribute to our national fitness.
• The NDP's dumping of a transgendered candidate in Quebec City looks bad. There's a he said she said thing at play here. The candidate claims her sexuality is at root here. The NDP claims she wasn't a team player. The truth is impossible to discern from my perspective. I will say that maybe a candidate that was acceptable to the NDP in Quebec before their win in Outremont may be less desirable now that they think they can actually win seats. Why this particular candidate was not desirable I cannot say. However, irregardless of the reasoning, the NDP dropped a transgendered candidate. That looks bad to the LGBT community which has often supported the NDP.
• Electoral systems do not predict environmental policies or any other policy. I could easily argue that systems which guarantee coalition governments limit the possibility of dramatic action so necessary to solve the climate change crisis. The responsiveness of the EU to the issue has nothing to do with electoral systems and everything to do with bureaucratic pressures from Brussels elites.
• My Bills playoff dreams ended on Sunday. Tear.
• The Celtics are ridiculously good.
• So are the Pats. Oh and didn't the Red Sox just win the world series? Oh to be a sports fan in Boston...
• The polling scandal is more funny than scandalous. It certainly exposes Harper's obsession with monitoring public opinion particular in Québec.
• The new military strategy in Afghanistan is now apparently to occupy with force as much land as physically possible. So, now when we whack the Taleban/mole we keep our forces/mallet in the same area/hole and switch to a new unit/mallet. Mr. Ignatieff probably thinks this is a good idea. I think it is moronic. If we can't secure peace without pointing a gun to people's heads we are in serious trouble. We need to rethink and refocus this mission and we need to do so now.
• Schreiber... zzzzzzzzzzz.... Mulroney...zzzzzzzzzzzz... Have we solved the myriad of problem the country faces TODAY? No? Then why is the media wallowing in the past? Can we talk about the future at some point? Please!

News of the Day

One exam done, time for a quick post:

• Pickton got convicted. Won't be eligible for parole for 25 years. I'm surprised they couldn't get a first degree murder conviction but they have twenty other chances to get him for murder one if they want.
• M. Dion is blogging from Bali. Interesting. I don't know how I feel about leader blogging. I am not crazy about politicians blogging in general. They have the bully pulpit of the house of commons or legislature or council to make their views known. I suppose it shows the Liberals finding new technology when its almost at its best before date. Of course, Dion's blogging sounds like a mixture between a travel log and a stump speech. It's all irrelevant because nobody outside of the politicos will read it.
• Flaherty's going after the NDP. Did Harper approve of this message? I thought Tories could only attack Liberals. Hmmm...
• The Wizard of Croz justifiably won the Lou Marsh award today. By the way I hate the Sid the Kid moniker. It needs to go before he's 40 and we don't know what to call one of the best players of all time. The Wizard of Croz is a name that I heard the Pittsburgh play-by-play guy call him and I like it.
  

Bali Boogie

As the discussion turns to who should be responsible for stopping global warming (the correct answer, boys and girls, is everyone) it's time to look at exactly who we can consider the "developed world." There is a tendency by some (let's call them the Bureaupean Bunion) to limit responsibility to Western nations. This is of course absurd. So, ladies and gentlemen a quick look at which countries are "responsible" and which are not with the corresponding GDP per capita (purchasing power) (all stats from the CIA World Fact Book).

Responsible:

Ukraine $7,800 (the same as China by the way)
Croatia $13,400
Bulgaria $10,700
Romania $9,100

Not Responsible:

Singapore: $31,400 (that's higher than France or Italy by the way)
South Korea $24,500
Kuwait $23,100
Bahrain $25,600

I don't want the historical guilt argument. I don't buy historical guilt in any context. I certainly don't buy it in this one. The countries most capable of changing their economies are those with the most money. If we must have two standards, can we at least divide the camps in a rational manner?

Once again, Harper has the right plan but no desire to make it work. Intensity based emissions allow for economic growth (starving people are a bad thing regardless of the climate). If they are tough enough they can also prevent climate change. Dion has the wrong plan with all the desire to make it work. Can we please have a meeting of the minds on this one? Harper's plan with Dion's desire. That's how we solve this.

Race For the Exits 2008: Month to Primary Edition

I figure now is as good a time as any to update my report on the Presidential election down south. I'm going to avoid the tedium of going through all the candidates and stick to the ones who have a chance in Hades of winning. With my luck, I'll leave out the winner. Here we go:

Democrats:

In order of current position:

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Okay, I know you've heard it all before when it comes to Hillary. I don't think I can say anything new. Here's the snapshot. She's the frontrunner except that she beginning to look like the New York Mets when they collapsed. In other words, she has a huge lead but she's hemorrhaging and fast. The question is whether or not she can hang on long enough to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Her positives include a great organization, name recognition and a strong appeal to women. Her negatives include her name recognition and the presence of a whole bunch of Americans that will never vote for Hillary.

Barack Obama: One of the most devoted Christians in the Democratic field has had some odd things thrown at him. To attempt to slur someone by calling them something that is a) false and b) only an insult if you are a racist is a) evil, b) moronic or c) both. Having said that, Obama is the candidate that appears to be gaining fast on the Clinton machine. He's not half as divisive as she is. He also hasn't articulated his vision as clearly although that is starting to come out. Outsiders usually do well in Presidential elections. However, it is difficult to call a US Senator an outsider. Obama may in the end just be too young and inexperienced.

John Edwards: If Clinton falls like Perdita Felicien and Barack trips like Barbaro out of the gate, look out for John Edwards. He did this four years ago and has a strong local organization all over the place. He's charming and enthusiastic. His rhetoric has always struck me as anachronistically socialist.

Republicans:

A much more open field. This order is going to be alphabetical.

Rudy Giuliani: I have never understood why the socially liberal mayor from New York thinks he can win the Republican nomination. However, if terror is the issue, Giuliani wins. I can't see it. I just can't. Not even with the support of the 700 Club.

Mike Huckabee: If I were to bet on someone at this point in the race, it would be this guy. Why? Because he is the only one who legitimately speaks to the base and actually wants the job (more on that later). The former Arkansas Governor is catching up fast to the early race frontrunners. The only question is does he have enough time and local organization in early states to close the gap.

John McCain: It is odd that John McCain, the great rabble rouser from 2000, has become the safe choice in this race. However, McCain is the known quantity here. If the Republicans get scared (of the other candidates, not terror), they might go McCain. He also has a good organization in New Hampshire where he won eight years ago.

Mitt Romney: I believe the national polls place the former Governor in the lead in this race. I don't see it. A Mormon is not good enough social conservative credentials for many in the base of the Republican party. It may be as baseless in reason as saying that Obama being a Muslim would disqualify him. The fact that Romney is actually a Mormon is a key difference. Romney also has Giuliani's problem of having some questionable (in the eyes of social conservatives) views on certain key subjects. The combination I think will leave him dead in the water in South Carolina and other Southern and Western states.

Fred Thompson: We will never know if Fred Thompson had a chance at this. He doesn't seem to like campaigning. The retail politics inherent in the primary process seems beyond him. On the other hand, with the whole host of question marks that plague the front runners. The faux reincarnation of Reagan could be a choice, who knows?

Do you support a candidate that a) wants to eliminate most of the US government or b) believes in UFO's? Sorry, it ain't happening. Although I have a certain respect for Ron Paul and his campaign.

Procrastination Post

I did say that I might post more than usual to avoid my work. Well, here's one. Two major issues on the table today.

1. The Middle East Peace Conference. There are something like 50 groups represented at this thing. There's two big ones missing: Hamas and Iran. The press has been about Iran and while there relationship with Hezbollah in particular does not help matters, Hamas is the far more important player left out in the cold. Bush must think he's Alexander the Great and he can just leave the disagreeable Spartans out of the picture while he negotiates Greece's surrender. The Spartans, however, did not control half of the country and have a legitimate claim to the whole territory by right of democratic election. Hamas does. A peace deal without Hamas will be, in all likelihood, a useless waste of time.
2. The C-22 fallout. Kudos to Premiers Charest and Doer for backing Ontario on this one. Apparently half the country is being small-minded. With Doer and Charest we now have all three major federal parties represented. Time for Stephane Dion to pounce on this wounded gazelle and end this farce. Oh, and will the increasingly disgraced minister resign?!?!

That's all for now folks.

Monday... the work continues

With two major papers due this week, blogging may be light. Then again I may use it as a means of procrastination which means it will be heavy. Anyhoo, Monday thoughts

• I am really curious to see whether anyone is paying attention to this C-22 fiasco.
• Congrats to the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the province of Saskatchewan on the Roughriders Grey Cup win. There have been better Grey Cups but at least it wasn't a blow out.
• Soccer Canada's first task in getting to 2010? Beating Saint Vincent and Grenadines. Go Canada Go!
• Any guesses on who the Republicans are going to nominate? Anyone?
• Obama is claiming momentum and thinks he's ready to caucus Clinton out of Iowa, we shall see.

Intelligence Wasted

I often wonder what would happen if Stephen Harper didn't subject his brain to political considerations. Some of the things would be awful, no doubt. Others, like this gem, would be a refreshing change. From the oft-quoted speech to the American Council for National Policy:

"For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier. This has not worked. The sovereignty movement has continued to rise in prominence. And its demands have continued to increase."

I don't mind politicians having a change of heart (Chrétien on free trade for instance). I do mind politicians selling their souls for a couple of votes.

Could Someone Please Get Out a Calculator

So, the furor over bill C-22 continues to grow. Peter Van Loan and co. claim the bill will give Ontario ten more seats. The media is trumpeting this as fact. My post here shows my math. Given current data Ontario would get all of two additional seats. In order for Ontario to deserve 10 additional seats its population would have to skyrocket. Around 850,000 people by my calculations. to get to 116 (ten more than the existing 106). That calculation also presumes that the population of the rest of the country remains stagnant which is highly unlikely. Nothing in the bill changes how Ontario calculates its seat total. Would the media or the opposition or somebody please challenge the Tories' new math on this one?

Things I Think

I always have issues titling my quick thought posts. I try to avoid repetition which can prove difficult. Anyway, here are my thoughts to start off the week:

• The Robert Dziekanski affair is tragic. However, the discussion should be about police protocols on force not on tasers in particular. Tasers are used because they provide a simple, hands-off means of subduing a person - no broken bones from being tackled to the ground. I think what we really need to be asking is why the RCMP felt it necessary to use force in the first place. By the way, I'm no fan of tasers but I don't think this incident substantively changes the debate.
  
• Also tragic is the loss of two more brave Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. To quote Dylan, "how many deaths will it take 'til he knows that to many people have died?" We need to get out of Kandahar province and we need to get out now. Note: I did not say Afghanistan. We can do reconstruction somewhere else.
• Banning cell phone use makes sense but misses the point. There are a dozen things that distract drivers. Cell phones are a weapon, not the criminal. Much like I support gun control but don't think that is an adequate crime prevention strategy, I support this type of ban but don't think it solves the problem.
  
• Apparently my city councilor wants to convert a few houses in my neighbourhood from public housing to a parking lot. I'm no fan of parking lots. However, the Danforth does need more parking. This is particularly true during Taste when streets become so overparked, locals are trapped in their houses. I'd actually have liked them to install underground parking at the green P lot beside Broadview station. However, given the endless (four years now?) construction there I can't really advocate more. Underground parking would make more sense as it does not blight the landscape.
• Great post on the NDP and poverty here.
  
• The C-22 story is starting to take off. One of my favourite columnists, Ian Urquhart has a good column here. My handy-dandy C-22 explainer is here. I still don't get how the Ontario getting ten seats thing works with the calculus. I guess that's just the population projections for 2011. If someone has a better theory, please, clue me in.
  
• The Vanier Cup will be Manitboa- Saint Mary's.
• The Grey Cup will be Winnipeg- Saskatchewan.
• My conclusion from the above two statements: there are going to be more Winnipegers in Toronto next weekend then in Winnipeg.
• Can we just give the Pats the Super Bowl now? I guess that would mean foresaking the best ads of the year.
  

That's all for now.

Air Conditioning

I've determined that air conditioning is the biggest challenge in terms of solving the climate change crisis. Look who is meeting its Kyoto targets: Northern European countries that do not have a large proliferation of air conditioner use in their countries. Who has failed? The US, Canada, Australia and Mediterranean Europe who need air conditioning in the summer. Am I oversimplifying?

Friday Quick Thoughts

Some quick things to muse over for the weekend:

• Are the people of York-Simcoe listening to what their MP is saying about their province? Whoever the Liberal nominee there is needs to pounce on this for the next election. Peter Van Loan may have just put himself in jeopardy of losing.
  
• Nice to see Liberals doing better in national polls. Doesn't mean a thing though.
• For that reason, no, Elizabeth May does not 'deserve' a place in the next debate. As I've said before, any party that wins seats should be in the debate. It's the standard that we've had for a long time. Win a seat, Greens, then we'll talk. One, out of writ poll does not entitles someone to a place
  
• Hillary Clinton planting a question is really not a big deal. It's an old political trick that everyone uses. The fact that her plant wasn't loyal is embarrassing. There is a major difference between that and the fake FEMA press conference.
• More Hillary, this is Hill-arious. I am kind of surprised that Bill's that front and centre.
  
• Having just defended her, I will say that she needs to come out with some straightforward positions.
• Sarkozy's attempts to fix France are interesting to watch. I hope for the sake of France he succeeds.
• Kind of want to see "Redacted". Looks interesting.

Bill C-22 Explained

Okay, so there's a lot of discussion about representation. Harper's rewording the elections act to give more seats to Alberta and British Columbia. Here's the legalese. Here's how it would work (or at least how I read the legalese). First you take the population of Canada's provinces and divide by 279 (the divisor prescribed in 1985). So (population data taken from wikipedia):

32871287/279=117,818.233

Then you take the population of each province and divide by the quotient above giving you:

Ontario: 108
Quebec: 65
BC:37
Alberta: 29
Manitoba: 10
Saskatchewan:8
Nova Scotia:8
New Brunswick:6
Newfoundland and Labrador:4
PEI:1

That would be the Canadian parliament under pure representation by population basis. However, three clauses of the election need to be implemented. First, no province can have less seats in the house than it does in the senate. Second, no province can have less seats than it did in 1988 (the coming into force of the 1985 revision).

Leading to this:

ON: 108 (unchanged)
PQ: 65 to 75 (1988 level)
BC: 37 (unchanged)
AB: 29 (unchanged)
MB: 10 to 14 (1988 level)
SK: 8 to 14 (1988 level)
NS: 8 to 11 (1988 level)
NB: 6 to 10 (senate-based minimum)
NL:4 to 7 (1988 level)
PE: 1 to 4 (senate-based minimum)

Here's where C-22 changes things. Under bill C-22, if a province does not benefit from the readjustment above, and a larger province does, they get to recalculate their seats. The applicable provinces - BC and Alberta - get the same member to voter ratio as the larger province - Quebec - meaning in this case one member for every 102,677.4267 people. This leads to:

BC: 37 to 43
AB: 29 to 34

So, basically the only province that doesn't get a boost is Ontario. No wonder Dalton's pissed off. Basically, this gives the West the special treatment that they resent Quebec for getting. Not a bad deal for them. Aside from McGuinty's valid complaints, this system guarantees that the house will expand ad infinitum. The Conservative Party of Canada: Delivering Bigger Governments Since 2006!

In all seriousness, we should have a system which limits the size of the house. We should eliminate the clause that requires that a province's seat count cannot shrink below a certain level. Leave in the senate thing to ensure adequate representation out East. This would allow Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador to shrink (as their share of the Canadian population has) and give us a stable number of MP's.

Side Note: Those advocating an equal senate should take a long look at the clause above. An equal senate (10 senators a province) would mean an increase in the house delegations of both PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador to ridiculous levels. PEI would have one member for every 14,000 people. Ontario would have one member for every 118,000 people. Yikes!

Solidarity um... Line!

You may have noticed when your favourite late night talk show went into reruns last week that the Writers Guild of America is on strike. The strike centres on the issue of internet downloading and DVD sales. See, whenever a show airs on television, the writers of that show get a small cut of the revenue. However, when the show is streamed over the internet on the company's website replete with advertisements, the writers get nothing. The writers' take on DVD sales is miniscule. This is why the writers guild is on strike. They want their cut. This is not an unreasonable demand and my guess is that eventually they'll get it. The reason this is even an issue in my view, is the ever shrinking pie that they are looking to get a cut from.

The movement of many TV shows to streaming internet video is an attempt to regain a lost market. Increasingly, young people, like myself, are relying on free internet downloads to watch their shows and movies when they want to. Of course, this practice is illegal and there is no profit taking involved. While some people may be willing to pay a few dollars for the show on iTunes, the vast majority of people who download will continue to do so. This represents a significant market reduction for networks for their shows. The problem is made all the worse by the fact that the people who download shows are the exact market advertisers crave: young men and women. The attempts by networks like Comedy Central to meet people half way (streaming video on their websites with ads) has been, in my view, the most effective way of countering this problem. Sure, people complain that you can't find Stewart and Colbert on YouTube anymore but you also will have a hell of a time finding a pirated version to download (check out your favourite torrent site). This isn't because nobody wants to watch those shows, but because there is no reason to wait for a download that will take up hard drive space when you can access the entire library of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on their website. The streaming option works well for those shows partially because Comedy Central can break the shows into segments and run short ads before each segment. A show that was not so segmented may encounter more problems trying to stream. One of the appeals of downloading is that you are not forced to watch a billion commercials that disrupt the flow of the plot. If the show is segmented, there is no plot to disrupt. If you try to apply the same model to drama you may encounter a problem. However, it is probably the only way for networks to save their shows and the writers should get a cut.

Monday Thoughts

Some quick thoughts to start the week:

- The Schreiber affair is bad news for the Tories. But, I mean the Tories of Brian Mulroney. I don't really see this being Harper's scandal. I mean he wasn't even in the same party at the time. Then again, I have no gauge for how the public judges scandals so who knows. That and the appearance of a cover up is great for the fodder.

- The whole thing seems almost to surreal to be true. I find it hard to believe a PM could be that stupid.

- The Dion poverty plan is nice. I like the policy diversification. The all Kyoto, all the time thing was driving me nuts. I could make a long argument about how "eliminating poverty" is an unrealistic goal. However, the steps proposed by M. Dion should do well to mitigate and alleviate the impact of poverty if not doing the impossible and eliminating it. Let's leave it at that.

- I wish I could go see Gerard Kennedy speak about an enterprising Canada down at Ryerson on the 19th. And for all you conspiracy hacks out there, this is Gerard's job NOT a continuation of his leadership run.

- Chantal Hébert continues her cheer leading for Mr. Harper in the Star today. I don't know that there is a more blatantly partisan columnist out there today.

- This post marks the 201st for this little blog. I would have marked the 200th but I thought it an inappropriate accompaniment to the poetry of Dr. McRae.

- Anyone understand the San Diego Chargers or the New Orleans Saints? Anyone?

- For that matter, anyone get the Pittsburgh Penguins?

- The writers' strike down south is fascinating to me. In fact, I think I'll skip commenting here and devote a whole post.

- As much as I dislike the media's love affair with Québec, I agree that it is the most interesting political story in the country these days.

- Although, Saskatchewan is pretty interesting itself. It's not everyday a government loses during an economic boom.

- The Toronto Raptors need to get the consistency thing down. They have the potential to be a really good team.

- Go Argos! The Grey Cup needs the host city to play if it is going to be a real success. This might not be true out West, it is in Toronto.

Lest We Forget

On days such as these words fail me. So, I leave the words to others:

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

- Dr. John McRae
(1872-1918)

Consitutionality

Okay, so there are people upset with me suggesting that Harper should bail out Canada's struggling cities. They argue it is unconstitutional. First of all, you can read the constitution in a lot of ways. For instance section 92.10 c states that local works and undertakings are a provincial responsibility EXCEPT :
"(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces."

To me this is a fairly broad exception and could certainly be applied to a whole host of things in Canada's cities. I could argue that ensuring the security of the Toronto Stock Exchange is in the "general advantage of Canada" and therefore the feds should pay part of the cost of the Toronto Police Force. I could argue that investments in public transit which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions are in the "general advantage of Canada" and therefore deserve federal funding. Hell, why not throw in literacy (public libraries) and public health (recreational facilities, garbage collection)? The Canadian economy needs healthy educated workers.

Even if you don't want to get picky, there's are a lot of things that fall under federal jurisdiction, particularly in the GTA. "Naturalization and Aliens" falls under section 91. Money for ESL programs, please and thank you. The feds have a responsibility in our cities. The provinces don't mind the intrusion. In fact Dalton McGuinty is begging for it. The constitution was framed by men like John A. Macdonald who that the provinces would wither and die within a few decades. We can certainly afford to cross some lines in light of modern circumstances.

Harper's Walking on Thin Ice

Harper's attitude towards the municipalities of this country is deplorable. They are in a major fix and the federal government refuses to help. Now Harper finds himself at war not only with Ontario's recently re-elected premier but with its most popular mayor, Hazel McCallion. Harper needs the suburbs of Toronto if he wants his majority and pissing off Hazel is not a good way to win votes there. This isn't the wacky socialist mayor of Toronto, this is the no nonsense mayor of Mississauga. There's a big difference and Harper may learn it at the polls.

Hooray for Infrastructure!

As promised, a post on infrastructure. There is a lot of talk today about how pointless the federal government is. The argument is that the provinces and municipalities provide most of the essential services and yet the feds collect most of the money. Well, here it is folks, what the feds could do with all that money that is distinctly their responsibility. Infrastructure was what united this country in the first place. The railroad built this country in a whole slew of ways. The railroad is also the future of this country. This country desperately needs cheap, fast train services. In particular, this is necessary in major corridors. Two immediately come to mind. First, the place where a huge number of Canadians live, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Why is it that the best way to get from Toronto-Ottawa is by car? Planes are expensive and you have to spend hours getting to and going through security at the airport. The current trains are not much faster than a car (particularly if you exceed the speed limit) and are ridiculously overpriced. Imagine if you could make the trip from Toronto-Ottawa in about 2 hours. This is possible. It is done all over Europe. There are high speed trains that go well over 200 km/h. Now, I have heard that the Canadian climate could be a problem. However, I believe that this is an obstacle that can be overcome. The higher speed would also knock down the costs of running the trains (or at very least offset any increase in the cost of operating the faster trains) because you would be paying for fewer hours of labour. Not only do we need fast trains but we need train service in more places. The Calgary-Edmonton-Fort McMurray corridor would be a prime target for trains. Kitchener-Waterloo needs to be train accessible as well. Fast trains would reduce traffic congestion, reduce pollution and increase productivity (less hours spent traveling is a good for business).

The second major infrastructure the feds could make is in our airports. If you want to make sure Canada is open to business in a globalized era, you must reduce the ridiculous landing fees which exist at Canadian airports. By making a larger contribution to the upkeep and expansion of our airports, the federal government would make travel cheaper for Canadians and Canada more competitive.

Is there more? Of course. Our population has outgrown our network of highways. Many of our existing roads and bridges need repair. These are all matters that the federal government can help in. It is time for us to invest in infrastructure.

Stephen Harper is not Always Wrong

I guess this post should be titled why the senate should be abolished. Let's review our options on the Canadian Senate:

The Status Quo:

An unelected senate/ or quasi-elected (Harper's appointment of the senator from Alberta) senate with almost as much power (on paper) as the House of Commons. The provincial distribution of seats is based on population data from when provinces entered confederation and designed to provide a regional balancing act that no longer makes sense. The West should not be equal to the Maritimes. This is not a good thing for the Canadian system to hold on to. The pros of the current senate? Sober second thought? An interesting idea. Most of the real work that the senate does is in fixing legislation to make it legally better. That work could and really should be done in the House. If you want an unelected body to review legislation, we have a federal bureaucracy. Reports on major issues of the day? Well, there are some reports we might pay attention to (reports on health care). However, most are simply ignored. Did you know the Canadian senate recently put out a report on aid policy in sub-Saharan Africa? Is it a good report, I couldn't tell you, I haven't read it. Could we have it done by a committee of the House of Commons or, a Canadian tradition, a Royal Commission? Absolutely.

Reform:

Now, I know there isn't a perfect consensus on Senate reform, so I'll look at the most popular: the triple E senate. I don't mind (in and of itself) the elected part. Elected officials are a good thing. However, the other two parts make me cringe. Equal? Are you joking? The idea is to give every province ten seats. PEI would be equal to Ontario. I have never understood the logic. The only reason seems to be that the Americans do it. That does not make something good or desirable. The third E however is the kicker. An effective senate would lead only to endless legislative gridlock. You would have butchered version of American democracy. We have a House of Commons, we don't need another body like this.

The only reasonable conclusion is to abolish the upper house as was done across the country in province after province. It is a redundant relic of history. I agree with Liberals like Dalton McGuinty that it is time to end this farce.

Sports for a Monday

So, being completely annoyed with federal politics, I think I'll devote a post to something less serious. So, my quick thoughts on the weekend sporting events.

- The Pats are amazing. Brady has a poor game by his standards and they still come from ten points down to beat the far and away second best team in the NFL.

- Will someone please give my now .500 Buffalo Bills some respect? This team is a couple of inches from being 6-2 (last second losses to Dallas and Denver). Sure, the teams they've beaten have combined for eight wins but the teams they've lost to have combined for eight losses.

- How much do the Michigan Wolverines wish they could replay that game against Appalaichan State?

- Nice to see the always consistent Oregon Ducks back on top of the PAC 10.

- Western continues its hot streak through the OUA. I'm pissed off they beat my Golden Gaels. I feel a little better since they beat Ottawa.

- The Raptors are good. Really good. Losing in overtime to one of the best teams in the east when your top two players spend the first half ice cold? That's one impressive off night.

- The Maple Leafs are horrible. JFJ has got to go. MLSE knows how to build a winner (see above). They have more money than God, spend it on a top level GM and the best scouts in the business.

- The Argos are one win away from playing at home in the Grey Cup. The ownership must be thrilled.

- Sports can be disillusioning. Case and point: Martina Hingis was one of the few tennis players I respected.

- Congrats to Calgary's Stephen Ames for his win. Why did the Canadian boys get hot when the season is ending?

- What is going on with the Pens? The team of the future is not looking very good in the present these days.

More politics later on. Probably a post on infrastructure. I'm interested in the dullest things aren't I?

Friday

Some quick thoughts that have crossed my mind:

- The Dems made a mistake in not allowing Stephen Colbert to run in South Carolina. At this point the Democratic nomination is going to be a snooze, a Colbert candidacy would keep people watching.

- The Canadian dollar continues to soar. Prices are starting to come down. Sometimes the free market actually does work, it does require some patience though.

- Stephen Harper's "new" government is apparently "new" for the 1930's. How else to explain the decision to let Canadians be killed in the United States. Our opposition to the death penalty in this country is a moral choice. We should fight for it everywhere in the world. Do we "respect" the laws of all of our friends? Funny, we don't seem to respect Chinese law regarding Tibet...

- So the Tories have taken to ousting candidates. I understand getting rid of candidates you don't like. I particularly understand it when you have another candidate to replace them. However, in an acclaimed nomination race in a riding you can't possibly win...

- In what universe do you think you can get away with stealing a baby in this country? There's morally repulsive and then there's morally repulsive.

- Repeatedly rolling over won't help you stand up M. Dion. What's the new YLC slogan I hate? Challenge everything? Well, you don't have to do that, but for the love of this party, please, challenge something. Oh, and by something, I don't mean the GST cut. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it political suicide to oppose it? Yes. Oh, on a lighter note I do approve of M. Dion's Laurier outfit.