On terrorist recruitment tools

As fun as it is to scare voters into siding with your point of view, I’d like to take a crack at dismantling an oft used argument for this purpose.  It is often argued that when certain actions undertaken by governments serve as ammunition to incite anger and benefit recruitment to terrorist organizations, that particular action ought not to be continued or repeated.  For example, as recently as May 21, President Obama stated that the Guantanamo Bay prison probably “created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained”.  But is that really the point?  This is a misguided utilitarian argument that ignores the possibility of basic principles which ought not to be dismissed on such grounds.  There is little limit to what can be maliciously construed to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorist organizations.  Actions such as building schools in Afghanistan and defending human rights of Muslim women are surely also serving as recruitment tools for some organizations that wish to portray these actions as American imperialism and hypocrisy, but that doesn’t mean the practices should be abandoned.

If countries like Canada and the United States start to revise policies based upon whether or not terrorist organizations can or will cite those policies to benefit their recruitment then we are heading down a dangerous path.  This does not mean, or suggest, that the use of Gitmo as a place to detain terror suspects is such a policy worth defending, but it does mean that it is largely irrelevant if it serves as a recruitment tool for terrorist organizations.

I’m sorry, world

I guess I should come clean.  I’m not 100% sure that Obama is going to be the greatest President in American history (yet).  I was home during his inaugural address, and only watched most of it (yeah, I didn’t even wait for him to finish), and NONE of the parade.  I know, I am a sick, sick man.  I don’t know what is wrong with me, because it seems like every human on the planet managed to get a raging political boner (even girls) the moment they woke up and remembered it was Barack’s big day.  Maybe I have some mental complex that prohibits me from supporting causes with such widespread hysteria associated with them, regardless of whether the cause has merit, I’ll leave that option open.

But I am still left wondering if there is any socially acceptable reason a person like me could have for not being emotionally exhausted today due to an unwavering love for President Obama.  I feel like I have some pretty good reasons for at the very least reserving judgment about Obama as a President, but to most people it seems no reason is good enough.  If you have even the most modest reservations or skeptical thoughts on President Obama it makes you a cynic.  I’m asked,  “Why are you such a cynic?  Why can’t you just believe that he will be a good change?”.  That seems kind of backwards to me, similar to demanding the atheist prove God DOESN’T exist!

Surely, being able to inspire the amount of people President Obama has inspired is an accomplishment in and of itself, and his oratory skills are a powerful tool that previous presidents have been unable to weild (Bush 43, for example).  But is there not more that is required of a President than inspirational speeches?  I prefer to reserve judgement until I am made aware of substantive policy successes that benefit the lives of American’s beyond their self esteem and pride.  I believe that President Obama’s inauguration was surely a historic occasion for many obvious reasons, I just wish that I didn’t feel socially scorned for having what I believe to be a little bit more realistic expectations for him.  I wish him the best of luck, and hope he is able to accomplish much, but forgive me if I didn’t do everything within my God given power to watch President Obama’s inaugural address (it should be on the internet to review anytime now).

Be The Change: Get a Labradoodle

I cannot think of any other way to say this, but I actually fucking hate hearing news about Barack Obama’s possible dog.  Oh really?  It might be a Labradoodle or a Portuguese Water Dog?  Wow.  That is so interesting.  Any shithole who cares one fucking iota about what dog Barack Obama buys for his little girls deserves eight more years of GWB.  If you are so god damned unhappy with your own life that hearing about your new Rockstar President’s dog actually brings you pleasure then you are likely well past the point of professional help.  I am going to link as many articles from what should be known as fairly respectable “news” websites to really pound home the sad state of this affair.

US News.com (US)

Chicago Tribune (US)

Times Online (UK)

Los Angelas Times (US)

The Globe and Mail (Canada)

The Toronto Star (Canada)

Fox News (US)

Chicago Sun-Times (US)

Melbourne Herald-Sun (Australia)

You cannot even blame American’s alone, this is an international embarassment.

Think what you want, unless you are Israeli

Reading the news this evening, after coming in from some shinny at the local rink, I was pleased to read that Ontario’s university workers union (part of CUPE) is thinking of banning Israeli academics from teaching at Ontario universities unless they condem an Israeli government attack that damaged the Islamic University in Gaza.  I mean, not only does it make complete sense because it assumes the professors believe the attacks were justified and must publicly condemn the attacks to avoid the ban, but it is also entirely descriminatory because professors of any other country of origin could believe the attacks were the best fucking idea on the planet but since they are not Israeli they are allowed to think whatever they like.

Perhaps the best part about this whole thing is that a group of ‘free’ thinking professors are coming together to tell professors of a specific country of origin what they can and cannot think if they wish to teach in Ontario.  It may just be me, but I’m tickled to hear that Ontario universities are starting to monitor what their professors can and cannot believe.  But let’s just hope they only apply this same principle to the Israeli’s, that way Canadian professors who believe the haulocaust never happened are protected by academic freedom.  You might think that university professors are above outlandish hypocrisy, but don’t worry, they aren’t.

Who’s the most illegitimate of the illegitimates?

Harper’s latest Senate appointments have got so many people in a huff you would think something of significance had actually happened.  One column I read argues the Senate is in effect being destroyed (and that it is actually worth being saved, believe it or not).  Another column quotes members of the other Federal parties who interestingly thought patronage appointments were something new to be upset about.  But my favorite read this morning was from Charlottetown’s The Guardian, where UPEI constitutional expert Teresa Wright is of the opinion that Mike Duffy’s appointment is unconstitutional because he didn’t reside in PEI when he took the appointment. I know, right?  Treachery in its highest and most vile form!  That is what we are all thinking.

Actually, I could care less how illegitimate some asshole is that gets appointed to an illegitimate body.  The PM could appoint an illegal immigrant who resides in BC but has spent significant time in Quebec to a Senate seat open in New Brunswick and I would still not give a flying fuck.  Why not create a Royal Commission to investigate which of the currently sitting Senators is the most illegitimate or unconstitutional of them all?   At least then we could get a really independent voice on how much of a sham the Senate is.  I will admit the Senate can produce worthwhile information once in awhile, but this is a body whose members are widely known to rarely even show up for work.  The Senate is such an independent voice of sober second thought that if its members were to actually go to work they wouldn’t be independent enough to represent us fully.  They are like professors with tenure, except they do a lot less research, never teach anyone anything, and spend most of their time at their favorite vacation hot spot.

I am not about to complain about which asshole gets appointed to “represent” me as an Albertan in between his or her golf games and flights to Florida, I have bigger things to worry about, like whether I should take my grandparents to see Four Christmases or Valkyrie on Boxing Day.  On the one hand, Vince Vaugh’s charming movies usually fill any onlooker with pleasure and delight, but everyone is saying Tom Cruise is way less crazy now, so how the shit am I to choose?

The shoe that changed the Presidency

When President Bush dodged a pair of shoes this past weekend, hurled from an Iraqi reporter in the crowd (seen here), one analyst has predicted that it may well help the Presidents disastrous public image.  Really?  Are these the qualities which Presidents are and should be judged upon? Their ability to dodge shoe attacks and subsequent ability to shrug off the ridiculous attack?  “I think the man is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American troops, and thousands more innocent Iraqi civilians, but did you see him dodge that shoe?  That’s the kind of reflexes Lincoln would have had!”

I guess when countless individuals are unable to muster reasons for their disapproval of Bush beyond saying “he is just stupid”, or “have you ever heard him talk?”,  Bush may be due for a little arbitrary public image help from an Iraqi shoe attack.  Here’s hoping future Presidents are judged more upon the substance of their policies, but I won’t hold my breath.

Assume power over policy or principles

If there is one assumption I think people on all sides of this contentious debate should make when considering the actions of the actors involved, it would be that in politics, power trumps policy almost every time.  It is important to start any analysis on the current political situation by assuming (what you might think is sad or negative), that each party involved is interested first in maintaining or increasing their share of power, and their considerations towards good policy or principles are only secondary concerns.

If you find yourself, or others around you, trying to argue that one side of this debate is simply interested in good governance while the other side is only interested in serving themselves, consult a psychiatrist (I suggest Tom Cruise, he is an expert).  I’m pretty sure a great deal of people that are following this current fiasco have a pathological aversion to whoever they perceive as their ‘outgroup’ and equally powerful cognitive delusions about their ‘ingroup’.  Many conservatives, consciously or not, mistakenly believe that anything the liberals or socialists do is necessarily evil or unjust, while Harper is a defender of freedom, justice, and happy meals.  Many liberals or socialists, on the other hand, mistakenly believe that Harper is a hell-spawn right wing partisan lunatic, while their parties are simply saving the country from an evil power hungry monster.

I take numerous pills of various types, sizes, and colours to keep myself in such a cool and level headed state.  So if you agree with me, welcome to the exclusive club (the only reward is that it is much harder to sleep at night), if you don’t, I’d argue on my behalf that it is just the pills talking.

Update: In case you were wondering, it looks like Rex Murphy and I  almost completely agree, which only demonstrates further my undeniable need to be on some sort of medication.

Update – Part 2: Harper’s latest move should clearly be viewed as demonstrating my point about power of policy or principles.

Political crisis simplified: Is there a legitimate reason to bring down the government?

I don’t want to toot my own horn here by suggesting I am capable of taking a big huge fucking mess of a situation and distilling it down into one fairly simple question, but I am going to do that anyway. This entire political crisis boils down to the question: Does the opposition coalition have a legitimate reason to bring down the government or, are they acting on self interested reasons such as attaining political power?

The first step towards understanding that this is the real issue requires asking yourself, who does the GG offer the right to govern after an election when no party has a majority of the seats? The answer is (as no one would dispute) that parliamentary precedent demands that she first offer it to the party who has the most seats, even if they are a minority.  This is what happened when the GG offered the Conservatives the right to govern after the election in October.

Now, none of this is in question by anyone with an inkling of knowledge about our system of governance, so the next question becomes on what grounds may a coalition of parties legitimately bring down a minority government and form an ad hoc governing coalition? This is the most important question that should be debated.  Does the coalition have a legitimate reason to bring down the government? Or are they simply acting for political power? If it is the former, by all means, they have the right to govern as a coalition.  If it is the latter, that wouldn’t constitute just cause for bringing down the government and seizing the power to govern.

In my estimation, this whole mess is about power, not policy (even though every blind partisan out there on both sides of the aisle is screaming otherwise). Political power is not a just cause for bringing down a government, and that is why I don’t support the coalition. I could give a flying shit if the coalition brought down the government if it was grossly incompetent, but in my estimation that is not the case (even though I recognize you could justifiably argue this point with me).  Nevertheless, as McParland argues here, it is the obligation of the coaltion to outline exactly why the policies (or lack of policies) of the current government have led them to take their current course.  The Conservatives trying to make this about the separatists role in the government, and the Liberals trying to make this about the fact that Harper is a hypocrite (who fucking isn’t a hypocrite in the House?), are disingenuous attempts to distract Canadians from the real question at hand.

One step too far

There is no doubt in my mind that Harper overstepped his bounds in a minority parliament.  He directly attacked an extremely important issue to the three opposition parties (not necessarily an important issue to Canadians), and as such he needed to be taught a lesson.  However, when the opposition parties threatened to bring down the government over the issue, Harper capitulated, and all of the controversial measures were dropped.  How else is a minority parliament supposed to work if not in this fashion?  The Liberals, NDP and Bloc stood up to a minority PM and said with force, “no”.  They made it clear this could not go forward and it would be the end of Harper’s government if it did.

What is quite amazing is how they have tried, and in many ways successfully, turned the issue into being about the economy and not the cuts to political party funding.  Regardless of whether or not the Liberals and NDP want to spin this as being an issue about the economy (which only people with the least critical look at the situation are willing to accept), there is good reason to believe they are not telling the truth.

Didn’t the situation play out exactly in the way that it should have in a minority parliament?  Why all of a sudden did the opposition parties, faced with a government who was surrendering, and would likely continue to back down on more issues in the future, decide that their demands being met warranted bringing down the government?  I can see them bringing down the government if Harper refused to listen to their demands, but after having accepted them?  As soon as Harper backed down, there is only one way that the opposition parties could not come out of this with a win.  It was surely to be, and now may not be, a huge political loss for Harper and the Conservatives.  The Liberal-NDP-Bloc threat worked, and there is no doubt they won until having moved on their current course.  How else is a minority parliament supposed to work?

So why did they risk it and take it a step too far?  The behaviour of the opposition suggests to me that they are not interested in saving the economy so much as they cannot see past the next few months and years  as they are so blinded by the prospect of power.  So if you were anything like me, and Harper’s incessant drive for political power didn’t sit well with you, supporting this coalition certainly won’t do us any better.

Is this democracy?

I have long believed that our system of governance lacks many key components of a healthy democracy, but this current ‘crisis’ provides an excellent example why.  The Parliamentary system of governance is capable of reprenting a majority of the voices in Canada, but all too often it does not.  Many of the proponents of proportional representation bolster their case against the first-past-the-post election system by pointing to examples where a minority of votes in Parliament accounted for a majority of seats.  Other scenarios, with even less democratic integrity, see parties with a minority of votes, and the minority of seats, receiving a mandate to govern.  This has been the case with the past three governments (Liberal’s under Martin, and Conservatives under Harper 2006 & 2008).

While you may argue (and I won’t disagree) that constitutional precedent supports the fact that our GG should offer the Liberals-NDP-Bloc coalition a chance to govern, where does that really lead us?  We go from having a party and a PM governing with a fair minority of voices in Canada (36% Pop vote. 143 seats), to a coalition of parties with separate and weaker mandates governing together.  We go from a PM who many MP’s argue has lost his mandate from them (not Canadians) to govern, to a PM who has no mandate from Canadians (only from MP’s).  Surely our MP’s are our representatives, and we trust them to make decisions on our behalf, but usually not on issues of such importance, such as who governs the country.  That is why we have elections.

The greatest problem with the Parliamentary system is that it allows MP’s to decide who governs, rather than Canadians themselves.  When you vote for a party, you place an x beside the name of an MP, but more importantly you are placing a vote for a PM.  Whoever ends up leading the possible coalition government (Dion, Rae, or Ignatieff) will undoubtedly have not been selected to run the country by the citizenry.  Two of the possible candidates have not even won the leadership of their own party.  While you may not like the Conservatives, and constitutional precedent affords the opposition parties the chance to replace him, it certainly would not be a step forward for Canadian democracy.