Jesse:
Although the title of this post obviously upsets me, I'm OK with Iggy's decision to let the Cons go on.
I think the budget was crappy, but not offensive, and not something where the Liberals were in a position to throw the country into political turmoil, only to come out with a better budget in a few weeks (presuming the Governor General goes the way I think she would have). This budget isn't good for women, or science, and it's really scattershot... but whatever. I would've liked to see Iggy tweak Harper a little bit (ahem... pay equity) more, but I think these "reports" are, in fact, a good idea. This gives the Liberals a great excuse to bring Harper down as soon as the money fails to flow. And, given how cranky Danny Williams and the Municipalities (band name available for a nominal fee to any who want it) are, it seems likely. If the projections aren't as rosy as the Cons are hopin
g (and I'm pretty sure they're not), or if anything else goes wrong, vote no confidence. Now, go forth and fundraise, young man.
And to finish things with a bang, today's editorial cartoon was brilliant, and will be going up on my fridge if I remember to do it when I get home (click to zoom in; the detail on Iggy's face is superlative).
Friday, January 30
Looks Like We'll Still Have Harper To Kick Around
Wednesday, January 28
We Like Ike!
Jesse:
The title is really not apropos of anything. But, since that weird little bar at the top of my Gmail tipped me to the fact that the IMF is now predicting the worst year for the economy since WWII (double ya double ya two, to you and I), you know what I think we should do? Give people minor income tax cuts.
Budget Day Postmortem
Jesse:
In half an hour the Iggernaut will be telling us what he'll do, but I have some thoughts on yesterday's budget.
First, an open message to the Globe and Mail.
Dear Globe and Mail editors, writers, and assorted hangers on. If you ever, ever again use the tagline "Main Street" over a piece chatting with a couple who make "$250 000+" and drive a Audi A5 and a Porsche Boxster, I will subscribe to the National Post be even more pissed off than I am right now. For goshsakes, guys. Seriously.
Second, I don't know what Iggy's going to do today (doesn't that nickname make him sound adorable? But I agree with a point Cam made to me. He should make this about women. Be focused. Don't be distracted by how the stimulus is going to be slow, or may not flow at all, because of the requirement for municipal and provincial matching, or how the income tax cuts are piddly, or how it doesn't do anything for science, or how it's a flagrant example of government deciding where money should go for political reasons (hello, tourism near Quebec City! What up, QC?) Focus on only one thing. Stephen Harper doesn't care about black people women. Pay equity is still gone (which was Cam's original point; this should've been about pay equity from the very start). The stimulus is for roads (mostly built by men), home renovations (even more disproportionately done by men) and hockey rinks (mostly used by boys, and built by men). There's nothing for teachers (mostly women), or daycare (useful to, and mostly staffed by, women). Nothing. Oversight? Maybe. Paintable picture? Hells yes.
Maybe I'll post something after Iggy speaks (which I'll be learning about via my main source, Kady O'Malley, and her magic Blackberry).
Tuesday, January 27
An Important Obama Update
Jesse:
Almost immediately after he lost his bid for the Presidency to Barack Obama, John McCain has become an important ally for the Obama administration (at least on things they agree on), as the Obama White House (ooo... tingles) has consulted him on national security appointments, even asking questions McCain had for certain nominees and relaying the answers; McCain and his hetero life partner Lindsey Graham have issued a joint release supporting the announced future closing of Guantanamo Bay, and McCain has tried to push Secretary-of-State-to-be Clinton through the Senate (no link, get over it).
So, even if he's not SecState like Diamond Arnie Vinick was, this adds yet more fodder to the real life - West Wing parallels I've already noted several times.
Bonus Teaser: When we get around to it, Kyle and I have pledged talked about trying to do a top 10 (ish) West Wing episodes discussion / post together. Which should be extremely interesting to... OK, well, just us.
Monday, January 26
Economy Quick hit
Jesse:
Apparently President Obama is going to add a daily economic briefing to his schedule (to match the daily intelligence briefing).
I don't think this is a great idea; my layman's take is that economic news is really big picture, and is in no way amenable to a daily update. There's nothing to be done on a daily basis for the economy. We need calm, we need smart stimulus (I've turned against road building, unless the particular project really makes sense, which they almost all won't). We don't need a chief executive freaking out every day about how the economy's screwed.
Since this is probably mostly for optics, though, have at.
All By Myself...
Jesse:
Man, I am en fuego today with the posts (there's another one coming later on today which I've magically delayed). I have no idea why this is.
Anywho, I wanted to briefly follow up on Cam's last post (welcome back, btw) with a quick poke at the same issue. Yglesias mentions (and you needn't read it, for once I'm analyzing something for myself) an amendment being moved by Representative Peter Defazio (D-Oregon) that Obama's stimulus proposal include more rail.
My point here (and here's where we get back to the Gaza conflict (but not really)) is that we don't see this kind of thing here. Or if we do, it's in committee, and committees matter little in minority, and far, far less in majority, situations.
Isn't having strong individual members an important part of getting an actual debate about issues going, like Cam wants? Or, do I only twig to something like this when somebody moves a pro-rail amendment, and not at the constant stream of NIMBY amendments that Congress spews forth?
Also, we should be spending more on rail (see how I slipped that in there?)
Citizenship
Jesse:
Today's Globe includes a piece by Allan Rock and Jasminka Kalajdzic calling for the repatriation of Omar Khadr. Which leads me to my question: Why does Allan Rock need a "graduate student in law at the University of Toronto" to write a pretty pat recap of the reasons why Khadr needs to come home?
No, I kid. Ok, I'm serious, I think that's weird, but whatever. (Also query why the President of the University of Ottawa needs a U of T student to help him write said pat recap).
We have a responsibility as Canadians to repatriate Khadr. He's a Canadian citizen. We don't get to discriminate between Canadian citizens based on what we suspect they did (we have criminal trials for that). And we definitely don't get to discriminate against them based on their families (we have... err... the Middle Ages for that).
I think it's important to note that Mr. Khadr was thirteen (that's 13) when this allegedly happened. Not only do we not treat kids as adults, our Supreme Court actually says that it's a fundamental principle of our system of justice that we don't (in a questionable decision, but I digress). Even if he's guilty of murder, and even if he wasn't tortured, he's been held in Guantanamo Bay for long enough now that he'd be out in Canada on time served anyway (probably; I didn't, y'know, check).
Now, I've had private discussions on the topic of the Khadrs with an anonymous source who calls for the expulsion of the entire family from Canada, and points out that Khadr's American military lawyer says Khadr shouldn't be allowed to live with his family, and that Khadr's family is anti-Canada (not in the way Stephen Harper is, in the actual, saying-you're-anti-Canada way). To put down in writing for all my fans (Kyle, Rob... umm... does Cam count?) my thoughts, this is wrong. We don't prosecute people in this country for saying things we don't like; nor can we start stripping them of citizenship for saying things we don't like. If there were an actual threat (which could, in theory, come from words instead of actions), then maybe we can talk about weighing the threat to freedom of conscience, belief, and speech against a threat to others. But we don't have that here. We have a bunch of yahoos railing against our system of government.
And, oh, maybe a young man who just might have been even more radicalized by the fact that we left him in Gitmo to be tortured for years. That last is called "creating the conditions of your own defence" (of course we can't let him in the country! He hates us now!).
If Canada wants to start tossing people out for what they think, we have a problem, in that we've become a tyranny (of the majority).
Friday, January 23
Remarkable
Cameron:
I'd like to direct people to an incredible exchange of ideas that I ran across earlier today. It's in Haaretz, and it's about the war in Gaza. Now, let's bracket entirely what we all think about the war. I really doubt any good is going to come out of our starting a flame war.
Let's focus on the debate. A debate, in a national newspaper, that respectfully but vigorously challenges both the two discussants as well as each and every reader. A debate performed by people who've actually seen, heard, and smelled what they're talking about. A debate that interrogates both men's very humanity - how are we to live in this fallen world? What are our deepest responsibilities as citizens, neighbours, and human beings? A debate that never, even once, invokes convenient talking points and partisan shibboleths.
To compare, here in Canada we send our troops to war without the proper debate 'cause that would be a real fucking downer (see the embarrassing Manley Report,) and any questions are likened to treason (see PVL vs. Holland.)
I sometimes avoid walking through Yorkville because it reminds me that I make so little money. Perhaps I should similarly stop reading Israeli newspapers, as they're making our politics depress the hell out of me.
#1 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055977.html
#2 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056269.html
Thursday, January 22
I Swear... Nay, I Oath It!
Jesse:
I'm going to refer y'all to a great piece on oaths through American history. This all comes about, of course, as Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the oath on Tuesday (he administered it again, in private, out of an abundance of caution, and presumably with a teleprompter this time).
The two hobby horses I've been beating (is that a mixed metaphor?) for a while about oaths involve John "Beaker" Manley and Arlen Specter. The first came about when Manley mentioned, while escorting the Queen around, that he thought we should abolish the monarchy. I felt this was a violation of his oath to serve her. The second was when Senator Specter voted for some sketchy Bush bill (I'm sorry, I'm not looking it up) because he was under pressure, but announced that he thought the Supreme Court would strike it down. I thought this was a violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution; if he thought something was unconstitutional, he was bound to oppose it.
Tuesday, January 20
Inaugural Thoughts
Jesse:
Following, find any thoughts I have on the inaugural.
This may be brief, because so far, my only thought is this; it is time for government to start believing in itself again, and it's time for our leaders to show the people that they can believe in their government.
I suppose if I've a criticism, it's that I wouldn't have mentioned quite so much specific stuff... I don't remember solar energy being in Kennedy's address. Just saying.
He makes it hard not to hope that America will, in fact, take leadership in the world again. If they start to show people something they can believe in again, America can mean so much to the world. Of course, since I'm on board with the idea that America should not be defeated by terror, and that what they can offer is important, maybe I'm biased.
I think the most obvious digs at the Bush Administration were the science notes; the constitution stuff, the Bushies may think they sort of did uphold (by protecting it; it's AN argument, just a lousy one). And it's a theme I want to see used here in Canada; we need government that believes in our experts, in our knowledge, and in more than their own agenda.
I don't have a lot more to say. I'm absolutely thrilled (only choked up when he walked out at the start). Let's get started.
Monday, January 19
Let's Rap
(No, Rob, this isn't a rap post. It will never be a rap post. I'm sorry.)
Apparently Iggy had this to say in today's Devoir:
"Bloc MPs are duly elected by Québec voters. They are not traitors, they are not the enemies of Canada."
Yikes.
Now, first, let me say that this follows from my reading of Ignatieff's Massey Lectures book, The Rights Revolution (full disclosure; I had to look that up. I don't know why, because I read it a few weeks ago. Sad). Quebecois have the right to elect whoever they want, and they have the right to have their opinions accepted. Hence, to suggest that their democratically elected officials are traitors is not OK. And, they should be engaged.
And, might I had, hopefully co-opted into a vision of the country that works.
I also think there are hints here of an Obama-esque "disagree without being disagreeable" frame here. Part of the thinking there, presumably, would be that you can soothe nationalists in Quebec by being respectful of their views.
I am (as indicated by the earlier "yikes") not so sure about this. I think that the individual parts of the statement are correct. They're duly elected, and therefore have the right to be part of our national conversation (in fact, it'd be nice if they'd participate more, instead of rejecting Parliament (when they feel like it)). They are not traitors. The people who've been throwing this word around lately need to shut up. They think Quebec should be its own country. We don't. That's not traitorous. They're not killing people. They're saying stuff. They're asking for referenda. So, seriously, get bent. And they're not enemies of Canada. They may be our political foes on one issue. But enemies of Canada? This just makes you sound like an idiot when it comes to real enemies of Canada, like, say, Al Qaeda.
But, the overall sense? I don't know. I suppose there's something to be said for the theory that we should accept the BQ fact, and that we help them out by rejecting the democratic choices of Quebec (see Harper, Stephen, and the recent FU). In fact, that's probably pretty helpful to the Bloc, who get to say that Quebec is disenfranchised (which is creating the conditions of their own defence, of course). I still think there's something to be said for the idea that we should marginalize them, however.
As far as concrete advice (because, as all know, Ignatieff reads me almost daily)? Accept the BQ's right to be elected, and to speak on behalf of their constituents, but make sure you mention that their project is wrongheaded. Maybe he did say that in le Devoir (I doubt it, and can't find a search function on their site right now). But that's got to be the point. "There is no reason for Quebec to separate from Canada, but that doesn't make people who think that illegitimate" sounds a lot better to me.
Friday, January 16
Keeping the Government Outside of the Boardrooms of our Nation
Jesse:
Two interesting points on banking. First, Eliot Spitzer (yes, the Eliot Spitzer) wrote in Slate a while ago that we should keep our banks small enough that we don't end up bailing them out when they completely blow it. Today, Paul Volcker (by way of Matt Yglesias) says the same thing, then adds a nifty comment (which is why I bothered writing that).
What exactly are we (now) worried will happen if we over regulate? If we restrict banks, interfere with corporate governance, and so on? Hasn't the absolute worse-case scenario already happened? Isn't "completely screwing all of us, but still making millions of dollars" the damage? Is there anything we can dream up, which seems like it might avoid a situation like this, which we should avoid because it restricts the freedom of the market?
Hand Outs
Jesse:
As today's lead (I assume it's "lead", because it's on top) Globe editorial is concerned that the infrastructure spending the cities are asking for (they're hanging around the first ministers meeting, presumably hoping to be allowed in to the buffet) are too backward looking. They want to repave roads, replace water treatment plans, and that kind of thing.
The Globe urges the Feds to ensure that there's money spent on things like the computerization of medical records for all Canadians (a provincial responsibility that Liberals, not Cons, might have been willing to do the old "here's a 250 million dollar fund, you can have some if you agree to our standards" trick on, but that think we won't see) (note that Obama is planning on doing it, and that it's a ridiculously good idea, but that the states (of the union, not the shortform for the country) have a lot less problem than we do (I'm looking at you, Quebec) with the feds buying them nifty toys)(this really should have been a footnote, or something. Does anyone know how to do footnotes in Blogger?), a 21st century electricity grid, and spending on R&D (did anyone else forget what I was saying because of the sidebars there?).
If anyone read this blog, the idea I would want to introduce into the debate is whether we should be minimizing the amount of money we give municipalities for roads and such. Really, really minimizing it. If municipalities have roads that need repaving (apparently Halifax wants 22.5 million for two highways alone) they should pay for it themselves. Interest rates are almost into the negative, here, municipalities! BORROW THE DAMN MONEY YOURSELVES! The Feds should be spending on transformative things, but few of those are going to be "shovel ready". But repaving Halifax doesn't make sense. The municipalities should be encouraged (frankly, I'd love to see the provinces force them) to spend on fixer upper deals now, which they can pay back later; take out a "bond" like the Americans do, or whatever. If we just do for the municipalities what they should be doing for themselves (allowing them to do diddly squat), then it's a waste of money, which will just cripple the federal government in the future (not that I'm saying it's possible that this is the idea, here...)
I'm obviously a strong proponent of a stimulus. But a competent federal government would have seen this coming and had good projects ready to go, and a creative one would find a way to spend the stimulus well anyway. There HAVE to be good projects we can find, while asking/forcing the municipalities to borrow to spend on the piddly stuff (which will, nevertheless, help the economy).
And if I can steal an idea from something I've seen in the US... Maybe someone (Iggy) should be all fired up to attack the Cons for being sexist if all they do is fund construction projects..?
Monday, January 12
Education Mondays
I worry sometimes that this is quickly becoming a site where I occasionally link to nifty things, but this suggestion that governments should move to open source textbooks is fantastic.
For those of you who don't click through (you know who you are, and shame on you), the idea is that governments, rather than buying texts, would pay someone to develop a textbook for the government, which they could then pay someone (else) to update, or have their own staff work on keeping it current.
The number one risk here that I say is that this might politicize some things that should be left unpoliticized. I'm looking at you here, evolution (which, of course, already is, so I'd be more worried about other stuff. Math is probably pretty safe).
This is the kind of outside the box thinking we need to save money in our Big Two here in Canada (education and healthcare).
Tuesday, January 6
Your Daily Occasional Poverty Fix
This article, from the NYT Magazine is a really interesting idea. I haven't finished it yet, but will comment later if I've thoughts.
Friday, January 2
Doing It Together in 2009
Jesse:
I provide you with this quote (and comment on it below) from here:
...you can't much improve the quality of life of currently prosperous Americans (let's say, folks above twice the median family income where they live) by giving them more of the things that money can buy. A safe neighborhood, walkable cities, fast, comfortable inter-city transport, excellent public schools and universities, scientific discovery, medical progress, clean air to breathe, an economy that is sustainable into the lives of one's children and grandchildren, a vibrant high culture: these are primarily public goods, and need public expenditure to bring them about.
I really think this is something we need to think about. I'm sorry, but that new car you thought you needed isn't going to make you happy. The quote I've pulled above points to all the good things. And they're things we can only do together; you can't do them on your own, no matter how much the government cuts your taxes.
