At least they are not afraid to say the word Christmas.

There was little wrong with the original 12 cartoons to Western eyes; we see cartoons of our leaders and idols on a daily basis that are as bad or worse. [...]

On top of that, Muslim extremists poured gasoline on the fire for their own ends by adding blasphemous images of the Muslim prophet–one, for example, showed Muhammad having sex with a dog — and claiming these bogus portrayals were part of the original content.

No matter what the truth is, there will be those in the Muslim world who will seek to find offence, or will manufacture it where no offence is intended. When Gen. Petraeus says of Pastor Jones’ planned desecration that “it is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems,” he is probably correct. But he is also beside the point.

Also in 2005, there were deadly riots across the Muslim world over a Newsweek report that Korans had been flushed down the toilet at the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. The report later turned out to be untrue. The Pentagon found seven instances in which “Korans had been improperly handled,” but no instances in which one had been torn or flushed. [...]

But why are these outrages always just one-way streets?

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, on Aug. 25, a cartoon on Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV in Gaza and the West Bank aired cartoons showing Jews transforming into apes (who are seen as vile and unclean), and claiming that the transformation was sanctioned by the Koran. [...]

Where are the Western apologists of radical Islam when these outrages against the West are being perpetrated? Why is it only Western slights to Islam that trouble them?

Indeed, the fact that it WAS this fringey pastor who set this international incident off is the most disturbing aspect of all. Unlike the flag burners and bible burners and crucifix defilers that number in the tens of thousands, he did nothing but state an intention. And look at the force they brought down on him to prevent it.

And really? What is it with Liberals and transportation?

Shall we review current and past events?

In what appears to be hilarious irony, The Liberal Express breaks down within the first hour of setting off on what the Liberals have been touting as the largest event a Leader of the Official Opposition has ever undertaken. Given their current polling numbers…..quite apropos.

In other transportation news, an oil tanker has lost some of it’s load, up to 200 tonnes it’s said, in the St Lawrence seaway. How is this related to Liberal Transportation you ask? The ship was part of the Canada Steamship Lines fleet. For those of you who’s ears don’t recognize the name, this is the fleet that is registered in the Bahamas and belongs to the family of Paul Martin. For shame! I fully expect the Liberals to be as vocal about environmental damage as they have been in other situations.

Then, under the “Head in the Sand (Ash?) Dept.”, several Liberal MP’s were “stranded” in Newfoundland back in April when the Airport decided to cancel morning flights as ash from Iceland’s Eyjafjoell volcano was predicted to arrive. They began to cover their tracks by suggesting there was a conspiracy involved. It was found out that in light of the planned cancellations, additional earlier flights were provided. Tsk tsk tsk.

In 2008, then Leader of the Official Opposition Stephane Dion had a little trouble with transportation. It seems the Liberals were unprepared for an election they were so busy preparing for. When the time came, poor Mr. Dion was unable to acquire a plane to bring him around the country. When he was finally able to get one from Air Inuit, it turned out to be a massive gas guzzler that cost the party between $18,000 and $20,000 an hour to fly, and was 35 per cent less efficient than the Conservative and NDP planes. To top it all off, this was the launch of the Green Tax Tour.

Maybe it (LPC) just needs a jump-start?

More likey, it just needs a casket.

Waiter: And for you, prophet?

Mo: A BLT, another Spaten and a high chair for my wife.

Ba-dum.

H/T

‘Cause the walls start shaking

The earth was quaking

My mind was aching

And we were making it, and you

Shook me all night long

Update April 26: Boobquake. Gotta love Western women.

The Cowardly Lion (played by Mr. Michael Ignatieff) – ‘This budget is so very terrible that we simply can’t stand to support this government! In fact, we are so unhappy with it, we’ll rrrruff, and we’ll rrrrrufff! and we will vote against it with at least fully half of our caucus!’

Yep. So instead of getting fully behind his rhetoric and getting his entire caucus to vote against the budget, he opts for the cowardly route. Not that I’m looking for an election or anything, since that would just be stupid on anyone’s part. But still, it makes you wonder if Mr. Ignatieff has spine enough to bring consensus to his caucus and have everyone of them move in lockstep. Judging by his previous courageous stands, well, I’m not going to hold my breath…

The Scarecrow (played by Mr. Jack Layton) – ‘Well look, see, there’s a lot of things I like in this budget that addresses some of our larger concerns, but we don’t want to think about that. Look at the things he’s doing that I don’t like!’

Right! The ‘If I only had a brain!’ argument! Jack Layton couldn’t decide what he was going to do about the Budget. Was he going to support it? Was he going to vote against it? Was he going to try and negotiate? Was he going to do anything? Mr. Layton just couldn’t decide! So instead, he’s going to take it to his caucus and tap into the power of loony-left-groupthink and come up with something outrageous.

The Tin Man (played by Mr. Gilles Duceppe) - ‘You see, I don’t care about the rest of Canada. I only heart Quebec. This budget does not do the things for the Quebec Nation that we want, so since we don’t get special treatment above and beyond the rest, we vote no.’

Thanks Gilles! I think we knew that the man with no heart for Canada wouldn’t support a budget that doesn’t try to bribe Quebec with the rest of the nation’s money.  How very predictable, but then we expect that from Mr. Duceppe…wait, was that a redundant observation? We expect predictability…? Anyway, back to navel-gazing for you Mr. Duceppe.

So in the end, while we got the usual reactions from the usual suspects, I was at least momentarily amused by them. Carry on carrying on boys!

It got me thinking about a recent episode with an obese person who likewise felt entitled to force others to accommodate her needs wants.

A couple weeks ago my family and I entered a Burger King to grab a quick bite as part of our hectic Saturday routine. At this particular BK there is only one blue-painted handicapped parking spot though there are at least six parking slots within 10 paces of the entrance. With our burgeoning family, I certainly appreciated being able to park the van and unload the tribe near the entrance.

Seated and munching, I notice a rotund woman park her minivan in a spot about 100 feet from the BK, literally kick the driver’s side door open, gingerly roll herself out of the van, and slowly lumber across the parking lot to the BK.  Used to determining the weight and size of moose and caribou at 100 and 200 yards, I estimated her weight at 350 lbs.

My brother’s fat humour echoed in my brain, “Warm up the fryers! Everyone out of the pool!” My wife, noticing that I had picked up on the “big-boned” woman making her way to the BK, and perhaps observing a rye grin on my face, jabbed me in the ribs. “Stop it,” she said with her eyes, seemingly knowing what was going on behind my eyeballs. Then audibly, “Don’t be so cruel. You don’t know why she’s like that.” You get the picture. Shame on me, but don’t act so innocent, dear reader!

Anyway, said rotund individual entered the BK, walked into the middle of the room and roared, “WHO IS PARKED IN THE HANDICAPPED SPOT?”  Startled at the rude interruption of the consumption of their flame-broiled whoppers and trans-fat sticks (fries), everyone turned.  Most muttered, “Not me,” except for one, an older woman in her 70s, sitting by herself enjoying a sandwich.

“I am,” she said.

Rotund woman, growing more agitated and pointing her finger: “I don’t see a handicapped sign hanging on your mirror. Do you have the right to be in that spot?”

Older lady: “Yes. My tag is in the glove box and I forgot to hang it on the mirror before coming in.”

Rotunda: “Really? Well, I WANT that spot.”

Older lady, with poise and dignity, “I’ll move as soon as I’m done, dear, but there are a couple spots right next that are open.”

Rotunda: “Doesn’t matter. I want that spot and I need you to move.”

The old lady looked away and started eating again. The men in the joint were observing closely, waiting for Roti to do something even more stupid.

Alas, with a “hmph” Large Lady exited the BK, trudged the 100 feet back to her van, damn near ripped the driver’s side door off her van whilst opening it, squeezed inside, somehow managed to reach out and close her abused door, and waited. And waited. Then waited some more. All the while no less than three parking spaces remained open next to the sacred blue slot, presumably the result of people being very accommodating indeed.

We were in the restaurant for 15 minutes beyond this and Double-L didn’t avail of the non-blue parking spaces during the entire time. Our tribe left the BK, jaunted across the parking lot to a market where we spent another 10 minutes or so before returning to our van by the BK.  Lady Large was still in her van.

She had walked at least 200 feet, attempted to run roughshod over an elderly woman, ignored her desire for food, and waited for at least 25 minutes for the privileged blue paint nirvana to open up, even though she could have easily DRIVEN THE FRIGGIN’ VAN into the spot next to the handicapped zone and proceeded to walk the 10 paces into the restaurant.

My wife and I looked at each other, “Unreal.”

In light of these coincidental travesties, I am caused to ask, Why do people, obese or not, feel entitled to certain things that they clearly are not entitled to?  And why, I wonder, do they feel the need to leverage the State to nourish and enforce their believed entitlement and so force their will upon others?  What drives that behaviour?  Finally, why does the State feel the need to involve itself in a disagreement between two renters of condominiums whom have each paid for parking?  And “violating the inclusive values of society”???

Have we lost of freaking minds?

Then there are times when comparisons seem downright prescient.

Over in Copenhagen, we have Robert Mugabe, perhaps the most brutal and corrupt despot in Africa, whose life’s work has been to destroy the once-prosperous country of Zimbabwe, lecturing the West on the “hypocrisy” of its position on climate change. [...]

We have the government of China, which won’t allow its citizens free access to the Internet, complaining that the climate summit is “not transparent.”

We have Hugo Chavez, who took time off from shutting down Venezuela’s radio stations to fly to Denmark, complaining about western “dictatorship.” (If anyone back in Venezuela disagrees, he’ll toss them in jail).

–National Post, an absolutely smokin’ post by Kelly McParland.

It bears repeating that this is the morally inverted world of environmentalism.

Update: Pass me the caviar and vodka, Sergei.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Vatican has fallen prey to this culture of confusion as it’s now launching an investigation that will, in part, deal with the ramifications of aliens existing. We should’ve expect better from the seat of Roman Catholicism, since it has so clearly drawn the line in the past on other issues that are, er, more down to Earth although as the axiom of the the believer’s faith teaches, we’re all prone to err. It’s also a shame too since ABC is currently airing a (so far) excellent remake of the 1983 classic “V” series in which a Catholic priest serves as one of the principle characters and the theological ramifications are only mentioned briefly.

Wouldn’t it strike a huge blow to Christians, especially those who are faithful to the word of Scripture, you ask? Not as much as you would think. Those who study the Bible know that it is primarily concerned with one thing: the redemptive plan of God for humanity. The state is very Earth-focused, and narrows down even further for most of the Old Testament to what’s going on in and with Israel, only to shift later in the New Testament to what is happening to churches planted in Rome, Greece and modern Turkey. Scripture could’ve written about God’s creation of little green men in Genesis 1 and 2, but for that matter, it could’ve also covered the Qin Dynasty of ancient China. Investigating and understanding why the Bible doesn’t do this is crucial to even beginning to rectify The Way with visitors from other planets — it simply doesn’t deal with the plan of salvation ordained by God, but nothing in Scripture rules out God exercising His creative power by creating other life forms.

Most Bible critics who moonlight as sci-fi buffs know this, and that’s why they try to target the redemptive implications instead. A common presumptive mistake, made by the V series mentioned above, is the automatic presumption that aliens, if they’re intelligent, would need to be redeemed.

There are three possibilities: a)yes, they need redemption; b) no, they don’t; and c) they do but they’ve been set aside as beyond redemption. In a)’s case, the aliens would be much like humanity, but before missionaries run off to expand the kingdom, it should be pointed out that God’s plan for redemption would be different for another species than it would be for humans, who are born again as children of Abraham. If a) were true, what is to say that there isn’t already a plan that God has implemented long before a visit to Earth? This is where the attacks begin to fall apart, because they simply presume to know too much. b) is the case that all the other creatures on Earth fall under, and frankly would be the most likely. The notion of innocent creatures interacting with humans is not a new idea as many faithful would see angels as fitting this role perfectly. As for c), it might not be the most politically correct, but God is beyond silly political notions anyway; nothing says that a race needs to be redeemed, and Christians already believe that demons led by Satan will not escape their punishment. The true could apply to another race of beings from space, which is why evangelists should be cautioned against falling into the trap of how the Church would handle alien beings.

Any which way though, I’m again puzzled as to how any Bible scholar would find conflict between the Bible and the mere existence of aliens. Their appearance on Earth wouldn’t necessarily surprise this author, although much like the V series, I don’t know if I would be too trusting at first either. Let’s get the facts on what we do know, namely the Christian faith, right first though before we start pondering the implications of things that only might be true!

Alberta’s health board sacked one staffer Wednesday and said more punishment may be on the way for those who let Calgary Flames players, management and family members jump the H1N1 vaccine queue.

We’ve had our own little debate here at ThePolitic regarding the H1N1 vaccine, but opinions matter not a whit compared to hard science.  So, can’t we just agree that if the Flames win the cup, the vaccine worked and saved us from the rapture, but if they get bounced in the first round, the whole thing was a giant scam cooked up by the CIA and Jenny McCarthy to sell DVDs of Things to do in Denver When You’re Dead?

(*.)

When is this going to stop? Things are really bad around here. People who watch us from the gallery or on CPAC are appalled at the kind of behaviour that takes place. To somehow characterize this as we are shutting down criticism or legitimate debate, that is not what this is about. This place is about debate, analysis and criticism and we do that every day, but this is about the kind of personal attacks that are being made.

We should be calling on the Speaker to stand by his ruling and to say to the majority of members of the House, I would dare say from all parties and maybe some people do not feel comfortable saying it, to support the Speaker’s ruling. I believe that things have gone too far. We should be upholding our Speaker. How many times have we called on the Speaker to intervene and to bring back decorum? He is trying to do that, and we should support what he is trying to do. You did it today, Mr. Speaker.

In light of recent events, I wonder just how self-righteous the House Leader for the NDP is feeling about her party’s commitment to restoring order and decorum to the House of Commons when her Leader, Jack Layton, is being implicated in orchestrating a virtually unheard of disruption in the House of Commons himself?

“…somehow the NDP organized the protest in the House is ludicrous. There is no conspiracy except in the mind of the Government House leader. The fact is we knew nothing about the protest.”

And Jack Layton’s press secretary Karl Belanger?

“Ya, that’s right. We organized a protest to interrupt our Leader during his question. Clearly, it was a socialist plot from the NDP.”

‘ll admit, it’s a weak suspicion with no proof, but hey, since they opened the door to conspiracy, does having a protest take place during one of their own speeches give some grounds for plausible deniability? Hey, it’s a weak argument, but that’s what you get with a weak defense.

So ultimately, if the NDP are in fact to blame for this ruckus, can Ms. Davies truly stand up in the House of Commons any longer and preach about NDP desires for decorum with any credibility?

… American democracy has always been a hurly-burly. More important, a lot of the complaints about incivility today are really complaints from the people in power or their supporters in the media, aimed at the folks who won’t shut up and get with their program.

And there’s something distinctly undemocratic about that.

The civility caterwaulers claim that Obama’s opponents are trying to “delegitimize” the president, often suggesting that such efforts are racist. But what some see as delegitimization, others see as criticism. What strikes me as truly uncivil is the effort to demonize critics of the president with racial bullying.

In fact, I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent. In August he said: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way. . . . I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

On health care he’s been saying the time for debating his plan is over, even though the president didn’t even have a plan to debate.

Now his White House is targeting Fox News and urging other news outlets to ostracize it. Does any serious person in America believe that if Fox News were supportive of the president’s agenda, this White House would be bemoaning the network’s lack of objectivity?

Democracy is about disagreement, arguments. Citizenship in America requires speaking your mind. Indeed, it’s worth recalling that the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment always envisioned a partisan press. “Objective” journalism is a 20th-century confabulation, as alien to the Founders’ vision as transporter beams and time travel.

Civility came to mean politeness in the 16th century; before that it meant being a citizen. It seems to me that authentic civility requires some incivility.

Turning back to the interview with Conor Friedersdorf from the other thread, the following is an excerpt that raises significant questions.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of dreck that harms public discourse. I’d never want to be the arbiter drawing a definitive boundary between folks who add to the conversation and those who take away from it. That line is impossible for anyone to consistently and reliably discern. But it is possible to identify folks whose transgressions are so frequent, blatant and influential that one must either oppose them or stay silent as they corrode our polity’s primary means of testing ideas and deciding among them. I think it is important that this opposition is grounded in substantive arguments, that it avoids ad hominem attacks, that it is rigorous, and that it is intellectually honest.

As I argue in the other thread, ad hominem argument, be it rude or funny, is often the only way to check intellectual dishonesty at the door. Often it is necessary to take a swipe at people who are unwilling to face the truth. A well placed insult forces them to challenge why what you are calling them isn’t true, to make a come back, the result being that they either face the truth and the conversation continues, no doubt robustly, or they leave—good riddance. It is individuals of genuine civility who can take a hit and keep on coming; re: Juan Williams.

I’m not arguing that conservatives benefit from “echo chambers.” Hardly! I’m making the point that in any “political discourse” there are likely to be intellectual swindlers, however polite and well-intentioned, that want to narrow the choices we face into one way, THEIR way, whatever the cost. Conservatives are seeking to provide people with “A Choice, Not An Echo” and doing so will often infuriate their opponents (Many thanks, once again, to Kathy Shaidle for the link.), as we see now with the current White House attacks on Fox news.

To engage in democratic politics, it is best if one comes with some principles, broad shoulders, a quick wit, and the capacity to laugh at oneself.

Tom Piatak assesses it well:

Comes news this morning that our beloved President has at last won the Nobel Peace Prize. We can all be glad that the Nobel committee overcame the stark racism that denied Obama the Nobel Prize for Literature for Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. I suspect that racism has also been behind the denial of the Nobel Prizes for Economics, Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine to Obama, whose accomplishments in those fields very nearly equal what he has accomplished so far in the Presidency. We can only hope that we make contact with extraterrestrials before Obama leaves the White House, so that other worlds will be able to join ours in giving Obama the honors he so obviously deserves.

Or as John Podhoretz surmises:

I can’t agree with my colleagues here on CONTENTIONS that a) Barack Obama should reject the Nobel Peace Prize or b) be embarrassed by it. The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization’s highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than “the indispensable nation,” as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s the most obvious choice, once you think about it, since Michael Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

Satire to one side, Peter Schramm offers a sensible enough strategy for Obama’s way forward:

I woke up to this stunning decision (as the WaPo calls it) this morning. (We should be prepared to be surprised in politics, right? And we never are, are we?) The problem is that everyone understands that he doesn’t deserve it (and I mean no disrespect to the President Obama). One wag said on CNN this morning that the lefties in Oslo are attempting to tie Obama’s hands on foreign policy, especially regarding decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. Maybe. But this does give Obama a great opportunity: Mickey Kaus suggests that he turn it down. I agree. It would be magnanimous-like act, offered by a statesman who understands that the world does move, or should move, on merit. If he accepts it, there will be a political backlash for some will start arguing that his future war decisions will be taken for the wrong reasons. He cannot afford that opinion settling in on the public. The decisions on Afghanistan, just to cite the most obvious example, are tough enough to figure out without such calculations. He should turn it down.

What a joke:

The Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Although, I must say, Al Gore’s award is much more pathetic.

What little Bobby couldn’t have known at that time, was that Mikey was teaching him everything Bobby was going to need to know about supplanting him as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Fast forward to 2008/2009. Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, both much older and presumably (?) wiser are squaring off against one another for the second time for the Leadership of the Liberals. A sudden realization hits as little Bobby’s memories burble to the surface. Little Bobby knew what little Mikey was, and how to work the gears and levers of the mechanical Michael to show that to the Liberals and Canadians. Sure, he allowed his hackles to rise a bit in the last battle where he was baited successfully by his opponents to give it a real shot, but not this time. No sir.

This time, older Bob would use lessons learned by little Bobby. Through something akin to “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, Bob Rae decided to take the patient road and allow Michael to do all the work necessary for him to take the Leadership.

So Bob Rae graciously backed down from the Leadership Race and chose to stroke Michael’s ego as only he knew how to. Over the course of the following year and more, Bob would quietly push Michael’s buttons to achieve the desired performance, and whisper words that would achieve the desired statements. He would conscientiously ‘tut-tut’ those who argued the anointment of Michael, and by doing so, paint himself in their sub-conscious as being the one more concerned about the welfare of the party and serving the “party” before the serving the “man”, as opposed to the glory-hound and elitist, self-absorbed snob that was little Mikey all grown up.

Bob Rae will continue to allow Micheal Ignatieff to destroy himself in the eyes of the party and Canadians so that when the time comes when Michael either chooses to step down and return to Harvard, or is so utterly destroyed in an election that he must leave, Bob will appear to be the calm, reasonable and affable Leader of the Liberals that Canadians are looking for.

Food for thinking thoughts….

Which is patently ridiculous because it is obvious where the logo is derivative of, if one has any knowledge of Canadian military history.

Check this out:

It is the logo of the Royal Canadian Air Force until 1965.  Funny thing: I know this and I wasn’t even born until ’74.

I just want to say I am unsurprised that nobody in the present opposition has the education to be aware of this, and hence is completely deserving of mockery on the level of this:

The Fourth in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

The numbers reported to Elections Canada really say it all. Over the last few years, the Liberal Party‘s fundraising performance has left much to be desired.

In the first half of 2005, for instance, the Liberal Party raised only $3.97 million. In 2006, the Party’s rake fell to $3.27 for the same period. By 2007, the number had fallen even lower to $2.07 million.

And last year in 2008, the Liberal Party’s first-half fundraising hit rock-bottom: $1.86 million–which is roughly the same amount raised by the NDP ($1.83 million) and four-and-a-half times less than what the Conservative Party raised ($8.48 million) in the same reporting period. Yikes.

But so far in 2009, the Liberal Party has posted impressive numbers that belie the adage that past performance is an accurate indicator of future success: As of June 30, the Liberal Party has raised a whopping $5.91 million–more than three times what it raised in the same period last year.

There are perhaps many reasons why the Liberal Party has so dramatically improved its fundraising totals this year over previous years. A new leader, a new president, and a renewed sense of the possible–surely all of these have helped propel the Liberal Party to fundraising heights reminiscent of their glory days under Jean Chrétien.

But the key has doubtless been Rocco Rossi, the new National Director of the Liberal Party. Hired near the end of January 2009, Rossi has worked tirelessly to transform the Liberal Party’s fundraising apparatus, modernizing its infrastructure, developing innovative fundraising strategies, and bringing with him years of prolific fundraising prowess.

It is no small feat to raise money in this troubled economic climate, particularly on behalf of a political party recently mired in scandal, relegated to the opposition benches, and frustrated by internecine battles.

Which makes it all the more impressive that Rossi has managed to turn the tide for the Liberal Party.

Anyone who knows him will tell you that his monster fundraising numbers for the Liberal Party should come as no surprise. After all, Rossi has all the necessary tools, both personal and professional, to right the Liberal’s fundraising ship. He is intelligent, connected, experienced, well-credentialed, and perhaps most importantly for his line of work, quite persuasive.

So if it is indeed true that money is the lifeblood of politics, then, with Rossi running the fundraising operation, it may only be a matter of time before the Liberal Party reverses its electoral fortunes and ultimately replaces the governing Conservative Party, which has for several years been the dominant money draw in Canadian politics.

In this fourth installment of our continuing Meet the Players series of interviews with political strategists and candidates, Rocco Rossi opens up about his views and interests—all with the characteristic wit and humour that have made him one of the Liberal Party’s most likeable people.

Richard Albert (RA): In your former life as CEO of the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario, you wrote that “a journey of 1,000 kilometers begins with one step.” What was the first step you took when you became National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada?

Rocco Rossi (RR): Put Porter Airlines on speed dial.

RA: How far along are you toward reaching your goal? I suspect that your immediate goal is to raise oodles of money to help Michael Ignatieff become prime minister. But do you have a larger, perhaps more long-term, goal in mind as National Director?

RR: World domination.

RA: Ha! So then it will be a fierce battle between you and me.

You’ve been on the job since the end of January 2009. Not that long. Yet already, as of the end of June, you’ve tripled what the Liberal Party raised in all of 2008. Amazing. Can this staggering pace continue? I suppose it must, because despite your early success, fundraising totals for the Conservative Party continue to outpace yours.

RR: Newton’s First Law states: “An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.”  We intend to stay in motion.

RA: How do you come up with your creative, engaging and by all accounts wildly successful fundraising challenges, like your tour of 23 lockstations or your 7 summits climb? Do you rely on a kitchen cabinet of fundraising advisors or is it all you?

RR: Most of them I steal. The rest I buy from psychics.

RA: Psychics, eh? Do you know my friend, JoJo? Perhaps I can put you two in touch.

You and your colleagues on the National Management Committee of the Liberal Party, chaired by Liberal Party president Alfred Apps, have set some very ambitious targets for the coming years. The one that struck me–it froze me, actually–is your plan to raise $25 million per year.

No party has reached that number in recent memory. In fact, the Liberal Party has never even broken $10 million since 2004. When viewed against that backdrop, an annual take of $25 million seems quite optimistic, doesn’t it?

RR: Small dreams have no magic.

RA: Some have argued that Jean Chrétien left his successors in the Liberal Party a poisoned chalice insofar as his campaign finance reforms may forever cripple the Liberal Party. I would be surprised were you to agree, at least publicly, with this view. But there is something to the argument, no?

RR: As you noted above, we seem to be doing pretty well for a “forever cripple.”  I think we’ll go out for a walk.

RA: Two more questions on fundraising. Last Fall, the governing Conservative Party proposed to eliminate public subsidies for all political parties. Setting aside the prime minister’s timing of the proposal and the political context in which it was made, can you make the case why, on the actual merits, you think it is sound public policy to use our tax dollars to fund your political party, or any political party for that matter?

RR: I think investing in democracy has the greatest possible return. Donations are given generous public tax credits.  Would those be eliminated also?

RA: Last fundraising question, I promise. So a quick look at your resume reveals that you have breathed some pretty rarefied air in your life. Upper Canada College, McGill, Princeton, the Boston Consulting Group–each among the very best of the best. That will certainly help when you come knocking on the doors of prospective members of the elite Laurier Club.

But the Liberal Party will also need lower-level donors, and lots of them. Do your lived experiences in elite institutions help or hinder your efforts to relate to everyday Canadians? Or does it even matter?

RR: For over four years at the Heart and Stroke Foundation, we raised over $100 million per year from average donations of $35 per “everyday” donors. I was born and raised in an immigrant household and was fortunate enough to go to UCC, McGill and Princeton on full scholarships.  I have never lost touch with, nor pride in, my roots.

RA: Well said. Let me turn now to a couple of fun questions, as we prepare for the very entertaining lightning round. Ok? Great. So, Rocco, you’re about 6’4″. Can you dunk a basketball on a regulation net?

RR: Absolutely, with a regulation ladder.

RA: Play along with me. Which three living Canadians would you most like to take to the ByWard Market for a mid-afternoon casual discussion over a beavertail and a few beverages? And here’s a restriction: none of them can be involved in politics.

RR:

Leonard Cohen—we both spent time at the same Zen monastery, but didn’t overlap.

Steve Nash—proof positive that a big heart and hard work can accomplish just about anything.

Nelly Furtado—love her music and sense of fun.

RA: Ok, Rocco. Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

RR: Crackberry.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

RR: Hmm. 2700 friends on FB and no page on MySpace. Survey says… .

RA: Mac or PC?

RR: Is that a trick question?

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

RR: More of a wine guy.

RA: Boxers or briefs?

RR: Boxers.

RA: Favourite band?

RR: U2.

RA: Sid the Kid or Super Mario?

RR: Super Mario is in much better video games.

RA: Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake?

RR: Let’s set up the steel-cage match and let them fight it out.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

RR: Tie—my parents.

RA: Two more questions, Rocco. Greatest prime minister?

RR: Sir John A. Wrong party, but without him there would be no Canada for the other prime ministers.

RA: And greatest politician never (or never yet) to become prime minister? (P.S. You cannot say the current Liberal leader, nor can you choose Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake.)

RR: Thomas D’Arcy McGee because he understood that “a federation of feeling must precede a federation of fact.” Canada’s physical beauty must be seen to be believed, but its political beauty must be believed to be seen.

RA: Wow. Powerful, evocative words. So uplifting and inspiring. You almost moved me to abandon my vow of non-partisanship and buy a membership in your party. But not quite.

Thanks, though, for so enthusiastically participating in our Meet the Players series. I know our readers at The Politic are grateful for this chance to learn a bit more about you, your views and your interests. Continued best wishes to you in your new role as National Director of the Liberal Party.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
• Tim Powers, August 20, 2009
• Kyle Seeback, August 26, 2009

The Second in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

What do you get when you cross a rugby player, a communications professor, a top-ranked lobbyist, a compulsive tweeter, a regular blogger, an expert in everything from brassieres to bazookas, and by all accounts, a fun-loving dude?

Meet Tim Powers, Vice President of Summa Communications, a public relations and crisis management firm. He is also a trusted advisor and confidante for the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), and is the Conservative Party‘s top draft pick for television punditry.

Take a look at Powers performing his craft on television here and here, for example. Pretty good, eh? And he still has many years of broadcasts left ahead of him.

Powers hasn’t yet had to manage too many crises in the PMO. After all, let’s be fair, the Prime Minister simply does not make that many public relations mistakes. Or is it perhaps that the Prime Minister does not make communications mistakes precisely because Powers is there blocking for him?

Either way, the safest bet this side of pocket aces is that Powers can talk a story down from a crisis to a mere speedbump.

It is sometimes said that rugby is a hooligan’s game played by gentlemen. Judging by my interview with Tim Powers, it’s hard to conclude that this rugby player is anything but a gentleman. And a funny one at that.

Richard Albert (RA): So, our favourite adult soap opera returns to the air in just a few weeks when Parliament reconvenes on September 14. How excited are you?

Tim Powers (TP): My euphoria is boundless. Only a trip to the dentist for a root canal would be more appealing.

RA: What should we look for in the first month or so of the new session?

TP: You’ll go tone-deaf with every utterance of the word election. Another quarter, another round of will there or won’t there be a vote. Hopefully logical forces will prevail and everyone can focus on recovering from the recession.

RA: It seems not a week goes by–and when the House is in session, barely a day goes by–when we do not see you somewhere on TV, battling the likes of NDP strategist Brad Lavigne and Liberal über-strategist Warren Kinsella. Do you have anything nice to say about Warren? And what about Brad?

TP: Like any good fellow with Irish blood, I love to whack the hell out of my partisan opponents on the air. But I respect and like both Brad and Warren. Both fight hard for what they believe in, and I respect that. Both are huge assets to their parties. Both I consider friends.

RA: Now how about something not-so-nice but still playful and friendly?

TP: We call Brad the oxygen eater because he’ll run down all the time remaining in a panel discussion with limp Layton lines.

Warren says we are brothers. I am not sure which set of parents would be more upset after the DNA testing.

RA: Do you remember the first time you appeared on TV as a talking head? I bet you did great but I would love it even more if you had messed up and would agree to share a funny story from your first–or an early–appearance.

TP: My first time on national TV was as a commentator for CPAC during the 1999 Nova Scotia provincial election. I remember my brother-in-law called in using a fake name to throw me a softball question. It was classic.

When you are on TV, screwing up is part of the game. I like to laugh, and I remember I laughed when I was on-air with Warren when he did his famous Barney the Dinosaur joke on Canada AM. (For background on this story, read this and this.  –RA.)

Instead of feigning rage or disgust at Warren’s slight of Stockwell Day‘s religious beliefs, I broke into a fit of laughter. I know a few people who weren’t happy with me then, and probably still aren’t now. But having gone through the good and bad of a religious school system in Newfoundland, his wit struck a chord.

RA: You are a fierce and tireless advocate for the governing Conservative Party. How much of what you say is spin and how much of it is unvarnished fact? 60 percent spin, 40 percent unvarnished fact?

TP: It is all in how you tell the story and lay out the facts–which I always pray are accurate.

RA: Maybe you can clear something up for me about the “Just Visiting” Conservative ad campaign. Some people say it worked, others no. Who is right? (How is that for a softball follow-up to my question on spinning?)

TP: Time will tell who is right and what right means. But I do think it touched more than a few nerves because it was on the mark. Fairly or unfairly, Mr. Ignatieff comes across as a self-interested dilettante who’d rather be cavorting in Harvard Yard, not Harbour Grace.

RA: Bottom line: Why, in your view, is the Stephen Harper better for Canada than Michael Ignatieff?

TP: Stephen Harper has proven to be a solid leader no more so than now through this vicious economic recession. Harper is not flashy and he is workmanlike–people at some level respect that.

He plays his politics hard, and sometimes that might sting. But so far he has been a steady, capable PM in unsteady times. And so far, unlike his predecessors, he is generally free of scandal.

RA: You are originally from St. John’s, Newfoundland. The current premier, Danny Williams, has not had the best of relationships with the prime minister. (And that is putting it mildy.) Could you manage, do you think, to bring these two conservatives together to iron out the details of a truce? Who would have to make more concessions?

TP: I know them both and I am a fan of both. I could put my entreprenurial skills to work and do a made-for-TV cage match. Watch out Georges St-Pierre. The winner stays in politics. The loser goes.

Canada and Newfoundland can work together. Energy opportunities might be where they unite.

RA: People have compared you to one of Newfoundland’s most respected figures, John Crosbie, a devoted former public servant and colourful parliamentarian–not to mention your former boss. How big of a compliment is that to you? Must be huge.

TP: As long as they don’t say I look like him, I’ll accept the compliment. He is a great man and mentor, and I was fortunate to learn at his knee. If I am fortunate to do anywhere near what he has done in his life, I’ll die happy.

RA: You will soon celebrate your 41st birthday. Hard to believe that you recently doned your old rugby uniform to take on a team from the Canadian Forces in a charity game to benefit the Military Families Fund. How did the game go? I mean, apart from the Minister of Defence breaking his arm?

TP: Life doesn’t end at 40, you know. I can even Twitter. Watch the ageism or I’ll have to come ruck over The Politic.

Well before I got into politics and business, I used to play high-end competitive rugby. I was fortunate enough to make the national under-21 team two years in a row.

Rugby is now back in my life and it has become my release from politics. I am back playing competitively for the Ottawa Irish Rugby Club. The match on the Hill helped remind me what I missed. It was a great night for an excellent cause.

Sure, Peter busted his arm. But being the trooper he is, he never let that take away from the day–though P.T. Barnum would have liked the marketting value of the minister with the broken arm.

RA: Just a few more questions. Which three living Canadians (whom you do not yet know nor have never met either in person or virtually) would you most like to host for dinner at Bianca‘s, one of the finest restaurants in St. John’s? Why?

TP: Neil Young–anybody who has lived this man’s life would most definitely be a lively dinner companion. I might need to book the next day off for my own medicinal purposes, though.

Wayne Gretzky–what can I say? What sporting fan of my age wouldn’t want to hang out with this prodigy?

Conrad Black–I have a morbid curiosity about him. We could end up in fisticuffs by the end of the night or it could be a peaceable affair. Any good dinner in Newfoundland must have those options.

RA: Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

TP: Blackberry.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

TP: Neither–because I like some privacy.

RA: Mac or PC?

TP: Commodore Vic-20.

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

TP: Wimpy stuff–Screech is the best.

RA: Boxers or briefs?

TP: Stanfields.

RA: Favourite band?

TP: U2.

RA: The Great One or Sid the Kid?

TP: The Great One.

RA: Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Statics? (Do you care either way?)

TP: Daniel Bell’s post-industrial society.

RA: Has Newfoundland ever known a better premier than Joey Smallwood? Doubtful, in my view. But you tell me.

TP: Danny Williams, for cleaning up the messes Joey left behind.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

TP: Terry Fox (sometimes I agree with the CBC).

RA: Greatest prime minister?

TP: Sir John A.

RA: Final Question. Greatest politician never (or never yet?) to become prime minister? (P.S. You cannot answer John Crosbie or your good friend Peter MacKay.)

TP: Maybe Don Mazankowski or Preston Manning.

RA: Hey, Tim, fantastic. Thanks for taking some time to do this. Best of luck to the Blue team when the Governor General fires the starter’s pistol.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009

The First in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

Say what you will about Warren Kinsella–and people have done just that, calling him some very bad names, some very bad names indeed.

The Montreal-born, Toronto resident is known in many circles as the Prince of Darkness. That’s a pretty cool nickname, if you ask me. Who wouldn’t want to be a prince of something, anything?

Perhaps the best nickname ever ascribed to Kinsella, however, is the James Carville of Canadian politics. Now that’s a mighty clever nickname, actually. However it does not quite capture the full scope of Kinsella’s reach, influence and political acumen.  True, the Carville-Kinsella comparison is apt in many respects. But to do justice to Kinsella, we should probably rephrase the comparison in this way: James Carville is the Warren Kinsella of American politics.

Actually, I take that back. Carville is a giant of a strategist. But so is Kinsella. Imagine the team they would make working together? Wow. Now that’s a partnership that would give nightmares even to a campaign anchored by the very best conservative strategists in North America, namely Tom Flanagan, Rod Love, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove.

It’s easy to understand why Kinsella is regarded as the closest thing to a genius in Canadian politics. After all, he helped Jean Chretien‘s federal Liberal Party win three straight majority governments. He also guided Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party to victory in the last two provincial elections. And today he runs a successful consultancy–the Daisy Group–which has managed to score some of the land’s most prestigious clients.

That’s his record of accomplishment. Or at least part of it.

For more about what Kinsella is up to, what he likes and dislikes, and what he sees unfolding in the Canadian political landscape in the months ahead, I invite you to take a walk through Warren Kinsella’s World, as he participates in a blog interview with me, conducted earlier this afternoon.

Richard Albert (RA): So, our favourite adult soap opera returns to the air in just a few weeks when Parliament reconvenes on September 14. How excited are you?

Warren Kinsella (WK): “Excited” is not a word I associate with a party whose principal spokesman is, seemingly, Pierre Poilievre. It is a little like getting “excited” about a bad rash. It just isn’t done. What I am excited about, in all seriousness, etc., is the possibility of an election–and showing Canadians that we have a superior leader, and team, and plan. That’s exciting.

RA: What should we look for in the first month or so of the new session?

WK: Unfortunately, more job losses, more bankruptcies, and more deficit–because the Reformatories, since being re-elected, have been setting unhelpful records in respect of each one of those. Other issues–like health care, H1N1, isotopes and so on–will factor into the political calculus, too. But on balance, I think just-returned-from-Summer Canadians will conclude this to be the ballot question(s): Who is about hope, and who is fear? Who has a plan, and who is the status quo? Who wants to create jobs, and who just cares about jobs for political cronies?

If that’s the question, and I think it is, we will win the election that follows. And whenever it takes place.

RA: You are advising the current leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff. Without getting into details that would risk compromising either your effectiveness as an advisor or your leader’s prospects in the next election, would you consider sharing with us some of the broad strokes of your advice to him? Please? Pretty please?

WK: I’m a volunteer in the Liberal Party, and I haven’t actually admitted–anywhere–who I may or may not be advising. That’s the great thing about being a volunteer: you don’t have to answer every question.

But, volunteer or not, my approach is always the same: I don’t talk about strategy in the media. When you do that, your opponent can pick up the morning paper and read all about your strategy for the cost of the morning paper. And I tend to think a good strategy is worth more than the morning paper, don’t you?

Ha.

RA: Bottom line: Why, in your view, is your man better for Canada than the man currently at 24 Sussex?

WK: He’s smart. He’s decent. He’s been able to bring the Liberal Party back to the middle–and back to the position of strength it once had.

He believes–as I do, as millions of Canadians do–that we deserve better than we have been getting. It’s not that Stephen Harper and his people are intrinsically evil or anything like that (although Mr. Poilievre tests my resolve in that regard). It’s just that they don’t have a plan for what we have been going through, or even care. It’s just that they don’t share the values of most Canadians. It’s just that some of them seem–truly–to dislike the country they have been given the privilege to serve.

Apart from those things, they’re just swell, I guess.

RA: And while we are on the subject of men, why are we not talking about women running for prime minister? Does your spidey-sense discern any prospective female prime ministerial candidates coming down the pipeline, from any party?

WK: You are right, and there can be no debating it. Why is it that this country’s political parties do such a crummy job of (a) attracting women as candidates and (b) making them into leadership candidates?

In the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff is using all of his powers of persuasion–and his authority as Liberal leader–to get us to where we need to be, which is a percentage of women in the House of Commons that reflects their percentage in the country. But can we do more? Yes, we can. And we will.

As someone who was rightly pilloried for making a sexist joke about a political opponent (Note to readers: Kinsella apologised for this on July24, 2007  –RA), I think the root cause of this shameful gender imbalance is just that–sexism. We need to change the attitudes of men–in the media, in political backrooms, in every other place, too. That’s going to take some work, but it has to be done.

RA: You are slated to run the Liberal Party war room in the next federal election. How are you preparing for that?

WK: I never said I was doing that. Other people have said I’m doing that.

Whatever I do, you can be sure of this: it will not have a title, and I will not show up on a flow chart somewhere.

I will, however, do all that I can to restore a Liberal government. It’s time.

RA: So apparently Paul Wells does not think you are as good a strategist as people say and think you are. What gives? Surely you deserve some credit for helping to engineer the only majority government victories Canada has seen in the last sixteen years. And you did write the leading book on campaign strategy in Canada. (But Paul Wells is no slouch either. He knows a thing or two about politics himself.)

WK: He’s right. I’m not particularly good at that, or anything else, for that matter.

But I love politics (for the cut-and-thrust, for the immediacy, for the passion of it), and I am a Liberal (because I always believe government has a role to play, because I am unenthusiastic about capitalism without limits, because I favour tolerance and diversity and hope). So, whether the Grits want me or not, they’ve got me.

If I’m good at anything, it’s obscure punk rock trivia. That is my forté.

RA: You were the Liberal candidate in North Vancouver in the 1997 federal election. I suspect that you volunteered (or were involuntarily volunteered) for this role in order to help the Liberal Party field a full slate of candidates, consistent with the Party’s policy of being a truly national party. Nonetheless, I still cannot believe that you actually ran (and lost). What happened?

WK: Honest to God: I ran because I felt I had a contribution to make. At the time, my wife thought I was crazier than usual–I think she voted against me, truth be told–but it was an honour and privilege. We hadn’t won the riding in a generation, but it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

Some folks insinuate that I was parachuted into the riding, but that isn’t true: I fought for months to get the nomination, and was thrilled when I won it at a nomination meeting. But a variety of factors (calling an election during the ’97 Winnipeg flood was one) led to my keester getting kicked.

My wife, then pregnant with the second of four children, was delighted.

RA: You run one of the most popular blogs on Canadian politics. What makes your blog so successful? Is it that Warren Kinsella writes it—and that people want to know what Warren Kinsella has to say—or is it that the stuff you write is just that good? Or maybe both?

WK: I don’t know if it is successful, but some folks read it. How come? Three reasons.

It’s free. Seriously, that counts. If people have to choose between a Liberal columnist who is free, or one who costs them something, they’ll usually go for the former over the latter. People like free stuff.

I also get read, I suspect, because the blogosweird is so dominated by white, angry conservative fellas. Being a black helicopter-driving, One World-loving, secular humanist, I tend to stand out.

Finally, the owners of the mainstream media have cut back so much–cut back reporters, editors and resources–that they have taken away the reasons why readers were attracted to quality journalism in the first place. If you don’t believe in your own model, your customers won’t either. It’s simple.

The reason why web logs and the like are increasingly popular is also simple: they’re free, they’re controversial, and they’re filling a gap.

RA: Which three living Canadians (whom you do not yet know nor have never met either in person or virtually) would you most like to host for dinner at l’Auberge du Pommier, one of Toronto’s finest restaurants? Why?

WK: Pamela Anderson, Neve Campbell and Shannon Tweed.  Do the math.

RA: Are you sure you wouldn’t prefer taking your guests to a much less fancy—though no less tasty—place, say, Burrito Boyz on Adelaide?

WK: I’m sure.

RA: Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

WK: I’m a victim. I have both.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

WK: FB because it has multiple applications–you can make it whatever you want. Sad post script: I’m a Facebook “whale”–I am closing in on 2,000 friends. I even know some of them, too.

RA: Mac or PC?

WK: PC, simply because the piety of Mac users is so irritating. I also am driven to their distraction by their “no viruses in Macs” urban mythology, too. Uh-huh. Sure. Oh, look!  It’s a yeti!

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

WK: You will not be surprised to hear that I despise ad lines. That happens when you’ve drafted some.

RA: Boxers or briefs?

WK: Boxers. At a certain age, you need to consider the impact you are having on the visual environment.

RA: Favourite band? (P.S. You cannot answer your own band, Shit From Hell, whose song Barney Rubble (Is My Double) is synchronized with my bedside clock to ring as my morning alarm. No joke.)

WK: Are you kidding? Our song? Man, I like you more already.

Fave band is Florida’s Against Me! They are godlike geniuses, and you must rush out and buy (not illegally download) their records right now.

RA: The Great One or Super Mario?

WK: The Great One, even though everyone in Calgary (my hometown for most of my life) called him “Whine Gripesky.”  Not nice, but a guaranteed laugh-getter in Calgary pubs for years.

RA: Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Forces? (Do you care either way?)

WK: I don’t care.

RA: Who is the real Captain Canada: Brian Tobin or Steve Nash?

WK: Nash. Sorry, Brian.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

WK: Terry Fox.

RA: Greatest prime minister?

WK: You don’t expect me to answer anyone other than my friend, do you?

RA: Final Question. Greatest politician never (or never yet?) to become prime minister? (P.S. You cannot answer Edward Blake, Stéphane Dion or the current Liberal leader.)

WK: Lloyd Robertson. I can just picture Lloyd as Prime Minister. He reassures me.

RA: Thanks so much for doing this, Warren. Good luck to you and your team when the writ drops. Whenever that happens to be.

The money quote (kind of lengthy, but worth every penny! Emphasis mine):

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Obama as the "Joker"

I guess it depends on your perspective…

However, in regards to credit, I will offer these items:

1) It was my anger with Mr. Chretien that got me actively involved in the political realms and helped me find my passion for it. So thank you for that Mr. Chretien.

2) In a dog-fight, Mr. Chretien is the dirtiest, no-holds barred fighter I’ve seen on the political stage as evidenced in his handling of the General Election feat. Mr. Jean Chretien vs Mr. Stockwell Day. In a street-fight, I’d rather have him behind me than in front of me pulling his dirty tricks on my opponents and otherwise slinging muck their way. We can’t always get what we want though right? Mr Chretien as a Conservative…pigs flying…

3) When faced with possible legal harm, he was not afraid to claim ignorance (incompetence?) instead of taking responsibility for the actions of those he had appointed and trusted in their positions (a strategy poorly duplicated later by a successor with lackluster effect). A man without fear of looking stupid or ignorant. He just does what needs to be done. After all, he’s just a little guy from Shawinigan right? Maybe it was just poor judgement, or a conspiracy…

4) He kept us out of Iraq. Yes, and well done Mr. Chretien. And instead of leaving it simply as being because the UN didn’t back it, you allowed your Ministers and MP’s et al. to embark on a mission to further attack the integrity and morality of our own defender and largest trading partner, thereby putting undue strain on our relationship which played no small part in several trade fights. However, this paved the way for the Conservatives to make peace and behave respectfully with the United States once again, and to even earn the respect of an American Messiah(?).

5) Mr. Chretien and his governments also helped bring us the much-beloved Kyoto Accord, the agreement acclaimed by huggy-fuzzy socialists around the globe as the last hope for our doomed planet, and then proceeded to do absolutly nothing about it thereby allowing Canada to fall so far behind the “requirements”, even in such stellar economic times, that when the “Fall from grace” occured for the LPC, and the world (and its scientists) was waking up to the reality that Global Warming was going the way of the Dodo, Canada wouldn’t be amongst those with egg on their faces for spending and taxing themselves to death for no reason other than a splendid hoax meant to re-direct wealth.

6) Mr. Chretien also gave us a collapsing LPC who appears can’t survive without an iron-fisted despot at the helm, thus giving us the likes of Paul Martin (a much anticipated leader by the Liberal Party of Canada who became not-so-much) and Stephane Dion (the intellectual wannabe peace-maker in a fractured and warring Liberal Party of Canada). Thank-you SO much for that Mr. Chretien! I sincerely appreciate it! Probably more than you’ll ever know. I’m sure your members do too! Indeed an incredible legacy there of which Canadians can stand proud about…

So then yes. Congratulations Mr. Chretien on your award. You’ve certainly made your mark on Canada and the world.

United Breaks Guitars was inspired by a trip Mr. Carroll took with the airline last year on his way to a tour in Nebraska. While changing planes in Chicago, another passenger watching the baggage handlers on the tarmac shouted words no musician wants to hear.

“Oh my God, they’re throwing guitars outside,” Mr. Carroll recalled her saying.

“So it was noticeable enough to a passenger that she felt compelled to scream it out.”

A member of the Sons of Maxwell backing band looked out the window in time to see his bass flying through the air, which had followed Mr. Carroll’s $3,500 Taylor acoustic.

“Bass guitars are pretty indestructible but acoustic guitars aren’t,” Mr. Carroll said.

He tried to speak with three different United employees in Chicago to complain and was told to take it up with staff in Omaha. When he arrived in that city, it was late and no United employees were around, so he went with his band to the hotel and slept. Tour promoters picked them up early the next morning, so he didn’t check out the damage until later. [...]

That kicked off a frustrating ordeal that lasted months as Mr. Carroll sought to be reimbursed in flight vouchers for the $1,200 it cost to repair his guitar.

A measly $1,200.  That’s it.  And United still refused to pay until Mr. Carroll went public with his story.  Why is it that people have to embarrass a company before they do anything?  The people who refused to handle this affair at United need their heads slammed against a wall.

Come on, people. Ratchet up the votes.  And, for goodness sake, don’t fly United! :)

As you may or may not know, one of my favorite subjects is the delightful wackiness of Jack Layton, and few things make me smile as I do when a little light is shone on whatever insanity (or pure lunacy) he’s up to at the current moment. I swear, this man makes it just too easy. Again, I put forward the disclaimer that I am no fan of Jack Layton, and no other politician frustrates me more with their irrelevance on Parliament Hill as he does. (Aside from Stephane Dion who has pulled a ‘Houdini’ since he stepped down)

Now Jack Layton is coming out (again) flopping around like a fish out of water.

Only just the other day, Jack Layton was responding to Michael Ignatieff’s implication that he may just leave the NDP to prop up the Government in the fall, bragging about his record on 79 confidence motions.

Today, he’s saying he’s willing to compromise on E.I. (Again, thanks Paul), and presumably, Michael Ignatieff will use the results and subsequent actions taken from this “committee” when it reports in September as the catalyst once again for a fall election.

So, if Jack Layton has proven only one thing this past year or two, is that not only is he willing to lift NDP skirts to the highest bidder, but that any ‘hard line’ position he takes is subject to probable change. And given that this will likely be Jack Layton’s final year as NDP Leader (assuming that there are term limits with the NDP) he needs to do an about face on the direction he has been taking the party recently: The Hinterlands of Parliament Hill.

Can you imagine this man having to explain why an “historic” success in Nova Scotia can’t be followed up nationally? I mean, he was bragging about the huge gains the NDP were going to make in Quebec in the last election and that didn’t exactly work out for him…

No. Jack Layton is a has-been who is so far out in left field that the news has to be shipped in along with daylight.

His polished veneer aside, it was (and is) clear to me that Clinton remains a dedicated neo-liberal.

His entire speech was built upon the classic “it takes a village to raise a child” Hillary-ism.  From the environment to pandemics to Katrina to 911 to economics to AIDS to activism, the message was loud and clear: we are forever joined as a global community and there is no tearing us asunder. The key phrase of the day, interdependence. We can do nothing without each other; we will henceforth be constantly affecting one another; we are one big global family and it’s time we start acting like it.

On the environment the President figuratively channeled Al Gore, devoting as much as two minutes of his speech to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hysteria, specifically catastrophic sea level increases due to a 9-degree Celsius rise in global temperature and the melting of the Greenland ice cap by the end of the century, along with the death of the oceans due to man-made CO₂ emissions. Capping the fear mongering was the call to act quickly to avoid certain disaster.

Of course the methods we should employ to overcome the aforementioned “big problems” is where Clinton was conspicuously short on detail, probably because that’s where the devil lives and few be there who want to unleash him without first taking the time to convince people that he’s innocuous. The “devil” in this case being larger, farther-reaching government, which, judging by the themes of his speech, is Clinton’s vision for the future.  In fact, I remarked to my wife later in the evening that Clinton carefully sowed the seeds of world government without actually uttering the specific words — we can’t solve problems independently; we aren’t individual nations; our economies are intertwined; we cannot make progress without each other; solutions must be global in nature and reach; we will either rise or fall together, and only together.

The whole thing left me wondering if I the only person in attendance who had the slightest misgivings (“eebie-jeebies”) about what the President was saying and not saying.

To begin with, Mr. Mulroney is a bit irrelevant at the moment, isn’t he? Neither major party seems to want him, and someone whose charisma gave him the opportunity to become an “elder statesman” has become more of a target for low-level media bulldogs to take potshots at.

The program did have one redeeming value, though. Watching Kinsella practice pronouncing “Mulroney” was worth a laugh or two. He’s working very hard on it, as once he’s mastered the name he’ll only have a couple more phrases to go before he can be taken seriously as a political commentator.

If you’re interested in the position though, please note that while the Liberals like to force everyone else to pay their employees a “living wage”, the position only comes with a skimpy $12/hour wage, which wouldn’t even meet the cost of living in downtown Ottawa. But then again, when the Liberals aren’t using their first slogan “Get power at any cost, keep power at any cost”, they love to steal that catchy line, “Do what we say, but don’t say what we do!”. Just ask Warren “Cookies” Kinsella, he seems to have a pretty good grasp on the whole thing…

“In addition to John – sorry, the – I just noticed I jumped the gun here,” Obama said, pausing for several seconds as he looked at the prompter. “Go ahead. Move it up. I had already introduced all you guys.”

The particulars involve the United States Government issuing a “Letter of Marque” to a merchant ship as a kind of free pass to attack and repel hostile forces on the sea, by any means necessary.

It’s funny really, just the other day I was thinking about letting loose the “public” to protect themselves on the shipping lanes, or private enterprises operating as a for profit security force to go after these pirates who have been hijacking international ships. Turns out, I wasn’t alone on that. And even further to that, there is legal accomodation in the United States to do just that!

Obviously the system would have to be modernized, but if done quickly, it would provide an alternative means by which companies can protect their investments when entering designated ‘Pirate infested waters’. Additionally, it would provide jobs, security and investment opportunities without being a burden on the ‘public purse’.

Why can’t everyone do this? Well, back in 1856, the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law expressly abolished Privateering. The major powers of the time agreed and signed on, but the United States (whose navy at the time was virtually non-existant comparitavely speaking) declined to agree citing the need to have the option of arming merchant vessels in a time of war and retained the privlige of issuing these Letters.

Can Canada do this? I’m not certain of the legal inheritance of the obligation and/or adoption of this Declaration by Canada given that at the time, we were not an independant nation, but now that we are, and Canada’s name does not appear to be recorded… I’ll leave that to more legal minds than my own. However, if allowed, it would certainly be a possibility for some enterprising groups who might like the idea of patrolling the high seas for Queen and Country…

Just a thought.

However, I want someone to explain something to me.  Why is it that pot-smokers get a pass to blowing smoke in everyone`s faces while cigarette smokers are persona non grata in every Canadian city?

At the Britney Spears concert in Vancouver the other night, she was so overcome by the amount of pot smoke that she left the stage.  Granted, the PA system did make clear that GM Place was a non-smoking venue, but think about the attitude of the people doing the smoking.

Billy Bob Thornton in his most recent well-publicized interview with CBC’s Jian Ghomeshi, noted “I think it’s odd that you have to smoke inside a white stripe outside,” apparently referring to a no-smoking policy at buildings in the city(quoting CP).

What I don’t get (and I know because I live in Vancouver) is that the same granola-munching NIMBYs in Vancouver who suck on fatties like they’re Popeye candy sticks are revolted by cigarette smokers, and are seeking just as rabidly as residents of the Big Smoke (heh, that’s an ironic nickname for Toronto) to ostracize the nicotine-addicted.

But oh no, Cannabis is good for you!  Nicotine is evil…

It never even strike them for a moment the hypocrisy of their position, that it should be legal to blow Cannabis smoke around wherever and whenever they want, but SHUN!   SHUUUUN the EVIL CIGARETTE!

Now, I don’t smoke either of the weeds, but in this one instance I find myself sympathetic to both Britney Spears (cough) and the cigarette-smoker of Canada (choke).

First, as if it weren’t enough that Quebec abhors federal intrusion into their affairs, Jack Layton goes on to petition the Prime Minister to drag himself and government spending into the mess as well.

NDP leader Jack Layton said he intends to immediately send a letter making the request to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Next week, he intends to raise the issue of advertising by government departments and crown corporations in the chain’s newspapers during question period in the House of Commons.

Now, for a man trying to make gains off of their first MP elected in a province notorious for demanding more federal money, he is making the enormously stupid demand that the Federal Governmnet do exactly the opposite. Add to that, he is actively tampering in provincial jurisdiction; behaviour which is anathema to Quebecers and only serves as evidence for the BLOC and the PQ to use against Federalism. [insert golf clap here] Well done Jack. Well done.

Last night, Isabelle Dessureault, vice-president public affairs for Quebecor Media, responded to Layton’s plan saying he does not have all the facts.

“What the NDP is asking the government to do is take sides in a context where one of the two parties (Quebecor) exercised its rights under the actual laws in Quebec and Canada,” Dessureault said in an interview.

Dessureault noted that an inspector from the Quebec’s labour standards board recently visited the newspaper concluding no violations of the Labour Code in the current dispute.

What I personally find amusing, is that Jack Layton (the man who refuses to co-operate with the Conservatives on anything now asking for a favor?) continues to believe he has any influence with the Conservatives anymore. I dare say he has little credibility with even the Liberals these days.

That only leaves….oh yeah….

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address in Washington when he realised it all sounded a bit too familiar.

It was. He was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Mr Cowen stopped, turned to the president and said: “That’s your speech.”

A laughing Mr Obama returned to the podium to take over but it seems the script had finally been switched and the US president ended up thanking himself for inviting everyone to the party.

Mr Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the “teleprompt president” over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech. [emphasis mine]

How likely would this had happened if the President spoke from those archaic things called notes?

I’m glad the Prime Minister is seeing the wisdom of this approach now. Now let’s make sure Canada is a very active proponent of it and involved in it and bringing forward resources to help.

It’s a question of being thankful that the Prime Minister is now seeing that the pursuit of peace in Afghanistan requires negotiation. We’ve been trying to convince him of that for some time. He’s come to that conclusion. I welcome it. Let’s make sure that Canada is very active using those skills and that reputation that we have as a country for being involved in peacemaking.

Geeze Jack, I thought we were Peacekeepers, not Peacemakers.

But I’m thankful that the the Leader of the NDP is now seeing that the pursuit of peacekeeping in Afghanistan requires peacemaking. We’ve been trying to convince him of that for some time. He’s come to that conclusion. I welcome it.

What amazes me is that this man actually believes that people take him seriously these days, not that there was much stock in that to begin with. As I’ve said in other places, The NDP has been banished to obscurity in the House of Commons, and Jack has only himself to blame.

First, it’s fine and dandy for there to be a “Coalition“, just so long as the NDP are in and the Conservatives are out. The bitter comments about a “New Coalition” and his attacks on Michael Ignatieff only make him a fair-weather friend to anyone who speaks to him, and he’s put out both the Conservatives and the Liberals with his actions here. I’d argue that he continues to push the Liberals into the arms of the Conservatives.

Second, Jack Layton and the NDP insisted that Canada adopt a “Buy Canadian” policy in the wake of the “Buy American” flap. And yet, in his Open Letter to President Obama, he goes on to extol the virtues of maintaining open borders and markets. “By working together, our economies can come out of this recession faster, greener and stronger in a more prosperous North America.” This coming just after his speech to Parliament. I’m laughing.

Third, Jack Layton must be confused. There are no Tar Sands in Canada. Alberta has a widely known and currently-being-mined Oil Sands, but there are no Tar Sands. You’d think that after all his speechifying about the evil oil-based economic engine in Alberta where “Big Oil” is making a fortune, he’d know better. But maybe I’m expecting a little too much from Jack.

Forth (and probably finally as I think my point is being made), Jack Layton goes on to magnanimously offer Canadian assistance in the future of the campaign in Afghanistan:

“We support your call for a full strategic review of the mission in Afghanistan and the adoption of a much more comprehensive approach that respects human rights and places dialogue at the centre of a comprehensive peace process.”

“Canada can help you in charting a new path in Afghanistan“

The reality is, Jack Layton and the rest of the NDP have been aggressively antagonistic as they continuously insist that Canada immediately withdraw it’s troops from Afghanistan and that we have no business being over there. Now it appears that Jack Layton wants to assume the role of a blushing Canadian Bride to the Obama Administration. Hell, Jack Layton has lifted the NDP skirt and kicked off it’s knickers for everyone else, why not give the Americans a spin?

Admittedly, I don’t think much of the Muslims who are hell-bent (literally) to keep me from treating my sister as an equal, bacon cheeseburgers, or writing what I actually think on this blog, but in this case, I’m more than happy to sit back and watch the fireworks. Who knows, maybe it’ll make the Darwinists honest and if so, kudos to the Muslims if they pull it off. Maybe we’ll even get the added bonus of seeing a science classroom that is free of antiquated, irrelevant pseudo-science finally (150 years antiquated this year from what I’m told!).

After all, the monkey-worshiping crowd doesn’t want anything to do with a dirty creationist like me anyway, so I’ll just step out for a bit and let you and your Middle Eastern friend there have it out…survival of the fittest as they say! You’ve certainly earned it Richard! Just don’t say that nobody warned you that cutting those Christian ties wasn’t hazardous to your health… As for me, I’ll be out in the parking lot to take you to the hospital when this is all over! What a nice guy, eh?

The readers are not merely interested in bumping off Michelle and stealing President Hotstuff for themselves. They’re not just after sex. They daydream about having the Obamas over for an evening of “dinner and a game of Scrabble.”  People feel like the Obamas are the dream couple they wish they were friends with.  Some of this turns a little creepy, as readers express their Obama envy, wondering why their own marriages are not as idyllic as the Obamas’ marriage seems, or wondering why their kids can’t have sleepovers with the Obama children.

For those who were disappointed to find out that Obama Girl was an actress whose sympathies actually lay with Mrs Clinton, take heart. There are real Obama Girls, with real crushes on the President. They are, apparently, middle-aged women with boring marriages. Some of them even blog for the New York Times.