Peace, order and good government, eh?

Friday night

2012-02-04T01:00:00Z

Blame Twitter. Someone was tweeting about a musician named Lincoln Durham the other day and when he included the magic words — slide guitar — I went off to see what I could find. The result is the set you see before you beginning with Living This Hard.

Once I'd found Lincoln Durham I poked around some more. I thought this was interesting: Blackie and the Rodeo Kings with Another Free Woman Gets To Walk Away.

I'd seen Will Kimbrough before but not this track and it makes a good closer. This is Piece of Work. Have a good weekend.

Speaking of political theatre

2012-02-03T14:21:00Z

While the National Post does its best to hype the threat posed by Iran, here's the news I can't seem to find from a Canadian source:

WASHINGTON, Feb 1, 2012 (IPS) - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.

Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the United States is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.

But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in U.S. politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this fall.

My emphasis. Recent comments from both our prime minister and our foreign affairs minister suggest they're content to play along. Apparently being a friend to Israel means helping to lay the foundation for yet another war of aggression in the Middle East.

Update:

Here's an interview with Minister Baird I hadn't seen when I first posted this:

...Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird says Iran's position on Israel is clear, and Tehran wants to build nuclear weapons • "It's very easy to put one and one together. I believe Iran will use these weapons."

Israel alone has enough of a nuclear arsenal to wipe Iran off the map — the choice of language is deliberate — many times over at the first whiff of an aggressive move by Iran and the Iranians know it. And so does John Baird.

Bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "political theatre"

2012-02-02T15:04:00Z

I'm sure a lot of my fellow bloggers will be all over this story but I wanted my own copy to refer back to. I expect to get a lot of mileage out of this one.

Federal bureaucrats pose as 'new Canadians' on Sun News

Six federal bureaucrats were drafted to pose as new Canadians for a citizenship reaffirmation ceremony broadcast on the Sun News network, an event requested by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's office.

Kenney's staff wanted to do something splashy for citizenship week. But Sun TV resisted pressure to attend and broadcast an actual citizenship ceremony and instead suggested that something be done in their studio. After all, it's not like they do real broadcast journalism.

"Let's do it. We can fake the Oath," reads an email from a @sunmedia.ca email address, the name blacked out of the document.

That's the spirit. Don't let a little thing like authenticity slow you down.

Given the short notice, they decided to do a reaffirmation ceremony meaning that people who had recently become citizens would retake the oath. When they were still unable to come up with enough people to make it look good, they drafted six of the staff at Citizenship and Immigration Canada and had them pretend to be new citizens. Apparently it was all the same to the Sun TV on-air personalities.

Co-host Pat Bolland said they were "among 4,700 people who actually enjoy the special honour of becoming Canadians" during citizenship week.

[Judge Aris] Babikian mentioned more than once that the people were there to "reaffirm" their citizenship, but that point seemed to be lost on the Sun News Network hosts.

Later, Pierson congratulated "all the new Canadians here today, 10 of you here at Sun News Network, finally Canadian citizens. Wonderful to have you."

Of course, this incident raises a host of questions:

Has Jason Kenney, already known as the hardest working cabinet minister on the planet, added television producer to his list of duties?

Will the Conservative campaign motto in 2015 be "The show must go on?"

When Kenney and Vic Toews held those press conferences last year to promote their Most Wanted (Alleged) War Criminals list, were those real officers on stage with them or CIC bureaucrats impersonating officers? (And if the latter, wouldn't that be a criminal offense?)

In that episode of Ezra Levant's show when he murdered a potted plant with a chainsaw, was that a real potted plant or ...?

Wanker of the day

2012-02-01T14:05:00Z

Federal Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver

But it's easy to see why Oliver is in cabinet. With John Baird's new position keeping him on the road so much, the Commons needed a new Angry McPointy. Now stay the hell off Joe's lawn.

Fun with figures

2012-01-31T14:37:00Z

One of the hot topics of discussion right now involves the speculation that the Harper Government™ intends to raise the eligibility age for Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) from 65 to 67. And here's Brian Lee Crowley to argue that the real reason for doing so is that so many of us have secretly been hoping for just the kind of change that would force us to work even longer. We know we want to; we just need a little extra motivation and nothing motivates like the prospect of having to survive on cat food. What about that Harper Government™ eh? Always looking out for us.

Much of the argument in that column is based on this:

There was a time when 65 and retirement were closely linked for a compelling reason. A life of labour had left the average worker depleted. A few short years of decline was all they could expect before death. A Canadian male born in 1966, when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced, would only expect to live to age 68 or so. Today, it's 79.

And in the context of this discussion, that's just wrong.

There are a number of factors that contribute to the overall increase in life expectancy including reductions in infant mortality as well as advances in medical science that allow people to survive catastrophic injury and illness. But an increase in overall life expectancy isn't the same thing as an increase in life expectancy once someone reaches retirement age. The way Crowley tells it, fifty years ago someone lucky enough to reach 65 could, statistically speaking, only expect another three years or so before going to meet his maker. Meanwhile, in another part of the ~~forest~~ punditocracy, here's Dan Gardner quoting Kevin Milligan:

"In the '60s, if you were a 65-year-old man, you could expect to live to age 78. So 13 more years," notes Kevin Milligan. "As of 2007, that had increased to 18 years."

So Crowley's retiree, who had gained eleven years of life expectancy in the last half century, has suddenly only gained five. That makes a bit of a difference in the calculations. More to the point: it suggests we need to be keep a very watchful eye on the people who are suddenly throwing statistics around.

And while we're at it, let's keep a watchful eye out for some of the same people to go on at great lengths about all the health care resources all those old people are bound to consume. If they're that sick, how are they expected to keep working?

Just wondering

2012-01-28T19:19:07Z

What would make Stephen Harper think it's a good idea to go to Davos and tell other countries what he intends to do to us before he told us?

Friday night unplugged

2012-01-28T01:00:00Z

It's a low key, acoustic set this evening. The opening clip is from Peter Seeger's Rainbow Quest — Brownie McGhee performing solo on Don't Pity Me.

Lyle Lovett takes the lead on My Baby Don't Tolerate with backup by John Hiatt, Guy Clark and Joe Ely. At the break, Hiatt will demonstrate that as a lead guitarist he makes a great songwriter.

And finally, Darrell Scott with Kenny Malone on percussion will explain that there's No Use Living for Today. The canned intro stops at around 0:30. Have a good weekend.

A moral imperative

2012-01-27T01:17:00Z

Last March the Harper government characterized Canada's participation in hostilities in Libya as a moral imperative. Hopefully they'll look upon today's request by Amnesty International in the same way.

The Canadian leader of Amnesty International is calling on the Harper government to use its influence with Libya's new leadership to put an end to the torture of prisoners that the organization says has been taking place.

That article doesn't give us much in the way of detail about it but it seems the people we helped to put in charge in Libya have been behaving badly. This BBC article reports that over 8,000 people are being held in secret detention centres "amid reports of torture" and includes this:

The humanitarian medical organisation [Medecins Sans Frontieres] said it had stopped work in detention centres in the north-western city of Misrata because some patients were being brought in for care between interrogation sessions.

That story's descriptions of abuse mainly involve the independent militias but there are other reports that implicate Libya's regular army as well as the new government's security agency in the torture of detainees.

If Canadian involvement in Libya was all about protecting civilians then perhaps John Baird could drop by there again and apply some pressure to curb these abuses. It seems like the least we could do since we share responsibility for them.

Transparency!

2012-01-25T16:39:00Z

The House of Commons gets back to work next week and that means that parliamentary committees resume as well. In fact the Standing Committee on Health will meet tomorrow afternoon.

Kady O'Malley, as @kady on Twitter, was kind enough to link to this page which provides the schedule of upcoming meetings. O'Malley also took note of the number of padlocks associated with the entries which indicate when meetings will be held in camera — closed to the public.

Of the ten meetings currently listed, eight of them will be held in camera. Admittedly this isn't something I've kept track of but that seems high. It's worth noting that aside from preventing the press and public from viewing the proceedings, taking the meeting behind closed doors automatically binds the participants — including opposition MPs — to secrecy.

Eight out of ten would certainly suggest one of two things: either something is in the works that a lot of us won't like or keeping the public in the dark about what goes on in committees has become the default position of this government. Either way, democracy loses.

Update:

O'Malley has now posted on this herself. The relevant bit:

...this isn't an entirely unusual occurrence during the first few days of a new sitting -- there are, after all, various bits housekeeping business to which to attend, much of which is, in fact, traditionally done in private.

At the same time, given the frequency with which Conservative MPs were ejecting the public from previously open sessions before the House rose for the holidays, it may not be the most auspicious omen with which to start the New Year.

This isn't a new parliament. They're just getting back to work after the Christmas recess. So I'm not sure how much housekeeping they'd have to do before settling in to their normal duties. I think this bears watching.

Not an auspicious beginning

2012-01-24T13:59:00Z

Today's Crown First Nations Gathering was supposed to be historic. It would mark the first occasion since he became prime minister in 2006 that Stephen Harper would meet with First Nations leaders. So there was quite a bit of negative publicity when it was learned that Harper intended to leave the summit early. In order to counter that, an extra meeting was hastily convened yesterday evening between Harper and his minister of aboriginal affairs and the most senior of First Nations leaders.

I don't think it accomplished what the government was hoping for. Here's the headline on the APTN story reporting on the meeting: Harper tells chiefs they should contact their MPs.

So a prime minister who has been happy to continue with the trend of recent decades — to concentrate power in the PMO and turn MPs into bit players who stand up on cue and vote the way they're told — has just told First Nations leaders to talk to ~~the hand~~ the bit players.

Here's how the meeting was reported by someone who attended.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip said there were about 45 people in the room, including chiefs, elders, Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan and his Parliamentary Secretary Greg Rickford.

Harper opened the meeting saying he was there to listen.

"I was extremely proud of some of the profoundly powerful statements made by some of the elders, grand chiefs and regional chiefs that were in the room," said Phillip. "In the end we waited for the response from the prime minister, which was very, very brief, almost disappointingly brief."

Phillip said the prime minister basically told chiefs that he couldn't just focus on their issues because he had to run the country.

"He did make a point of saying basically that, as the prime minister of Canada, he had many, many other issues. He talked about the great responsibility and many interests on this 'great ship of state' as he described the country," said Phillip. "Quite astonishingly...at the very end he was recommending we go home and talk to our MPs."

After all the talk about historic summits and new beginnings, Harper made it all about himself. He brushed off the First Nations leadership by telling them that he's just too busy to pay attention to their issues because governing is hard work. (And who does that remind you of?)

That better be some powerful speech he makes this morning or all of this may have just made things worse, not better.

Friday night: RIP Etta James

2012-01-21T01:00:00Z

Etta James passed away earlier today at the age of 73. So the set orginally planned for this evening gets bumped to next week.

Apparently the song that comes to mind for a lot of people when they think of James is At Last. But it was never a particular favorite of mine so we're not going to do that. Instead we'll start with Something's Got A Hold On Me.

Here's a song James wrote herself: I'd Rather Go Blind.

The volume needs a boost on this one though it's fine otherwise. This is Rock Me Baby. Have a good weekend.

The NDP Leadership Debate in Toronto

2012-01-19T05:05:16Z

I came. I saw. I listened. And what I listened to was a lot of what MP Nathan Cullen characterized as "violent agreement".

The packed crowd (people had to be turned away) listened to candidates who agree, violently, on what government should do. Grow the economy sustainably, help the downtrodden, ensure equality, and so on.

The disagreements, with one exception, were subtle. They were either about political strategy, or about implementation. Everyone may agree on what to do, everyone does not agree on how to do it. But with only a minute or 30 seconds to answer each question you had to listen sharply to hear the differences.

With that one exception. Cullen proposed open primaries for all non Conservative parties with only the winning candidate running, so that there would be one candidate in each riding to oppose the Conservatives.

The hissing was immediate. A heartbeat later, the clapping began. Because the NDP wants to be government, wants it bad. They've been in the wilderness for too long, and they sure don't trust the Liberals to do the right things. But NDP supporters also understand that Harper is a transformational Prime Minister--in the worst way possible. He is making a Canada which is less equal, less prosperous and far, far meaner. He is undermining medicare, undermining small farms and plans to center Canada's economy around resource extraction of the kind which leaves behind only a legacy of ruin. (Every resource boom ends. Every single one.) So defeating Harper is important.

That aside, there was so much agreement that I began doing what I prefer not to do in American politics: I started considering electability.

There were only three candidates on that stage, in my opinion, who had the raw charisma and polished speaking skills necessary to lead the NDP to victory. Thomas Mulcair, Nathan Cullen and Peggy Nash. The NDP cannot afford a leader who is not charismatic, and the others simply don't have the ability to hold attention. Nash and Mulcair are bilingual, Cullen's french is weaker, but getting better.

Below I'm going to go through my observations on all eight, starting with the three I feel have the charisma for the job.

Thomas Mulcair

Mulcair has a reputation as a firebrand, but the man I saw on the stage was calm and in command of the facts. Able to switch easily between rabble rousing and policy, he also showed a clear command of the actual policy levers, as when he commented that the CMHC (the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation) was the key to affordable housing, or when noted areas of provincial jurisdiction. He was also the strongest opposing voice to Cullen's suggestion of open nominations, making a passionate case that the NDP can win as the NDP. I didn't go in with a very favorable impression of Mulcair, but I came out with one. He would be vulnerable to attacks on his strong support for Quebec provincial jurisdiction, and I'd like to hear his current views on the role of the federal government in areas on Provincial jurisdiction, but his charisma and command of the issues made a strong impression in the debate. His point about youth engagement being key to victory was also well taken, and I'd like to hear more about how he plans to increase the youth vote.

Peggy Nash

Nash was the most relentlessly rah-rah of all the candidates. Her answers were much more often pep talks and rally the troop moments than any other candidate. She reliably commanded the crowd. Her rhetoric on issues of social equality was very skillful, making the point that if some people are better off (union workers who have pensions, for example) the solution isn't to take those pensions away, the solution is to make sure everyone has good pensions. Of the three candidates with charisma Nash left me coldest, but I was in the minority in the crowd. She didn't demonstrate the same ready command of the nuts and bolts of issues as Mulcair, Cullen and Romeo Saganash but given the format of the debate and her background, I would assume she is just as knowledgeable and she certainly has enough policy proposals out. I like to hear her plans for winning the next election, and holding on the the gains in Quebec.

Nathan Cullen

I should confess first off that Cullen said many of the things I like to think I'd have said were I up on the stage, and said them the way I'd say them. He was the most combative of the candidates, and he was the one to call for specifics, and to call BS. The open primary suggestion was the main point of conflict in the debate, but he also made the point that when it comes to professional associations recognizing immigrant's qualifications, "dialogue" isn't going to cut it. He showed a ready understanding of the actual dynamics of power and how parliament works. And he was a smooth and clean speaker with charisma. As with Nash or Muclair, he commands attention. I don't know his ideas on how the NDP should win, if the Liberals reject his open primary idea (which I'm pretty sure they would), but I'd like to hear them. As with all candidates not from Quebec, I'd like to hear how he plans to maintain the NDP's success in that province, as well as grow outside it.

Niki Ashton

Ashton has a tendency towards mushy talk. The solution to too many things is apparently dialogue. We need to "talk" about everything. Certainly right on the issues (but so is everyone) but I didn't get the impression she was ready for the leadership spot yet. She didn't demonstrate the ability to make the case in a short, pithy, commanding way, and in our media environment, that's disqualifying.

Paul Dewar

Comes across as likeable. The bloke you'd want to have a beer with, which so many political reporters seem to think is important. Good on the issues, like everyone.. Kind of forgettable otherwise. Nothing stands out from him in my mind other than "such a swell guy". Of course that can go a long way in politics, and if Dewar were fluently bilingual his likeability could pass as charisma. As it is I think he's a good candidate for the leadership in the next race, if he fixes his french.

Romeo Saganash

Romeo isn't a good public speaker. I winced when he made his introductory speech. But he grew on me through the debate. He had an excellent grasp not just of the details of how government works but of what is most important. He made the single most important policy point in the entire debate - that the government has almost 200 billion dollars worth of tax loopholes, subsidies and so on. (He gave the exact number, but I didn't note it down at the time.) The 5 billion in tax cuts for the rich which could be rescinded is just the top of the iceberg. That money means that if the NDP is serious, it can remake Canada. And his record in Quebec, bringing Quebec Hydro to heel and making it work for everyone in Quebec, is impressive. In any NDP government I'd want to see Saganash in a senior ministerial role. He impressed me as a man who could turn good intentions into policy which worked. He wouldn't make a good leader, because he's not a man for the soundbite era, or a great giver of speeches. But for the actual work of government, he'd seemed perfect.

Martin Singh

I think Singh knows he isn't going to win. But he kept making the same point and it's well taken: Canadians trust the NDP on social values, medicare and so on. They know the NDP will do the right thing. The sale which needs to be made is that the NDP can handle and grow the economy. I think that his point, and Nash's combined, are the argument the NDP should go with: that Canadians don't have to be mean to each other to grow the economy, but that we can all be prosperous together. Make that case, and the NDP wins. Fail to make the case, and the NDP can only back into power if Canadians hate Harper and see the NDP as the alternative. The other candidates, and the eventual leader, should listen to Singh on this.

Brian Topp

Another likeable man, though he doesn't come across quite as personable as the immensely likeable Dewar. I get his mail, and he or whoever writes his pieces is a great writer, who hits all the right emotive spots. His policy papers are smart. But he came across flat and wasn't a significant presence in the debate.

Closing Remarks

It's important for the NDP to elect a leader who can win, and who if he or she becomes Prime Minister will do the right things, and do them effectively. Eight years of a Harper majority will change the country dramatically, and when adding in his years as minority leader, will make him one of the longest serving PMs in our history. Incredible damage will be done to the country as Harper's policies strip mine resources and largely ignore the rest of the economy, leaving Canada in great danger when the resource boom ends, as they always do.

I don't know enough about the candidates to make an endorsement, I will simply say that electability and ability to govern are the two things which I believe matter most. The candidates who struck me as having the necessary charisma, administrative chops and sheer bloodymindedness required were (in alphabetical order), Cullen, Mulcair and Nash.

There's more I'd like to hear, including some big ideas. Instead of "increased sustainable housing" something like "in 10 years, every building in Canada will be energy neutral". Or "we will roll make university tuition $2k a year, and student aid will be 80% grants." (Oh, and bankruptcy from student loans will be allowed again). "We will overturn everything Harper has done." Big things. The vision thing. Not "tax rebate for X". Ten point plans are all very nice, but they won't win the election, a clearly different vision for Canada will.

In the era we're going into Canada has a lot going for it, not the least of which is that we have oil and other resources in a period when resources are scarce and prices will stay high for a while. Offhand I can't think of a country better positioned to prosper over the next generation. But resources can destroy us, annihilating the other sectors of our economy, including manufacturing, so that we become nothing but hewers of wood and drawers of oil. When the eventual resource crash happens, we can become Argentina north. The grab the money and run strategy of the conservatives is incredibly shortsighted.

So the Conservatives must lose. The NDP must win. And having won, it must govern effectively. For the sake of Canada, may the NDP choose the right man or woman for the job.

(View the Toronto NDP Leadership Debate yourself.)

Is Harper now running for the GOP nomination?

2012-01-17T15:28:00Z

For all that the recent IAEA report on Iran dragged evidence out of the trash bin that had previously been found to be too unreliable to take seriously, it still stopped short of stating definitively that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. Recent reports from the combined intelligence agencies of the United States have consistently found that there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran. The U.S. Secretary of Defense stated earlier this month that he doesn't believe the Iranians have an active nuclear weapons program.

But Stephen Harper is insisting that not only does he know better but that the moment Iranians have nukes, they'll use them.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says a consensus is growing among world leaders that Iran would have no hesitation using nuclear arms once they develop the weapons and the capability to deliver them.

"I've watched and listened to what the leadership in the Iran regime says, and it frightens me," Mr. Harper said in a CBC interview.

"In my judgment, these are people who have a particular, you know, fanatically religious worldview, and their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes," he said.

This is classic demonization.

Elsewhere in the article he states that this isn't like Iraq — referring to the propaganda campaign used to justify that invasion — but this is exactly like Iraq. Saddam Hussein was painted as the biggest threat to the planet since Hitler and twice as crazy. Now it's Iran's turn. It would be suicidal for the Iranians to launch a nuclear attack so Harper insists that, yes, they're that crazy so we have to act before they do. He's making the case for a pre-emptive military strike. And gee, I wonder who else wants that? (And here I'm not referring to candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. In case that's not obvious.)

This kind of belligerent rhetoric surrounding an already unstable situation in the most unstable region of the planet is just stunningly irresponsible.

Friday night

2012-01-14T01:00:00Z

Tonight's opener features the same group of musicians who held down the middle slot in last week's episode: Lou Ann Barton and Omar Kent Dykes on vocals, James Cotton on harp and Jimmie Vaughan on first guitar. This is another Jimmy Reed tune called Good Lover.

Drown in My Own Tears was written in 1956 by Henry Glover. It's been recorded by everyone from Ray Charles to Norah Jones (that Wikipedia thing comes in awful handy, doesn't it?). This is a nice cover by Simply Red's Mick Hucknall.

And to close, here's Lucky Peterson with Smooth Sailing. Have a good weekend.

It would only be terrorism if they did it to us

2012-01-13T15:34:00Z

Shorter Lorne Gunter: Murdering scientists is okay as long as it's our side that does it. And look at the craftsmanship on the part of the assassins!

Gunter thinks I'm naive. I guess that's fair because I think he's contemptible. Meanwhile, people who are better informed on the subject than either of us continue to question the merits of the recent IAEA report. And let's bear in mind that even that report didn't state definitively that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. In fact, the U.S. Secretary of Defense recently admitted that he doesn't think they do.

But let's not let little things like due process or actual evidence stand in the way of a perfectly good assassination.