HST mud.

You just noticed gas is 10 cents more.  You’re probably pissed.  Maybe you’ve seen the list.  The list of what’s getting taxed and what’s not.   Gas realistically should cost way more anyway, because (almost always) the environmental costs are externalized.

Before you go on an Atlas Shrugged tirade, know some things.  Based on reductions in your income tax (which we probably didn’t notice), the nominal HST rebate cheques, and upcoming HSTness, the burden on the average consumer is minimal.  Rich people will pay more, boo hoo.  It’s true that some new costs are burdened on the consumer’s shoulders.  However, lower income status Ontarians will face the smallest brunt.

The thing that really rubs wrong is how Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak is vehemently opposing the HST.  This guy is supposed to be a pro-jobs, pro-business, economy-centric conservative.  When economists from around the world believe it’s the best way to maintain competitiveness and help Ontario businesses, completely inane politicization ensues.  Don’t tell me you’re an NDP man of the people Mr. Hudak.  He is disagreeing simply because political parties should never actually agree right?   The infuriating, terrible 2s, GOP method of NO.

I totally gave Hudak a chance.  If he was reasonable, this would be an interesting political race.  But this HST opposition is proof that he’s exactly the worst person for the job.  When you instantly contradict yourself right out of the gate, I’m out.  Read a great Globe article on the HST here .  This is your education.  Then if you want, read why economists like it here and here.   Happy wading.

Andrew Sullivan.

Great writer, big politico of the smart conservative variety, smart guy.  Here’s his latest blog post about why he’s leaving the traditional conservative movement:

I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.

And increasingly, I’m not alone.

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.

I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.

I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.

I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.

I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.

Does this make me a “radical leftist” as Michelle Malkin would say? Emphatically not. But it sure disqualifies me from the current American right.

To paraphrase Reagan, I didn’t leave the conservative movement. It left me.

Of course the left has its issues – messy political correctness, interventionism, sometimes even lacking common sense.  But he’s 100% right and he said everything I’d want to say to an unaware hard righter.  I’m glad someone like Andrew Sullivan can call out the spade on his back.

eWaste.

[via CBC]

Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives are calling for a public inquiry into the province’s eHealth scandal.  There are too many unanswered questions left over after the provincial auditor general’s report last week into eHealth, PC Leader Tim Hudak said Tuesday at Queen’s Park.

Darn right.  Over $1 billion in supposed waste in modernizing our health care system.   How insanely and incomprehensibly disappointing.  The goal of the organization is to optimize health care spending and use technology and innovation to get there, so I think it’s fair to assume that both reds and blues would be a proponent of this general move.  The management of it however may have been better under a different political leash, we don’t know.  I know very little about Tim Hudak thus far, all I know is that he falls much further to the right than moderates like John Tory.   He does Bush-esque things, Harrisy things.  And that is that.

Canada is known to be one of the most decentralized federations in the world.  We are a very diverse country, so I’m all in favour of giving more resources and authority to the provinces.  So us Ontarians – do we have the Liberal waste and overspending, or concerning neocon ideology.  More worse and worse, undoubtedly more voter cynicism, and the downward spiral in Canadian politics continues.  So resolved, possibly naive, possibly exactly right.  But I’m still voting Green.

Happy belated 4th.

Happy 4th of July to my American friendlies.  I have to hand it to you guys, you are pretty awesome.  Especially compared to us saps the past five years.  And no, not saying that with partisan bifocals on.  Remember peacekeeping?  Remember an esteemed international reputation?  Remember some sense of  leadership and identity separate from US policy?  Remember distance  from exploitative Calgarians?  Give us something to feel good about sir, and no, increased military spending and a 2%  reduction in GST that I don’t even notice doesn’t count.  A reduction that you so desperately wish you had right now.

I find it so funny that the principles of political (neo)conservatism, so seemingly “steeped in realism”, interventionist foreign policy, and low taxes continues to shows its mug as a sham.  OK, perhaps a bit unfair as their whole point of view is trying to do more with less.  But what I can fairly say is that in the past 30 years they have been all bark and no bite.  I appreciate what they’re trying to do – reduce the government’s control on one’s rights and money.  But regardless of the party in power government has operated in the same way.  The conservative trophy so often goes to Reagan who cut taxes early, and years later realized he was so screwed that taxes went right back up.  I’m not saying high taxes and government inefficiency is the answer either, but when you’re already taxed so much how is a 1-2% reduction a massive victory at the cost of truly valuable investments for Canadians’ quality of life?  Obvious – Canadians feel so uninspired by their politics.  Maybe it’s relativity, no one can follow the  Obama show, understood.  But attack ads and the unrelenting rhetoric of division and bullying (to both the Bloc and the Liberals) makes for straight up disappointment and frustration.

On a  generic tangent, I feel we all complain that government is too slow, too bureaucratic, too inefficient, which is absolutely true on a superficial level.  But compared to what?  Business?  Spread those eggs, Jack.  Democracy… a challenge.  Towards fairness, consensus, and co-operation amongst a host of competing interests.  How can this model be compared to a business model that is autocratically focused on the singluarity of profit?  Not fairness, not justice, not equity, and god forbid a few drops of compassion.  Fair is not fast friends, don’t assume that it is.  I’m ok with that.

Perpetuity.

We are going to have minority governments until the country finds a leader that cranks the chain harder than Christina Ricci.  Sorry, bad mediocre movie joke.  Or if the left finds some way to merge together like the Conservatives did.  Democracy! Choice!  Two party systems and true partisanship!  The hundredth horse of apocalypse!

Liberal or Green, she’s a toss up.  Or as Ben Gibbard frequently proclaims, head vs heart.

Deregulation Age.

“Anything that has to be rescued like a bank needs to be regulated like a bank”.

Less regulation has proven to be the wrong answer.  Partisanship is hard when you want to get along with someone, but you also happen to have fundamentally different views on governance and the economy.  Oh, and when this side is also blatantly hypocritical.  Tough.

I feel like opponents of deregulation now have crystal arguments to show that this style isn’t going to cut it anymore.  To paraphrase Nobel economist Paul Krugman, in the past 50 years the periods with more regulation, not less, have proven to be more healthy and stable periods of economic growth.  Regulation gets marketed by conservatives as impenetrable walls and a hindrance to economic growth for their own misguided political reasons.  The thing I find so funny (and amazing) about the outspoken right is they believe that big government and regulation is the devil.  Remember 2002-2008? We all know of Bush’s massive/bloated government and weak regulation along with its result.  Dickery.  And when the con pundits try and call “porkulus” on Obama’s stimulus for a similar amount of money as their “we-need-700-billion-without-an-eye-shake-because-you-will-die-otherwise”?  I just want to angrylaugh at that brainwashing hypocrisy.

Stimulus is not an option, it’s needed, and a big one is needed. Irrefutable.  If McCain was elected he would’ve consulted the same economists and still pushed through a massive bill.  Buuut Fox News would’ve said it was needed.  Aaaand now the blood has boiled out of my veins.  To be fair, MSNBC would have likely been dicks about it, too.  

It’s easy to get people on board with conservative ideals – “Low taxes and tax cuts?  Small government?  Yeah, the government does suck! Blame succesfully externalized!  Unapologetic defense commence!”  Hmm, sounds like something else.  All political and economic structures are created by humans, inherently flawed.  To ignore our (military, socio-economic, political) actions and imminent mistakes is just that – ignorant.  Government normalizes these mistakes, so let’s actualize.  In this case, research (and thus governance) is advocating for economic stimulus.  Tax cuts will not create stimulus, it will just allow citizens to save or pay off debt. Your band-aids are getting sweaty.  We need this, and and we also need government to be better, not smaller.  Easier said than done, I know.  But out of anyone to do it?  mmhmm.

This is Obama’s press conference from last night.  His style is clarity, intelligence, openness.  He scaremongers a bit (which obviously gets exacerbated by the media), but I think at least some if it is actually warranted.  Seems so heavy.

A letter sent to our Environment Minister.

Hello Mr. Prentice,

I am writing to express my profound concern in the current government’s choices to possibly scrap the Environmental Assessment Act.  I am assuming this is due to Mr. Harper’s hope to cut costs amidst this “economic crisis”, but the reality is clear.  This would allow projects to possess zero environmental accountability, and any imminent impact would simply be too late to fix properly.  One of the many great aspects of EA is its inherent obligation to use the precautionary principle – to study and investigate socio-cultural, environmental, and even cumulative impacts of a given undertaking and provide necessary means to ensure these impacts will not affect future populations.  I understand that by scrapping the regulation, this would quickly greenlight more oil sands and more resource extraction projects without much deliberation.  But how many pieces of evidence are needed to know that this is clearly a mistake?  At the very least, these resources should be extracted at responsible rates where impacts are closely studied.  Without regulation this would be even more ignored than it already is!  This could have major impacts on potable water, air quality, habitat, and affect species at risk.

I sincerely hope your administration considers your environmental choices seriously.  History perpetually points out that cuts and shortcuts lead to disastrous consequences.  This will be no different.

Thank you,

Mike Christie
Montreal, QC

Happy New Year.

Hope everyone had a nice holiday, happy 2009.

I had an opening thought for the year – do you wonder if the Conservatives are slapping themselves for cutting the GST by 2% given their imminent deficit in a few weeks?  I wonder how much this would’ve helped our economic situation.  I personally don’t feel the difference between a 13% and a 15% GST, but I’m quite certain the boys in their beloved white shirts, the showered and blue blazered will definitely miss this revenue.  I realize this could be touted as economic stimulus for citizens, but is it actually?  If this means less services for those in need or less funding for things like the arts, then I think it was a decision that lacked any foresight, and/or misguided for my tax dollar and vote.

The proroguees.

Ewwwwww dad joke!  No not a food post.

Parliament will be prorogued (delayed, “reset”) until January 26th. I’m mixed about it but overall I’m happy – I’m glad the coalition wasn’t fully embraced, and I’m glad the confidence vote won’t happen on Monday.  What I don’t know yet is will it happen on January 26th?  Are we delaying the inevitable? Will this make things worse?  Are the Cons working hard to get a sound and supported budget during this break or will they just worry about campaignesque ads and more division of the country?  I was sick of the division south of the border, we’re just getting a slapback of it right now.

Another common concern is that Dion isn’t the leader to convince Canadians that a coalition is the right idea, and the video last night was a perfect example of this.  Here it is in case you didn’t see it:

Was anyone convinced from this?  The language itself seemed stronger than Harper’s, but how he came across was clearly weaker.  And albeit petty, was there anyone in your caucus that knows how to rent and turn on a decent video camera?  Come on guys.

Here’s Harper’s:

I love the stock intro, hilarious.  But let’s face it, he looks like the PM and carries himself and his rhetoric that way.

I genuinely like the coalition on paper – NDP-Liberal marriage, a great test drive for a proportional representation governing style, and an ethos of co-operation in tough times.  But something needs to happen first – a country that’s behind PR is one thing, less whining and more collaboration is another.  Finally, we want a government in power that’s been elected as Canadians understand it.  In theory we have done this – we elect a group of MPs, not a Prime Minister.  But the way we conceptualize the Canadian political system and how it’s actually carried out is very different – and we really just learned that this week.

Maybe it’s naive of me, but I don’t know think we will be too set back from this delay in parliament, it may be a blessing in disguise so Harper actually listens to his house to avoid another firestorm.  Really, if he includes a stimulus package in the budget for a number of sectors, the opposition should technically shut their mouths, since you know.. this isn’t a grab for power or anything.  It was their supposed reason for forming a coalition (even though Mr. Jack Layton was planning a Bloc partnership right after the election), we’ll just have to wait and see if they are slimier than the electorate even expect.

Blindsided.

What the hell is going on in our country tonight?  So incredibly confusing, so little time to react.  Not to sound too conspiracy theory, but this is exactly what Naomi Klein talks about in her new book – extreme events (political, environmental) and the vulnerability of countries to undergo massive political/economic choices for the lucrative benefit of a very small group of people.

Who knows if Harper was acting like a baby and arrogantly hiding his crucially needed (yet reportedly insufficient) economic plans until February, especially in a concerning time.  Or maybe it was three other babies that tried to push a constitutional loophole and get their time in the sun for the next few years.  And do this in a way that feels so coup-like and undemocratic.  Their arguments sound convincing for a few moments, but it still supercedes our democratic process.  It is technically constitutional but I keep hearing this is a major gray area in the constitution.  We also live in an archaic democratic structure, so perhaps we should work on electoral or constitutional reform before we stage an uprising two months after an election.  Right?

Wasn’t our GDP up by 0.3% this past month?  Are we being lied to when we’re told we’re in good shape amongst the G8? The US’ downturn should obviously be the canary for Canada, but wouldn’t this situation be greatly improved if action was forced on the Conservatives?  Are they that impenetrable?  They reinstated public funding for the parties and upped the budget date by a bit?

Already over 3000 comments on one CBC article, that’s not too bad given our dismal voter turnout.  Not to mention a major drop in the TSX and another $300 million with likely election #2?

This will be an interesting week, hope you’re ready guvnah.

Politicktock.

Lots of things are happening, and I don’t know if it’s just drama.  And I’m also confused.

But what this is sounding like is that the NDP and the Liberals are teaming up to form a coalition government with some form of support from the Bloc.  I don’t know a lot about politics, but this just seems wrong.  Unless this was over a war, a highly warranted coup, complete corruption, then sure.   Don’t get me wrong, I’m a proud lefty, but this sounds completely undemocratic.

Now it seems the Conservatives have dropped this funding issue due to the ensuing crapstorm, but the thirst for power hasn’t changed.  Now it seems they are arguing that the Conservatives have no plan for economic stimulus or recovery.  But what astounds me is that they haven’t even seen the bloody budget yet!!  Let’s try and keep some civility and hear their plan first – then think about taking action if the opposition has legitimate concerns.

Regardless, if we wake up next week and it’s Prime Minister Dion or Prime Minister Ignatieff, who will actually be happy?  Either a person everyone hates or a person noone has voted for.  How wouldn’t this be a complete PR disaster for the left, destroying any shred of integrity they have left?  Yes these coalition parties would represent about 63% of the popular vote, and yes the Conservatives received less votes than in the last election (yet with more seats) along with the lowest voter turnout in history.  The fact still remains is that they were democratically elected.  This coalition still seems to supercede our entire democratic and election process.

The CBC continually is saying that there is so much “going on behind closed doors”.  Way to go democracy.  It seems like after this week, it’s up to the GG to allow this coalition government to take shape.  That’s a tough job, but I wouldn’t accept anything short of Johnny Cochrane to try and convince me.

Maybe this video will change your mind, it didn’t really change mine:

Inter polls.

The margins appear to be narrowing in terms of popular vote, but who knows how this will play out in the Neanderthalic first past the post system here in Canada next week. Blue and red are switching teams with hot and cold.

Amongst all of this insane economic “uncertainty” (aka thank god I’m so poor), I’m surprised the most money minded party is waning in popularity.  But I will take a stab at it – how about when Harper told Mansbridge that he thought this was a good time to buy, along with the droves of artists, musicians, actors, and film industry employees that are pushing the cultural card.  As someone who I picture maniacally calculating, it genuinely surprises me that he’s made these sorts of apparent blunders.  At first I thought his dis to the arts was to solidify his conservative base.  Let’s face it, the artsies won’t vote for him anyway.  But didn’t he realize that these cultural leaders have an insane amount of pull and influence on all different types of voters?  This is being seen all over the place now – the extremely mediocre (but meaningful) song produced by Canadian artists to promote culture within the country, the press coverage on people in the arts and culture protesting in Toronto, and of course the liberal bias within Canadian media… right?

Why I’m voting Green.

You’re judging already aren’t you.  I probably would too, and then subsequently think I’m a spacy, anti-establishment, granola cruncher.  Most of that is true too, but hey, I’m allowed to have my ideals.

Really this isn’t an active choice, more of a process of elimination.  So here we go:

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party – first of all, misnomer.   Try Alliance Reform we like Ross Perot party.  I kid, no name calling necessary.  They simply don’t align with my values, straight up.  Proponents of private health care, irresponsibly accelerated rates of oil extraction in the Tar Sands, cuts to the arts, and have less foresight than Sarah Palin’s pitbull/lipstick joke.  Not to mention his Bush-like refusals to have meaningful conversations with the media for the past few years.  And oh yeah, where’s your bloody platform?  Don’t worry, I know it’s not under your sweater.

Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party – Stephane, I like you enough, really I do.  But it’s because I really want to like you and I’m trying my damndest to like you.  You’re making it bloody difficult.  I want you to show us the fierce strong guy that brought us the Clarity Act.  But now you rely on your “team” of Bob fucking Rae and all the guys that couldn’t beat you in the leadership convention?!?  Come on.  This team now fully means that you and everyone else believe that you can’t lead on your own.  You seem like a great guy, and I even don’t mind your Green Shift plan, but you’re just not the right person to take on Mr. Harper and take back the country to the Canadian Redbook middle.  I want Ignatieff, and quick.

Jack Layton and the NDP – JACK.  You were my guy!  We were all tight, I talked to you on the Danforth about water quality and your trip to Gros Morne and your trip with Olivia to the caves!  Your numbers are increasing in the polls, and I am happy for you.  Overall, you’re fighting a good fight, you’re just not going to get my vote while I live here in Montreal, QC.  You want to know why?  Because I’m getting worried that this “integrity” you preach is bullshit.  You are selling out Anglophone Quebecers by supporting Bill 101 in order to gain more Francophone votes.  Among many other things, Bill 101 helps strengthen the use of the French language in Quebec, implicity discouraging anglophones from moving and residing in Quebec.  Although I can see where this bill is coming from (in a separatist kind of way), as an English speaker in Montreal (and trying my damndest to learn your impossible dialect), my life here would be much more difficult if 101 was fully implemented.  Thus I can’t support you this time.  And after witnessing you dodging too many questions, spinning answers like a typical untrustworthy politician, your cap and trade climate change solution, and being vehemently pro-union, I’m wondering about my future support.

Elizabeth May and the Greens – Well missy May.  Sorry, Mz. May.  You got my vote, I want to ride your bandwagon.  Or should I say Via trainwagon.  I secretly want to think your cross Canada tour on the train was exactly like Festival Express.  Please tell me you’re Janis.  Anyway, this is a woman that not only impressed me but many other Canadians in the televised national debate.  She supports the OECD recommended income tax cut/carbon tax plan, even supported by neo-con idols (read: head economists).  For me, she offers answers with honesty, integrity, and foresight.  This is what I see lacking in virtually all parties.  Stephen Harper’s eyes cannot see past 4 years into the future, as do most politicians.  The economy will always take some sort of hit when shifting to more environmental policies, but this impact won’t be far reaching, especially if the country invests intelligently in developing green energy and related industries. Quick tip boys and girls – do you know where oil comes from?  how about those precious automobiles and the rest of the manufacturing sector?  Even the computers you’re typing on?  Yes, it all comes from the EARTH.  Having weak environmental policy is having weak long term economic policy, plain and simple.  Do we want to be a short term thinking kind of society?  We are way smarter than that.  We can only go on ignoring weak environmental policy for so long.  Let’s actually be proactive here.  You know what reactive politics gets you?  THIS.  I could rant forever, but Elizabeth May believes in fostering local food production (a huge issue for me), punishing polluters, investing in national rail, and getting troops out of Afghanistan in a respectable period of time.  Sign me up.

The awesome and hilarious irony of this overly long post is that yours truly, a left wing anglophone living in Montreal resides in a little riding called Laurier-Sainte Marie.  Do you know who has been running in this riding the past decade or so?

Isn’t irony a bitch?  Gilles, you’re a good guy, and I hear this is your last campaign.  I’m glad this is the last time an anglophone’s vote won’t count in your lovely riding.   Allez Vert!