Jesse:
"But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does everyday? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration." - Republican presumptive Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin on August 1, 2008. (Thanks, HU)
Friday, August 29
A Palomino? They're Gorgeous! Yes!
The Bad Leadership Advantage
Jesse:
Far 'n Wide argues that since the Liberals and the Cons are really close, but Dion is getting he-bitch-man-slapped (HBMS) by Harper on the leadership numbers, that's good.
As additional support, he points out that the numbers are Harper-Martin-esque.
I suppose I can't really disagree, other than to say it's not really a slam dunk. If people don't like Dion once they get to know him, it's troublesome. I also don't think it proves that there's any room to grow past the percent that are already voting Liberal. But it does make some sense.
It also emphasizes that it's crucial (man, big italics day, eh?) for the Liberals still (I just can't stop) to define Dion in a positive way. He needs to start talking about his Green Income Tax Cuts. He needs to be aggressive.
Quick Thought
Cameron:
On a purely cynical note - isn't Obama's not choosing Clinton for VP looking a little foolish today? Of course, if he had chosen Hillary then McCain would have likely picked Pawlenty or Romney instead...so why again does anybody agree to hold their convention first? It seems like an obvious tactical mistake to do so.
Thursday, August 28
Requiem for a Muscle Car
Cameron:
Today, as Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination, my thoughts are with the him and the American people as they face a sickening reality: DaimlerChrysler is trying to sell off the Dodge Viper.
My first reaction, as yours must have been, was to shake my head in wonder: the car created alongside a crappy tv show that ran for half a season? 15 years ago? That car is still around?
I'm sort of partial to the Viper, actually. My first job was as a lot jockey at a Dodge dealership, and there they serviced 3 "glamour cars" - two vipers (one bright red, one with a rather hilarious paint job so specific it would identify the car if I repeated it here) and a bright purple Plymouth Prowler. Anyways, my most vivid memory of that insane summer was that whenever one of those three cars came into the shop for an oil change or whatever the mechanics would take it out back to our huge inventory lots to drag it back and forth. I didn't drive standard, so my chance at pseudo-GTA luckily never materialised.
The Viper's demise seems interesting to me, though, because I've always found Chrysler the weakest of the big three US carmakers, and this feeling appears to be borne out in the facts: they sucked, they got bought out, I don't know anybody who drives any of their cars, and now they've given up on having a "glamour car," much less one like the Corvette that some people might actually drive.
Now, we know that the old brands are pretty much dead - US carmakers are getting tuned by their relying on a "Ford Tough" identity that jives with heavy, inefficient, cars and trucks. Now, GM seems to be doing a little bit of interesting stuff, like this much-hyped prototype Volt and the women-friendly marketing for the Cadillacs (interesting to me primarily because it is considered instant death for a car brand, which says something uncool about society.) Ford seems to be a better Chrysler (which is to say that they are hemorrhaging less quickly.)
But with the death of the Viper I think we see something interesting happening in the market. The Yanks owned everything. Then the Asians got the cheap-small-car market. Then the Asians got the "quality" and "reliability" cachets, while the Yanks kept the hyper-masculine trucks (which was fine by them as long as Ford et al. could make ten grand per F-150 while they sold millions of them.) If they lose that market due to oil prices...or, even worse, if your driving a GMC or Ford truck ends up "communicating" not that you're salt of the earth but rather a dumbass who doesn't care about quality, then what's left?
Could the Big Three turn into three brands like any other? Carmakers who aim to fill niches instead of those who aim to build loyalty by offering a car for every consumer? With the death of the glamour car at the weakest of the big three, perhaps we will see a whittling of options down to a new normal. If true, the long term question is of course if there is anything at all that Chrysler and Ford can do better than Toyota, Honda, and BMW.
The Ignorant Masses
Jesse:
I think this is going to be a short one, but, y'know, no promises. Gary Mason correctly notes that we shouldn't vote against politicians just because they're old.
That's fine (though it may apply a little less to old guys who forget important details, like that Iraq doesn't border on Pakistan, but I digress. I think Gary's pipe dream here is that we'll elect MPs because they're intelligent, experienced, wise, or whatnot. We won't. Nor is it likely we'll vote them out because they're senile. Rather, we vote along party lines. It's useless, and it hurts Parliament and parliamentary politics.
Wednesday Night Lights
Jesse:
I'll probably update this later, but damn, Clinton was bland. I think I saw too solid moments of honesty. After watching Obama speak about anything, it's hard to go back to the sort of chippy, pat "applause line" speeches.
9:44 OK, I'll liveblog for a bit. In Bill's defence, Kerry just completely fumbled a weird line. But I like the emphasis on Obama's white war hero uncle. Kudos.
9:45 Futurama rules.
10:28 Best speech of the night so far? Beau Biden. Research shows that "Beau" was originally short for Beauregard (beautiful gaze en français). The More You Know...
Later: Joe (the elder) Biden (Joltin' Joe B, as I'll be calling him) was good-not-great. The call and response crap sounded like ash in his mouth, but he really comes across as a normal, interesting, interested guy.
Wednesday, August 27
Debate is Fun!
Jesse:
There's been some interesting debate in response to my last few posts that I thought I'd respond to now.
First, a fact. No American is going to be UN Secretary General any time soon. At all. Even Hillary.
HU is upset that Obama isn't doing enough for the Clintons, but I don't know what it is HU wants Obama to do, other than a prominent place at the convention. Did he have to pick her as VP? Is he not allowed to make that choice, because she almost didn't lose the primary battle?
I'm also bemused to see a Clinton supporter coming after Obama, of all people, for being overly ambitious. Was he supposed to politely wait his turn? What if he was going to be the third youngest President, and he'd only ever run a tiny state we've only heard of because he became President? Or, what he was a carpetbagger as a New York Senator who won because his husband was President? Sheesh.
I think the comment the Obama people are refusing to try super hard to defend Bill for making (note I didn't say "calling him a racist for" making) is the one about comparing the Obama campaign to Jesse Jackson's campaign. It was ill-advised, and really kinda racially tinged. There was some other stuff too.
We'll see what Bill says tonight, and the what Obama says in his acceptance speech. But I don't really understand why this is an issue. And I wouldn't be surprised to see it all go away after this week.
I Win. Again.
Jesse:
And on the Clinton-Obama rivalry front:
Clinton Delivers Emphatic Plea for Unity
By PATRICK HEALY [NY Times]
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton deferred her own dreams on Tuesday and made a soaring appeal for Democrats to support Senator Barack Obama.
'Barack Obama Is My Candidate'
Clinton Urges Support, Calls for Party Unity
(By Dan Balz, The Washington Post)
Clinton: 'No way, no how, no McCain'
Hillary Clinton called herself a "proud supporter of Barack Obama" after Democratic convention delegates greeted her with a standing ovation: "Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our president." [Cnn.com]
Hillary Clinton throws almost everything behind Barack Obama.
from Slate Magazine by John Dickerson
Watching Hillary Clinton speak at the Democratic National Convention, I was reminded of one of those old war movies in which the wounded hero melodramatically says to his comrades, "Go on without me."
Tuesday, August 26
The Hillster Speaks
Jesse:
A guy suggests to me privately that the Clinton-Obama rivalry is huge, and is all over the papers.
My take is refreshingly brief. After her speech, the news will all change to how she toed the line and did what she needed to do to demonstrate her loyalty.
Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.
Monday, August 25
Stats
Jesse:
My memory has just been triggered (by a post by someone else I don't need to link to, because, honest, it just reminded me of something, OK?) regarding a thought I had. Governments should start making people understand terror statistics.
My facetious way of putting this, earlier this week in conversation, was that governments should start spinning anything they wanted to do as a ratio to your likelihood of getting killed by a terrorist.
Ontario's proposed no-car-cellphones rule? Will save X lives. Without the ban, you're Y times more likely to be killed by a car accident than by a terrorist.
Spending on health care? This increase in health care spending will help save X lives, making your risk of dying from Q only Y times more likely than your chances of being killed by a terrorist
I figure it would help sell policies for a while, but then maybe the public would start understanding risk assessment and odds a little better.
Phelps and Cavic
Cameron:
This is a pretty interesting article on the Phelps-Cavic race (where Phelps came from behind to win by one-hundredth of a second).
I'll leave you to read it, but the general point is that the timing mechanism is apparently fairly wonky and there's every chance that Phelps actually lost the race.
One thing I'll add, though, is that FINA being unsure about the force required to trigger the sensor seems to be a way bigger deal then even the author Saletan argues, as three kilograms per square centimetre that FINA might require (again, they really apparently don't have this info) is a lot of force - if you need to touch with both hands (and I'm pretty sure you do), and each hand has, what, five or six centimetres of contact area, then you are talking 36 kilograms of force! That's eighty pounds of force! God, I'm so bad at math it isn't even funny, but a gliding Cavic, who knows he can't restart a fly stroke because it will remove his hands from the approaching wall, will of course stretch out and glide as he did. But how could we expect such a gliding swimmer to touch with eighty pounds of force at the first hundredth of a second of contact?
I'm no swimmer, so what do I know, but why not be like the horses or track and field with proper slow-motion cameras, from above, below, and the side? You have to admit after seeing the slow-mo images they do have that they're, well, not of the caliber of an NFL broadcast. Given this plain fact that they've neglected to be at the forefront of sport-technology, it's more than a little irritating to continually see the IOC stonewall about any possible problems in their refereeing - at least professional sports all good-naturedly allow for "hey, sometimes that happens in sport" before they go ahead and do their damnedest to make sure they've got it covered. With the IOC it's the exact opposite.
Quick Question about Georgia
Cameron:
Just a quick question - I'm no fan of Putin, so I don't want people to take this the wrong way, but with all of the hubbub about Russia invading a sovereign democracy, has anyone ever bothered to ask if the South Ossetians really wanted to stay in Georgia in the first place? Half of them holding Russian passports presumably says something about their wishes (which I, nor anybody else I've heard from, have no info on).
It's the oddest thing about these authoritarian regimes: for all of the anti-democracy, people kinda seem to like them.
Sunday, August 24
In Her Majesty's Service
Jesse:
Andrew Coyne has brought up the question (don't read the actual Macleans article, it's lame) of our Governor-General rejecting the Prime Minister's (as yet theoretical) advice that she dissolve parliament and call an election. So I felt obligated to ring in.
Now, I haven't read the fixed elections act Parliament passed. But I can't see how that's necessary, unless someone calls me on some aspect in the comments. Or, y'know, I get 'round to reading it. In which case I'll follow up. Or whatever.
I absolutely think the G-G is within her rights to refuse. She should be refusing things all the time, so far as I'm concerned. But, that's probably not particularly realistic. It's obvious that times have changed, and that the conventions surrounding the position of Governor-General have developed with time.
So, that makes this a special case. Parliament has passed an act which clearly purported to set a fixed election date. The section leaving the powers of the Governor-General intact should be seen as either 1) a fail safe or 2) an attempt to make the act constitutional. The Governor-General should not dissolve parliament under these circumstances unless the Act is repealed.
I'll also point out that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the Conservatives would let something like this slide by without absolutely losing it if they were in opposition.
Election Staredown
Jesse:
Is it possible the Prime Minister is threatening an election because he doesn't want one?
The talk on his long-term plan has often surrounded his creepy idea that if hard-core conservatives (small 'c' intentional) are in power long enough everyone will get used to the idea. Aggressively pro-American foreign affairs, socially conservative leanings, etc, etc.
By threatening an election when it should be pretty clear that calling one now would make him look terrible (because it would be another big-time broken promise, and because it would look like he was afraid of the Ethics Committee), might he be trying to get Dion to back off?
I know if I were Liberal leader (which, full disclosure, I'm not), I'd be desperately trying to find a way to get the government to call an election (on these terms).
I can definitely see it the other way, because Harper has so much disdain for the Canadian people that he figures he can get away with anything, and so doesn't care about the horrible optics. But part of me thinks he's trying to push things back, let the current problems spin into oblivion, and then go on the fixed date.
Saturday, August 23
Money, Money, Money, Money, Money
Jesse:
It's been all over the place, but Yglesias raises a point about how rich McCain is that I think the Obama campaign (or the less kinder-gentler Democrats) should exploit. McCain didn't work for his money. He married into it.
Obama wrote books and made a lot of dough, and now he lives in a million dollar house. That sounds a LOT like the American dream to me (not so much the redneck dream, but bear with me). McCain married a ridiculously rich lady, and now he can't remember how many houses he has. I don't see how that's not ad-worthy.
Focus on hard work. And focus especially on how Mccain's tax cuts will affect him and his inheritance-loving buddies.
---
Oh, and they should be rolling out details like this in the ad series to tell the story, but keep people interested.
Friday, August 15
Georgia the First
Jesse:
Since I felt guilty about not posting for a week (I blame Cam, vacation or no vacation), I'll throw down some initial thoughts about the Russo-Georgian conflict.
Andrew Coyne suggests that the West (or sort of NATO) needs to do something about Russia's actions. Either punish them now, or take a step to ensure they don't do it again.
That actually does have some appeal for me. I think the world needs to move towards an international legal order. Russia can't invade it's neighbours (and former client states) willy-nilly. But neither could the United States.
Coyne does note that the US failed to actually get a UN Security Council resolution to allow its invasion of Iraq, and correctly (one presumes) points out that no other country has ever gone to the UNSC for such a resolution. But how is the United States now in a position to do anything legally? Their invasion of Iraq lacked international legitimacy; Russia's invasion of Georgia lacks international legitimacy. In fact, recently, Georgia's relationship to Russia may even have been (really, really arguably) worse than Iraq's to the US; Georgia was at least in theory a credible threat (that being the promise of democracy, and an actually economic one, not a hand-over-your-oil one).
So we're going to threaten Russia for their actions because... why? We don't trust their motivations (I don't)? It sorta turned out we shouldn't have trusted the Bush II's administrations.
So although I want us to take action... what leg do we have to stand on? We didn't exactly threaten the US after their invasion of Iraq...
Pretty Things
Jesse:
I know things have been slow lately, and I'm sorry. I'll try harder to be better. For both of you out there. Today, though, take a second and check out this gorgeous ad. Shows you what political advertising can be, and makes me really angry about 2004. (h/t)
Friday, August 8
A Real Mess at the Human Rights Museum
Cameron:
Kady O'Malley at Macleans has been having some fun with access-to-information requests regarding the National Museum for Human Rights that the Feds are trying to put together in Winnipeg.
Even if we move beyond whether anyone really wants to go to a Museum for Human Rights, the focus groups have apparently been hilarious. When asked what they wanted to see in the museum, people came up with a list of possible topics (both lists via O'Malley):
Both world wars (and the Holocaust)• Religious rights (specifically related to apparel)• The reasonable accommodation debate• Women’s struggle for human rights• Aboriginal treaties/Native land claims• Gay and lesbian rights• Apartheid• Amnesty International• Canada’s peacekeeping history• Multiculturalism• Children’s rights, including child labour and the fight against childpornography• Freedom of speech• Chinese head tax• Japanese Canadian internment• Residential Schools• Slavery• Rwanda• Canadian Charter of Human Rights (and other legislative documents)• Exile of Acadians to Louisiana (1755)• Tiananmen square; Chinese rightsSome participants, mainly French speaking, felt the museum should be organized via themes rather than chronologically. The following were suggested:
• International: Right to vote, Aboriginals, slavery, equality, democracy• What is the definition of human rights in each era?• Unionization, labour rights• Women’s rights, Aboriginal rights, etc
And....
Key MilestonesSome of the key milestones in the international and national development of human rights that were suggested for inclusion in the CMHR by focus group participants included:• The development of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights• Abolition of the slave trade• Labour movements (the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 wasmentioned repeatedly in Manitoba)• Voting rights for women and minorities• Creation of the United Nations and the UN Declaration of HumanRights• Underground railroad• Abortion• Same sex marriage• Democracy and its role in the advancement of human rights
Current DebatesSome of the current debates about the balance between human rights and other objectives that were suggested for inclusion in the CMHR by focus group participants included:• Human rights versus political or security concerns (e.g. Guantanamo Bay prison)• Human rights versus economic rights (e.g. quasi-forced labour and low wages in the name of higher standards of living)• Community versus individual rights• Trade with countries that have poor human rights records• Development versus survival of Indigenous people• School segregation (i.e. gender or cultural/religious)• Same sex marriage• Métis hunting rights• Equal pay between men and women• The Indian Act• Stem cell research
Betrayal or Commitment to Human Rights in CanadaSome of the events in Canada that have betrayed or confirmed our commitment to human rights that were suggested for inclusion in the CMHR by focus group participants included:• Charter of Rights in 1982• Residential schools• Japanese internment• Aboriginal incidents, such as Ipperwash and Oka• Expulsion of Acadians• Chinese head tax
Most of these seem fine, even expected, but O'Malley's right to bring up that this is going to be a real gong show to settle - not only is it impossible to establish what O'Malley rightly calls a "neutral list" of things to cover, but people apparently expect a National Museum on Human Rights to make a list of conclusive findings on how we, and all the peoples of the world, should live the good life. Also, we apparently expect the government to render clear and definitive judgements on culpability and responsibility regarding all of the wrongs done by anyone ever.
Am I overstating it? Probably - most people are reasonable most of the time. But the fact remains that amongst a very small number of people asked, all of the above were expected to be properly covered for the museum to be fulfilling its mandate. Imagine the expectations of millions of visitors on the most emotional of subjects.
Does this mean I think the Museum is a bad idea? No, I don't think so - it's at least worth a shot . I do think, however, that it is in for an extremely rough ride, and that they are going to need a very sensitive mission statement that somehow holds to clear principles (maybe the UN declaration) while leaving lots of room for discussion and dialogue. All in all, human rights don't really exist - what exists is a core set of values we live by and argue about.
The challenge, of course, is illustrated that the government was just paralyzed over the Dresden Bombing exhibit at the War Museum - a singular event in a time of war 60 years ago. Can we even imagine how the Government could properly engage (or avoid) the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - to take only the first example that comes to mind?
Wednesday, August 6
Walkom On Afghanistan - A Very Special Rant From Your Host
Cameron:
I've been a pretty solid complainer in the past regarding Canada's domestic debate on our involvement in Afghanistan. I'm on record as deeply unimpressed in the Manley report, and given the mission's low polling numbers, it's odd that it seems like I'm the only person willing to say so. What's makes the whole situation even funnier is that overall I'm actually for the mission.
Anyways, a Toronto Star article today nicely illustrates how shallow our national debate really seems to be. I can't help but think that we have a real problem on our hands in that our media may not be up to the job of analyzing events that occur beyond a magic line that runs somewhere through London and Paris.
The article in question is written by Thomas Walkom, a bright and fairly (very?) left wing guy from the Star. I'm actually a big fan of his when he writes on security issues and (a little less so) on Canadian/American politics. This particular piece is a bit of a hit on Obama, who he thinks will act tough in Afghanistan - something that will be doomed since the problem is not one of troop strength, he says.
Now, this is largely fair enough. But the way Walkom gets there is crazy. His general stance is that bolstering NATO and ISAF forces will not make a major difference in the conflict:
This standard American liberal argument is predicated on the assumption that NATO's failure to defeat the Taliban stems from lack of manpower. It is also based on the assumption that victory in Afghanistan would cripple Al Qaeda.
In fact, both assumptions are almost certainly incorrect. If military might were sufficient, the Soviets would have easily crushed the Afghan Islamists they were fighting in the 1980s. They deployed more troops – and more ethnically compatible Muslim troops – than NATO has ever contemplated.
Like NATO today, the Soviets in the 1980s had a friendly government in Kabul and support from a significant portion of the population. But the Soviets lost. They could not defeat an insurgency inspired by xenophobia and religion.
Now, this is a smart-ass argument, and I think Walkom actually believes it. But this is to make a striking set of assertions without any real evidence. I say this because all of the arguments here are factually correct but completely misleading.
A series of questions a reader of Walkom might ask:
1)Can we really compare a cold-war proxy war to a 21st century counter-insurgency campaign?
2)If we are weighing military might, who would you pick - the huge 1980s Soviet force or the bare-bones NATO/ISAF force? Think carefully.
3)What one weapon made possible the mujahedeen victory? (Hint: it rhymes with finger)
4)Where did they get it?
5)Is anyone supplying the Taliban to such a multi-billion dollar tune today?
6)Even if they did, would those weapons be as useful today? Yes? How? How much of NATO/ISAF's power projection is vulnerable to hit-and-run handheld weaponry?
7)I'm pretty happy nobody anywhere near NATO command would agree with Walkom that troops from Chechnya and Kazahkstan are "ethnically compatible" because they are muslim. I'm fairly sure the Star knows that all those brown people aren't the same, but I guess when rhetorically convenient they occasionally forget.
8)I love how this insurgency is so formidable because it's motivated by the twin terrors of "xenophobia and religion." Sigh. Well, I guess my point can be summed up with a question: can we come up with many examples of insurgencies motivated by anything else?
Ok. Simmer down Cameron.
The point of this rant? Well, when one of the brighter Canadian columnists writing for the nation's largest newspaper makes glaring leaps in logic to support a predetermined conclusion (fighting is bad,) then we aren't really debating the merits of the case anymore. Secondly, it would be great to read something on Afghanistan by someone who actually knows something about it - a politico from Trinity-Spadina (or indeed Westboro) frankly doesn't count.
The mission in Afghanistan is complicated, and it is very much up in the air - both militarily and as a political football. With this in mind, you'd think the Canadian media could pull its collective head out of its ass long enough to properly consider the pros and cons of our largest military mission since Korea. But no, I guess that's too ambitious.
Fast Food Nation
Jesse:
Now, for something which I imagine Cameron really won't like: Los Angeles is planning to ban new fast food outlets from certain areas.
Now, I, personally, am 100% on board.
1) Fast food is bad. It's a huge threat to health. Which means, explicitly in this country thanks to Medicare, and still to an extent in the United States, the obesity it causes, or contributes to, and the otherwise ill health it encourages, costs everyone money.
2) Local jurisdictions should be able to zone however they want, unless we can actually see why it's a) unconstitutional or b) some sort of disastrous public policy so that the rest of the state takes away their power to do so.
3) Nobody outside of LA is being forced to do this (unless they visit); this is a good example of experimentation. If this is effective in improving quality of life in LA, then it's something that other jurisdictions should look into.
As the article I linked to above (which is a response to responses to a first article, as you'll not if you read it. Do you read this links? Hmm...) notes, we already limit alcohol sales and cigarettes. I don't actually think this is different; it's a matter of limiting (through regulation and zoning, not outright bans) what you can put in your body.
So, let's give it a shot. I'll also note that London, ON, is talking about banning drive-through windows, for environmental reasons. Does that make it any different, in that it's a regulation that affects peoples ability to shove cheeseburgers down their collective craw?
Steroids and Pitbulls
Cameron:
For one reason or another, seeing the pitbull ban back in the news (not for any particularly good reason, mind you) made me think of a remarkable article about athletic doping that I read a while ago.
I can't find the article today, which is a pity, but it was for a fitness magazine, and the idea was for one of their semi-professional athlete/writers to go on various doping regimens for a year and share the experience. It turned out to be a tremendous piece. The guy did ephedrine, EPO, Human Growth Hormone, and then steroids to get fitter, and ended up pretty much superhuman.
The coolest part of the article for me, though, was the guy's chatting with a high-end fitness doctor in order to get the prescriptions. What the doctor said was that centrifuges and amphetamines were out of the question (so the guy didn't do those,) and that EPO was dicey while the HGH might have wonky long-term side effects. Ephedrine is small time next to the others, but it's not exactly good for you, either.
The funny one, though, was steroids. Apparently, steroids really aren't that bad for you when prescribed for fairly short periods of time in moderation (like for a high-performance athlete to get back from a nasty injury.)
The problem, and reason we prohibit them, is that the moment you decide you want steroids you pretty much disqualify yourself as a candidate for responsible steroid use. By wanting them you've shown that you've already lost perspective, and it is pretty much a certainty that you cannot be trusted not to abuse them. Why? Because you've decided training through pain and suffering is a drag (which is the real advantage that steroids provide), and that you'd like to make a deal to avoid it.
This strikes me as fairly analogous to pitbull ownership.
Now, we could go back and forth on pitbulls and the ban. Some people will wax poetic about freedom or responsibility, but I'm pretty meh on this one. What kills me, though, is hearing that pitbulls are such wonderful dogs (see linked article above for an example.) I'm sure most of them are. In fact, I've had a couple nasty run-ins with dogs in my time, and the worst was not a pitbull but rather none other than a golden retriever (those yellow perils of the suburbs.) That said, does that argument really hold any water?
Could it be that pitbulls are like steroids? A fairly unobjectionable commodity that shouldn't be owned by anybody that wants to own it?
Tuesday, August 5
Integration
Jesse:
Even though this post is about its limitations, I wonder whether we've tried anything at all in Canada to try to integrate our public schools economically. My public schools, I can assure you, were really, really well off, and not particularly representative of, say, all but two of the other high schools in my city. So if economic integration improves results across the board, it's something to think about. Not that the right (and maybe Cam) won't scream bloody murder about how we're socially engineering,,,
Monday, August 4
A McCain Choice
Jesse:
Once again, I shall promise (hope for?) more on this later, because I'm in a hotel lobby. But, Cam did ask in the comments of a previous post whether I could see voting for McCain.
And, right now, I have to say I really can't.
John McCain used to seem like a good guy. Too conservative on some things, too aggressive on others, but a charming, thoughtful, nice man. Which would have been enough for me to be satisfied, especially post-Bush II. But not anymore.
The biggest problem isn't his policies, which seem pretty crazy. The "damn the torpedoes" response to terrorist threats has been, in my opinion, shown to be ridiculous. We should be doing all we can to protect ourselves; we should not be armouring ourselves with bluster. The west needs a mature foreign policy, which is one I would've trusted Old McCain, but not New McCain, to provide.
Which is the biggest problem. I don't trust him any more. McCain has spun himself around in circles on policy, on attitude, and on Bush II, and it's ridiculous. Am I supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's lying now, and that he's really the reasonable, intelligent, anti-Bush candidate of 2000? I think we've had enough of "he's probably not that bad" with Bush II in the States, and Harper here in Canada.
Cam?
Israel I
Jesse:
I'm going back on vacation after this (I've been skeeving off a friend's internet connection for a few days; he lets me sleep on the floor!), so I won't be around as much, leaving you in Cameron's tender care once again. I'll have more to say about this later, but I do want to try to get some initial thoughts down about my visit, and what it's making me think about Canadian politics.
First, that Canadian politics seems, in comparison, really, really small. We worry about the stupidest, tiniest things, and we bitch and scream at each other about almost nothing. We totally lack an existential threat to bring us together, or which would provide us with something legitimately worth arguing about. I'm not saying the things I worry about or complain about are completely meaningless, but they sort of pale in comparison, really, to what goes on when you live in fear.
Second, I think I understand the West's overreaction to September 11th, 2001 (which is still going on) a little better. Simply put, we don't understand how to live with terror. Now, the attacks on the United States were awful. And horrifying. And terrifying. But the most important thing, I am now even more convinced, is not to let the terrorists win. They win when we're scared. And they win when we let them determine domestic policies. When we overreact, when we strip civil liberties, and when we start hating and fearing each other, they win. And the right needs to start thinking about it this way.
Third... and this one's going to be inconclusive... I think I'll have more to say about our role in Afghanistan and the world. The difference between sending professional soldiers overseas to invade a country which is being oppressed, and having citizen-soldiers defend their homes is a striking one. But we'll see where that goes once I've more time to think...
Sunday, August 3
Opportunity Knocks
Jesse:
Barack Obama now leads McCain by 6 points an a recent poll. But, interestingly, when Ralph Nader and Bob Barr (Libertarian) are added in, he leads McCain by 13. McCain's vote drops by 6 and Obama's goes up by 1 which may, just possibly, be a good reminder that polls have margins of error.
The interesting bit, though, is that it definitely means there's room to grow. Obama doesn't lose anything to the third parties, indicating pretty strongly that there's a lot of anti-Obama, as opposed to pro-McCain, voters out there. If he can settle everyone down, and get everyone to really listen to him and give him a chance, his prospects should continue to climb. Although I, personally, cannot imagine who would vote for McCain unless Nader's in the race (and I'm a little nervous that it turns out to be racists), this is good news. (h/t)
Friday, August 1
The Medium May Not Be The Message
Cameron:
With a crowded media landscape, newsmagazines play a critical role today in how they can cut through the noise to get at the core of our most important public debates. So when you despair at yet more cursory CP reporting in your daily paper, fear not, as Time is on the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
