The election did not take place

It is a masquerade of information: branded faces delivered over to the prostitution of the image, the image of an unintelligible distress. No images of the field of battle, but images of masks, of blind or defeated faces, images of falsification. --Jean Baudrillard, The Gulf War Did Not Take Place

A brief virtual struggle of images is over. Today we have a minority Conservative government. Four leaders are back in the House. A sweater-vest fought with poor stick-handling; another kind of strong took on the vote for tomorrow. Faces on television mouthed talking-points. Texts wrestled with other texts. Marks on ballots became speeches to the faithful.

Some images prevailed; others were erased. Canada had a conversation: sleepwalkers, passing each other on the cool sidewalks, exclaiming. Put comic balloons over their heads; write your own words in them.

There was no election. There was a blink, a flurry of movement, blurred screens.

The program resumes. We breathe again, and settle in to watch.

Full moon over Ottawa

8:44pm. "E-Day." Already I'm a member of an in-group.

This is my first foray into liveblogging. I won't be announcing any results before all of the polls have closed. I leave that to extra-territorial reprobates who are above the law. Instead, I hope that commenters will raise some issues of interest. To start things off:

What about this Elections Canada blackout rule? I was in favour of it earlier today: I'd never really thought about it much, but I figured that it was interfering in an electoral process that should consist of individuals casting ballots based upon their own beliefs and values, not upon what other people are doing.

Then I took the dog for a long walk, and realized that nothing about that position made any sense. First, because of our ridiculous first-past-the-post system, millions of votes tonight will simply be wasted, while millions more will go to candidates whom the voters don't really want. The latter, strategic voting, is inevitable when only some of the votes cast really count. Given that this is the system, though, why shouldn't electors be able to vote strategically based upon what is happening all around them at the moment? And, even with a democratic system of proportional representation, one might have one's reasons to vote strategically--to provide Parliamentary balance if one party is scooping up too many seats, or, under two-ballot MMP, to help prevent a local candidate one doesn't like from winning.

More generally: why should voters be denied information at any point in the process? Why should they become isolated atoms on E-Day? Isn't voting, first and foremost, a social act?

So I've talked myself into believing that Election Canada rules are wrong even for the regular media. It's not just a matter of enforcement, but of principle. Am I wrong? Comments welcome.

9:54 Conservative minority. The election never took place. How many more confidence votes will Dion duck?

10:26 Paul Dewar is back, thank all the gods that be. Angry Baird has knuckle-walked to victory.

10:30 I'm off to the Dewar celebration to drink myself to death. Full moon. The hairy-knuckled folks are on the prowl. Two more dreadful years of the Conservative-Liberal coalition. Night all.

Dr.Dawg endorses the NDP

[If anonymous editorialists can get away with this stuff, my last-minute endorsement is just as authoritative and probably will be just as effective --DD]

The only serious choice for electors on Tuesday is Jack Layton's NDP. We (that's the royal "we": Marie Ève is on her own here) say this after considerable soul-searching and a critical examination of what each party has to offer. Given that we're smarter than the Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail, more principled than the Toronto Star, and a lot nicer than the National Post, we expect that our endorsement will enjoy a serious reception.

It's not that we believe that Jack Layton is the perfect leader. He sometimes appears too interested in scoring debating points, and at other times the "light and lively" label might, with some reason, be applied. But knowing Jack as we do, we would indeed buy a used car from this man, and drive it with confidence down the highway to the future.

True, he has not been tested with the responsibilities of government, except at the municipal level. But we can think of another candidate in another election campaign in another country who has similar experience, and is considered to be a serious contender for the second and even the top office in the land. Lack of government experience should never--repeat, never--be a bar to high office. Indeed, such experience can be a positive disadvantage: the wiles and tricks of governmental back-room dealings have poisoned the political culture of the established parties in Canada, and, when allowed to erupt into public consciousness, have offended the nation.

As a former Metro Toronto councillor, leader of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, and Member of Parliament, Jack brings a seasoned career of political activism to the table, and a team of candidates who, by and large, are no worse than the candidates of other parties. For every slur about alleged "Islamists" or "truthers" flung at individual NDP candidates, too often without any foundation at all, the NDP could point to the extremist connections of, for example, Conservative hopeful Peter Kent and the far-right Coalition for Canadian Democracies, in which he holds executive office. Provincially, NDP governments have ruled responsibly, and--with the notable exception of a certain now-Liberal candidate--have handled the financial side of the job with prudence, without tearing up labour union contracts to do so.

More importantly, however, the NDP has a human face, and it isn't ashamed to show it. The Conservative Party tries to appeal to the inner stockbroker; the Greens court small entrepreneurs who want a different type of conservatism. The Bloc makes its pitch to narrow regional interests that the québécois themselves have long outgrown, and the Liberals chat up anyone who's listening. Only the NDP actually stands consistently for people--ordinary, working people and their families.

Whether this includes bolstering health care by hiring more doctors and nurses and investing in cancer research, or offering a Child Benefit and a children's nutritional plan to hard-pressed working households, or investing in social housing, or protecting the environment with measures that are easily understandable and will work, the NDP has a detailed, well-thought-out platform.

The NDP stands foursquare against so-called "social conservatism" and the smoldering bigotry in some Canadian backwaters that has been fanned into flame by the Harper conservatives. The latter want small, non-intrusive government--unless it comes to women's reproductive choice and people with a non-heterosexual orientation. They want everyone who comes to live in Canada to be just like them--a frankly horrifying prospect. The NDP recognizes the importance and the desirability of immigration and diversity, and believes that every citizen of this country, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity, is a first-class citizen.

The NDP will also put some substance behind Harper's empty and self-serving "apology" to our First Nations, with a comprehensive plan to invest in aboriginal and Métis education, health, and skills training. And it will put an end to Canada's shame on the international stage by signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In foreign policy, Canada will chart an independent course, not merely wait for signals from the White House. In the Middle East, the NDP will work for solutions, rather than turning Canada into a blind adherent for one side of that many-sided conflict. As for our foreign military adventures, which even Stephen Harper has by now thought better about, the NDP will return our military to peacekeeping roles and defending our sovereignty in the Arctic.

But more important than any of these specifics is vision. The NDP is only party that looks forward--not backward like the Conservatives and the Bloc, not nervously everywhere like the Liberals, and not merely with a focus on the environment, as important as that is, like the Greens.

It's not that the NDP has a completely unclouded view of what is to come--but that's to be welcomed. We have had our fill of blueprints and grand schemes over the past century. Nor, if the NDP comes to power, can we be certain that it, too, will avoid opportunistic betrayals of people and principles, as the Bob Rae government in Ontario so amply demonstrated. Rather, the NDP offers us hope--possibilities for ordinary citizens to be heard, be involved and be effective.

The NDP will modernize our electoral system so that every vote counts. It will abolish that expensive house of patronage known as the Senate. It will implement legislation to force would-be floor-crossers in the House of Commons to resign first and run in a by-election. It will look for a non-confrontational, cooperative partnership between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

The NDP will also make government more accountable--by strengthening the Access to Information Act, enforcing the abandoned provisions of the Accountability Act, and establishing rules and guidelines for ethical behaviour by government, parties and politicians.

In a time of economic crisis and a worsening democratic deficit, we do not need more of what we've had for two years--autocratic micromanaging, secrecy, attacks on independent government watchdogs, and an ideological agenda borrowed from the extremist wing of the US Republican Party. Nor do we need the "what do we do now?" approach of the Liberals, never seeking solutions on behalf of Canadians as a whole, but looking only and always for advantage and power for itself. The NDP has a more workable and effective environmental platform than the Green Party, and a more inclusive view of Canada than the insular and out-of-date Bloc Québécois.

The NDP is not all things to all people, and it does not offer either a perfect leader or perfect policies. But Jack Layton and his team can be trusted to get the big things right. In the midst of current global uncertainty we need not only strong and thoughtful leadership, but the ability to empathize with the Canadian public--and to listen. We need, in other words, a humane approach as well as a hard-headed one. Only the NDP offers both of these qualities to an alienated electorate. Tomorrow, vote not just for change, but for change that could make a difference.

Memories of Banana Republic ...

Perhaps the posts were based on incorrectly worded news items. Perhaps we are on the eve of an election result that will compound the divisiveness that the Conservatives have fostered and encouraged in this campaign. Perhaps it is the waxing of the moon.

In any event, some progressive bloggers have let an unsavoury tone creep into their thinly veiled accusations about supposed irregularities that occurred around the control of advance polls by Elections Canada, in a specific riding in Québec.

Three Ballot Boxes From Advance Polls Missing In Quebec - Do we need independent observers?

Since when does Elections Canada ask or allow scrutineers from the competing political parties to take ballot boxes home with them overnight?? ...

We are NOT Zimbabwe ... at least not yet ...

Now, I might make a comment about how gracious it is that the rest of Canada allows Québecois people to vote in this election, if one were to judge by the comments made about this so-called fishy business. But I won't.

But, but .... my mother?

It is always instructive to observe what happens to bullies when the chips are down. Some become more aggressive, some hide behind their mother's skirt, some threaten to remove their stuff and stomp off.

Stephen Harper, when the hot soup started boiling over, resorted to childish petulance. When pushed by a reporter on the matter of Canadians' mortgages, their savings, their pensions, Harper retorted that the current economic situation provided "buying opportunities" for some people. Oh yes, ordinary working Canadians - most of whom are not day traders - surely rushed out to take advantage of Harper's stock market advice.

When he was confronted with the evidence of backlash his comments provoked, Stephen enlisted his mother to help him out. Did anyone keep count of how many times he mentioned his mother's name in his public utterances about pensions? Awwww. Isn't it nice to know that his mom can still come to his rescue, even though Harper clearly liked his Dad best?

And now, it's been hinted that Stephen Harper, if denied the majority government he wants and were he to lose a minority mandate, would withdraw from the leadership of the CPC. To do what? Stomp back to Alberta to join the political movement to separate the western provinces from the rest of Canada? If that were the case, it would not surprise me. I've always suspected that Harper's position on a united Canada was strategic and opportunistic.

Admit to it, Stephen: you cooked your own goose. Enjoy your thanksgiving dinner. Many of us are thankful that your famous blue sweater gimmick flopped and that ordinary Canadians were able to hear your unchecked words and to watch your unscripted actions in all its common, ordinary bullying behaviour.

Palin' into insignificance: GOP campaign takes fatal hit

It's October.

Surprise!

Sarah Palin has been found guilty of abuse of authority while Governor of Alaska, by an ethics committee whose work the Republicans fought kicking and screaming every step of the way. You could smell the rancid stink of fear as party hacks tried desperately to block the inquiry, ending up having their nether parts handed to them by the Alaska Supreme Court yesterday.

The so-called "Troopergate" scandal (more background here, and here), in which Palin abused her powers as Governor to go after her sister's former husband, firing the Commissioner of Public Safety when he stoutly resisted her demands that he fire the ex in question, reveals a petty, venal, vengeful mind. Having left her home state a toxic waste dump, both literally and figuratively, she could have been that proverbial one heartbeat away from the Presidency. Imagine such a fundamentally flawed, unethical, shallow and incapable individual with the whole world for her playground, and her mitts on the launch codes.

What an ignominious conclusion to the McCain-Palin mud-wrestling tag-team match that we've been watching with horrified fascination for weeks. The rest is all anti-climax. Move along, folks--nothing to see here, and I do mean nothing. They're already assembling the Greek columns for the January inauguration of That One. And this time, I suspect, they'll be using real marble.

Breaking news: speech war downgraded to scuffle

First the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Then the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Now the BCHRT. It's a hat-trick, and the game's over, warriors. You can come out of the jungle now.

A masochist says to a sadist: "Beat me! Please!"

"No," says the sadist. "Suffer!"

And just so, the mob of sadistic kangaroos at the BC Human Rights Tribunal have failed to deliver the sweet lash of tyranny. They refused to hop all over our basic rights and freedoms with their big hind feet. The wretches offering themselves in their spiffy homespun bondage outfits have been left sweaty, gasping and unfulfilled. The 'roos did just what the speech-warriors feared. Bastards!

And what of the other animals? The small dead ones. The silly gibbering ones.

Will they recant their raving paranoid fantasies of jackboots, jihad and police-statism?



Will they take back their stupid, vulgar comments about the BC Human Rights Tribunal members? Will they rub their eyes, like morning-after victims of too much partying, and have the grace to apologize for their boorish behaviour?

Well, will they?

Fat chance.

What a sad, snivelling, contemptible sneak of inept, foolish, uncivil, shrieky, posturing, intellectually bankrupt, lying weasels.

What's next for them now? Bankrolling the CIC to get the decision reversed on review?

Fate can be so darned unkind sometimes. Here's the most expectant, hopeful crowd of pain-craving martyr-wannabes ever assembled. And not a crucifix, pit, pendulum, dungeon, rack, whip, or wheel in sight. Nary a thumbscrew, not so much as a used nipple-clamp. Not a single jackbooted, leering BCHRT leather-boy to be seen. Just a few puzzled or contemptuous ordinary folks shopping or mowing their lawns or heading to work. OMG, what to do? Break out the blank signs, people! Keep the cause alive! Hope for the worst!

Or do for yourself what The State refused to do:



Ah, that's better. For everyone concerned, I might add.

UPDATE: (October 11) "What's next for them now? Bankrolling the CIC to get the decision reversed on review?" Holy crap! I wasn't being serious, Mark.

Final stages of dissolution

It was a pleasure, I'll confess, to wake up this morning to the flensing of Mike Duffy for his disgraceful, boorish, unethical behaviour last night. And it was a relief to see that one solid Canadian value--fairness--is still so vigorously in effect.

In a way, the treatment of Stephane Dion by CTV sums up the election campaign as a whole: its peculiar nastiness, a rotten import from the south that the Tories, since the day they mocked Jean Chretien's facial disfigurement, still imagine will play well up here. And maybe in little jerkwater hamlets like Delisle it does, but not among civil Canadians.

The Conservatives are all over this soft lob from Duffy, of course. Earth to the CPC: we aren't buying it. Decency still counts for something, even during an election campaign. Dion is starting to look positively magisterial compared to the cold-eyed autocrat you want us to support for his "leadership" qualities. The awkward, gangling, nerdy fellow from Quebec might even have a shot at being the next Prime Minister. And this, despite the last-ditch smarmy interventions of oh-so-wise journalistic talking heads whose corporate groupthink has helped to paralyze the body politic for decades.

What a desperate, contemptible move by a party whose fortunes have waned so rapidly over the past few days. And don't blame all of the latter on the incredible shrinking economy. Canadians are rightly worried: indeed, in the words of one financial commentator today, "Even panic is starting to look like a realistic response." But in such times we want reassurance--not bizarre suggestions that we spend money on stock bargains. We are looking for a sympathetic connection and a comprehensible plan.

Instead, when a man is asked an ambiguous question that would pose a challenge to most of us even in our first language, we're treated to petty, slimy personal insults. If Dion in now in sight of a minority victory, this shameful little episode might just push him past the finish line. And if that happens, while I shall never vote Liberal in my life, I'll be cheering.

Bye, bye, Stephen

As the Conservative ship is listing badly and taking on water, few will shed a tear other than the tears of frustration we're now seeing on the anxious faces of the party faithful. Captain Harper, navigating between sea-monsters--on one side, the so-con Scylla, on the other, the latte-sipping, artsy-fartsy, vaguely treasonous Charybdis--has finally fetched up on the shoals of the economy.

His was a missed opportunity of historic proportions. Under our antique and undemocratic electoral system, the Cons only had to corral 40% or so of the votes of those who bothered to turn up at the polls (maybe a quarter of the electorate), to rule unimpeded for four ghastly years. The goal wouldn't be easy to achieve, but it was hardly out of reach.

"Strong" (read autocratic) leadership, therefore, almost inevitably became a key issue. There are always people who seek the vicarious thrill of sadopolitics--jailing 14-year-olds, sending troops off to fight foreign wars, poking culture in the eye, sticking it to the CBC, dissing the "liberal" media, bullying and firing bureaucrats, and crushing anyone else who gets in the way. For the Conservatives there is no shortage of targets, as we have seen: it's been high noon for nearly two years.

And then four things happened.

First, the handlers decided to let the Conservative basement kids loose. The results were some serious gaffes that could have derailed the campaign. The machine was soon back on track, and by itself this difficult start could have been overcome, but it left questions in many people's minds. Nevertheless, the polls, if not the pollsters,* were looking pretty good, especially in swing ridings (now renamed "battleground riding's" as our psychological deep integration with the US continues).

At the same time, though, the strategists decided to make Harper kindler and gentler, all blue sweater-vest and proud father. This was, as Citizen columnist Randall Denley pointed out at the time, a serious blunder. Nobody was fooled. His core constituency, in fact, didn't want a kind, sweet man in charge. And his opponents were not taken in by the palpable insincerity of the new election-ad Stephen.

On the hustings, the real Harper has seemed even more tightly controlled than usual, almost paralyzed. His performance in the leaders debates was extraordinarily poor: he sat there, often speaking in an emotionless monotone, while his strategists hoped the other leaders would overplay their hands--which to some extent, of course, they did. But he suffered for it.

Debates don't usually decide electoral matters, of course. But crises, on the other hand, test political leaders to the core. There is simply nowhere to hide. Faced with a cataclysmic economic meltdown, Canadians wanted clear, decisive answers, and they also needed a sense of connection.

Harper failed spectacularly, however, to connect with the public, musing aloud instead about buying up stock bargains. Yes, as he said defensively, keeping one's head in a crisis in important; but at times like this, people want heart as well. He hasn't done all that well with the head part, as it happens. But it's the man's utter lack of empathy, I think, that has sealed his party's fate.

One can feel the ground shifting. The Globe and Mail, decrying his lack of leadership on the economy last week, today published a cartoon mocking his aloofness. The Ottawa Citizen went further: its cartoon portrays him as a child begging at the door. His supporters are resigned to another minority government at best--don't be fooled by the brave rhetoric. They're flailing mightily, but they know the awful truth.

Margaret Wente gave him a tongue-lashing this morning that would have brought a rhino to its knees. There's an almost incredulous chorus of shock and disapppointment, and much grumbling and second-guessing, as the man behind the curtain is finally revealed. Even the conservative Economist now refers to his poor leadership on the environment and his "inner oilman."

The polls indicate another minority government--possibly even a Liberal one. Harper has managed an impossible feat--making Stéphane Dion look good in comparison. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory--because another Conservative minority government is as much a defeat for Harper as a Liberal win--he has dashed the hopes of his party and his constituency. How much longer will he lead it?
_______
* Pollster silliness continues unabated. The CBC suggests that Harper's decline in the polls has ceased, because the latest poll indicates a one-percent increase over the last one. The margin of error is 2.7%!

Are we there yet?

Is there still some life in these old bones?

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations.
--The Communist Manifesto (1848)

and then, the emerging contradictions:

Mankind’s productive forces stagnate. Already new inventions and improvements fail to raise the level of material wealth. Conjunctural crises under the conditions of the social crisis of the whole capitalist system inflict ever heavier deprivations and sufferings upon the masses. Growing unemployment, in its turn, deepens the financial crisis of the state and undermines the unstable monetary systems. Democratic regimes…stagger on from one bankruptcy to another.

The bourgeoisie itself sees no way out…In the historically privileged countries, i.e., in those where the bourgeoisie can still for a certain period permit itself the luxury of democracy at the expense of national accumulations (Great Britain, France, United States, etc.), all of capital’s traditional parties are in a state of perplexity bordering on a paralysis of will.

…International relations present no better picture. Under the increasing tension of capitalist disintegration, imperialist antagonisms reach an impasse at the height of which separate clashes and bloody local disturbances…must inevitably coalesce into a conflagration of world dimensions.…
--The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International (1938)

With some reason, Barbara Ehrenreich, noting the 160th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto, observes that capitalism, at least for now, is the only game in town. But in this vast, cavernous casino that we call globalization, the hubbub at the slots and the tables is turning to hysteria, the crowds are scrambling for the exits--and even the house is losing. Is another world possible?

Genocide on the hustings [bumped]

The operatives of the "big tent" parties--the Liberals and Conservatives--have been busy flinging unidentified substances at the Greens and the NDP for harbouring candidates of odd and unsavoury views. The latest one of these to drop is Andrew McKeever, whose misogynist and pro-war comments finally forced his resignation. He'll never be missed--at least by me.

But these same operatives are strangely silent when some of their own are exposed. Take Liberal candidate for York Centre, Ken Dryden. Please.

Ken wants to seal off Gaza, the largest open-air prison in the world. Here he is, on the record:

In front of a split audience in the sanctuary of the Beth Emeth synagogue on Wilmington...the ex-hockey guy’s eyes hardened as he advocated no truck or trade with the “terrorists” in the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.

Then he offered this shocker: “Stop all aid that flows into Gaza. While that may seem a harsh measure that will hurt Palestinian civilians… it is the right thing to do at this time.”

[H/t Alison via PSA]

80% of Gazans rely on humanitarian assistance to survive. The implications of Dryden's words are very clear. We have heard no howls of outrage by Jason Cherniak as yet. Maxed out, Jason?

Dryden joins Conservative hopeful in Thornhill, Peter Kent, an executive official of an extremist anti-Muslim organization, Canadian Coalition for Democracies. His colleagues there have called for bombing Iran and wiping Islam from the face of the earth. "Muslims," declares his CCD President, Alastair Gordon, have "small minds" and "no humanity."

The article in Toronto's NOW magazine continues:

One reason the Liberals probably won’t pay a price for the Tories’ dedicated loyalty to the Israeli government is that the Grits hold exactly the same position now. Aside from Michael Ignatieff’s musing – and then step-down – about Israel committing “war crimes” in Lebanon, the Libs’ policy has generally morphed from bipartisan to Israel-positive.

Sure, Dryden did some hand-wringing at the meeting about how awful it is that Canada is no longer seen as the exponent of diplomacy and the honest broker it once was.

But as even B’nai Brith exec VP Frank Dimant admits, the parties have no real differences. Dimant points to his friend Irwin Cotler, the Lib MP for Mount Royal and former justice minister, as a case in point.

“His positioning on Middle East and Jewish issues in general is very close today to where the Conservative party is,” says Dimant, described by Embassy Magazine as one of the top foreign policy influencers in Ottawa.

But this consensus on Israel is a worry, says former ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker, particularly because of international law. “We tend to accept the argument that Israel is a democracy – ‘Who are we to criticize what the Israelis do? [Whatever] the Palestinians do is ipso facto wrong’ – I’m thinking of Hamas. This is not an approach that leads anywhere except to more deadlock.”

But pushing for a more complex view of the Mideast isn’t for the faint of heart. Steve Scheinberg, a retired Concordia history prof and Canadian Friends of Peace Now activist, laments that his group lacks the resources to lobby politicians for a view counter to mainstream Jewish orgs.

“I don’t think the Conservatives are that interested in the Middle East per se,” he says. “What I think they are interested in is winning some Jewish votes and money.” [Emphases added. --DD]

Vile comments and questionable associations might be seen as mere political pandering, in other words. But I have no reason to think that the personal beliefs of Ken Dryden are not in sync with his public utterances, nor that those of Peter Kent are in opposition to the organization that he helps to lead.

There is a further issue here, however--perhaps the key one--that needs to be spelled out. Do Liberals and Conservatives really think that the significant complement of Jewish voters in York Centre will be swayed by calls for crimes against humanity? Is the Thornhill candidate's leadership position in an extremist organization expected to appeal to them? Do these voters, en bloc, want to starve a civilian population to death, or throw Islam into the rubbish-bin of history, or bomb Iran?

Isn't this selling Jewish voters a little short, in fact--indeed, a lot short? Isn't the implicit assumption that Jewish electors lack humanity and tolerance--anti-Semitic? Come on, Cherniak, get on this. We can't clean up the darker corners of the establishment parties all by ourselves.

UPDATE: Cherniak responds. He suggests that a "Canadian hero" like Dryden is untouchable, even when he advocates crimes against humanity. Thanks for standing up, Jason.

UPPERDATE: (October 7) The Canadian Arab Federation and the National Post weigh in.

UPPESTDATE: (October 7) And so does Ken Dryden. (H/t commenter Mordechai)

New World Order: resistance is not futile

Well, who would have guessed that the National Post would take position against the incremental establishment of the New World Order?

This editorial board traditionally has argued that, in the post-9/11 age, law-enforcement and security services should enjoy broad powers to investigate and apprehend terrorists. But even we are appalled by a British proposal, revealed over the weekend, to monitor the telephone, cellphone, text message, e-mail and Web surfing activity of every citizen in the U. K. in the name of homeland security.

The damage such a scheme would do to the personal privacy and liberty of law-abiding Britons far outweighs the benefits that might -- theoretically -- accrue to those charged with safeguarding the country. What the British internal spy agency, MI5, and others are proposing is nothing short of a surveillance society, in which nearly all electronic activity by every person is monitored 24/7/365. All the communications activity of every citizen would be recorded in giant government computers ...

And, should you need to top off your daily dose of fear and paranoia, go watch this interview with Naomi Wolf.

Will Canadian voters be turned away from the polls?

It seems appropriate to raise this question - given the adulation that some CPC tacticians reserve for Karl Rove and his arsenal of dirty tricks, and the use of many of his classic manipulations in the course of this election campaign; some were even deployed before the writ was issued.

In the US, wide-spread abuse in the application of regulations disenfranchised millions of voters, mainly in poor urban areas because they were denied the right to vote.

Under the guise of public outcry at the possibility that women wearing a traditional niqab would attempt to exercise their right as citizens, new regulations were passed in Parliament. These apply to everyone; Elections Canada sent out a press release on October 1 to remind voters.

It appears that many citizens who have been presenting themselves to advance polling stations in their ridings are unaware of these new regulations.

It begs the question why the Harper Government was not as scrupulous in this respect, as it appeared to be have been quite enthusiastic in its broad diffusion of those "10 percenters" bulletins, used as party propaganda in some ridings not represented by a Conservative MP.

Hell hath no fury...

...etc.

Let me start. With her breathless "tell-all" book, released at a point in the campaign calculated to do maximum damage to the fellow who threw her over, Julie Couillard is doing what she does best: making money through her association with affluent and powerful men. She's a jaw-dropping looker, she knows it, and she uses every voluptuous inch of it.

There are words, kind and unkind, to describe such a woman. What I need to establish, though, right at the start, is that I'm not making any kind of moral judgement here. For the record, I have no difficulty whatsoever with courtesans, mistresses, sex-trade workers and other folks on the distaff side who use their physical charms to extract advantage or pelf. A lot of other people do just that, both women and men.

Take, for example, the leadership issue (about which, I frankly confess, I'm a little obsessed). The bearing and physical attributes of a male leader are a subject of constant comment in both the peanut and press galleries. Whether it's Layton's moustache, Harper's hair (mea culpa), a kinder, gentler Mussolini in a sweater-vest, or Dion's gangliness, this stuff counts bigtime. Never mind the issues, which, for far too many folks, are plain boring. They'll vote on looks alone.

We are told by Couillard that Maxime Bernier was relieved to have her as a girlfriend (God, I hate that word being applied to anyone over 19) because people were beginning to think he was gay. This is just one of many things she has to say about him, and frankly I don't put a whole lot of weight on any of it. From my perspective, the man was an empty suit with matinée-idol looks. He had great leadership potential.

But Couillard, hanging around the tough guys, the connected guys, the powerful guys, and doing OK by it over the years, is not the victim here. In fact, there are no victims that I can see anywhere. A Con investigation did try to blame her for the Cabinet document fiasco, and Bernier didn't utter a word in her defence, but no one really took any of that seriously, and no charges have been laid.

Now we have The Book. She'll no doubt rake in some serious bucks from this shameless, money-grubbing oeuvre, and may even bring down her heel of a boyfriend--a possible two-fer. Bravo.

We live in a society in which people, not just goods and services, are commoditized: friendliness ("Hello, I'm your waiter, Irving"), sex, emotions. There's a price-tag on everything--after all, this is late modern capitalism. Born into such a world, we do what we do to get by. And that involves selling ourselves, literally or figuratively (figuratively, hell). And women, in particular, are at once encouraged and condemned when they enter that market in rather too-obvious ways.

So in some respects I do have sympathy for the jilted Julie. But this bit of gossip-porn is a classic act of petulance and mean-spiritedness that diminishes her. Onto the best-seller list it will go, though, because a thoroughly conditioned public is encouraged to consider character defects well worth paying for, if oiled with a little salaciousness--check out the supermarket tabloids. Julie and her book are just more of the same. If Bernier drops on October 14, maybe we can anticipate a counter-book, the "he said" to go with her "she said."

I can't wait--can you?

Encore Julie, bye-bye Bernier!

The loyal readers of Dawg's Blawg might like to know that the good Doctor and I have been debating offline about l'affaire Julie Couillard et Maxime Bernier.

Consider their names. Those might have been churned out by the Harlequin Romance/Bodice-Ripper Female and Male protagonist-appellation-generator! Not only are they living, breathing archetypes of what has become designated 'the war between the genders', but they brandish the florid names to match their adventures.

We will write duelling blog posts - instead of one long post each. That will give readers a chance to share their own thoughts about the varied socio-political perpectives we'll explore.

We may toss a coin to see who will launch the friendly sparring.

What's good for General Motors...

...is bad for the country--not to mention thousands of disadvantaged kids. For shame, VANOC.

But, but .... the whales?

Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

I think we need to be clear: there was NO sex and NO rock'n'roll at the leaders' shindig last evening.

Sadly so. Those elements would have jazzed up two hours that I found to be stultifyingly bland and boring, in contrast to yesterday's debate which was lively, engaging and dynamic - well, relatively speaking.

Stephen Harper sleepwalked through the event, delivering rote answers to all questions, challenges or criticism in a slow, measured monotone voice. The occasional 'emotional' punctuation to his own pronouncement or to the words of his opponents was a crocodile grin.

All he had to do was show up and not let Mr Furious Berserker escape because Con handlers know those displays do not endear him to viewers. It would seems Harper's lust for a majority government has forced him to concede that point because his sharp edges were blunted. Perhaps he was pulling his punches. Don Martin noticed:

Mr. Harper had obviously spotted danger in a recovering Mr. Dion and went for the jugular within seconds of the debate's opening, no longer the restrained above-the-fray French debate participant mocked in some pundit reviews on Thursday as a valium-drugged. He denounced Mr. Dion as an election rival "panicked" by his trembling poll numbers into a knee-jerk economic policy.

That was the only flash of his characteristic bellicosity and it came off as a rehearsed and tame jab.

Dion took the blow, but it opened the floor to counter attack. Elizabeth May in particular, directed a number of zingers at Harper. He responded with dull rejoinders, many of which were unsubstantiated claims. For example, May offered up the well-documented fact that many young offenders are illiterate and raised the issue that one of the first deep slashes Harper's Conservatives made when they came to power was to youth employment investments ($55.4 million) and adult literacy program ($17.7 million). Harper's flat answer was that the literacy programs did not teach people to read. That must have been a great surprise to the thousands of individuals helped by those programs.

The highlight of the debate may have been May's shot about the Conservatives' absent, non-existent, vacuum of an economic platform (Remember, it was Harper who requested the first hour of the debate be dedicated to the economy) and Jack Layton's quip about whether it was hiding under the PM's blue sweater.

When Harper blankly rattled off a list of environmental 'accomplishments' produced by the Conservatives, including a non sequitur reference to the whales (Are they one of their target demographics? Whales vote Conservative? Whale-lovers vote Conservative? Don't tell Charles McVety.), May conceded good work regarding the national parks was done, paused, then added that all the rest was fraudulous.

Some pundits declared Harper the 'winner' of last evenings debate.... because he didn't unleash his well-documented pugnacious and corrosive fury upon his opponents?

Watching the debate, I formed an opinion that one of the participants in the debate appeared to be medicated, as evident by the slow, slightly slurred speech and flat affect of his demeanour. Who could that be?

Let me answer that question in the style that Stephen Harper demonstrated during the debate.

I believe that judiciously applied doses of physician-prescribed medication can help individuals with personality disorders such as narcissism maintain control over some of the more extreme manifestations of their sociopathic behaviours.

Texts and voices

Do leaders speak lines, or do lines speak leaders?

Palin-Biden. No, Peggy, she didn't "kill." But Sarah Palin did very well, so well that I am now wondering if low expectations had not been deliberately created by the Republican camp. The anonymous McCain official, for example, quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" after watching Palin in action during a mock press conference and debate--were we all had?

This is not to say that she won the debate, by any means, only that she was not eaten alive, as I for one thought she would be. She was anything but that hapless woman we saw with Kate Couric who couldn't even name a magazine or newspaper that she'd read, and who babbled incoherently when asked about the Wall Street meltdown.

She had been well-prepped, and kept the mental cue-cards in good order. It was disconcerting, mind you, to hear the clash of discourses coming out of her mouth--policy analysis with a lot of folksy dropped g's. Her gaze, meant to look forthrightly into the eyes of America, sometimes looked merely startled. (Biden's eyes, for the record, seemed a little odd--I can't put my finger on just why.)

But what we really had was a clash of talking points. No direct exchanges were permitted, and both candidates, but particularly Palin, avoided Gwen Ifill's questions and made little set speeches within the times allotted. There were no real "moments," other than Biden's reference to the deaths of his first wife and his child. Palin's "white flag of surrender" comment, referring to the Obama plan to withdraw from Iraq, might have played well in the darker corners of Peoria, but it was overreaching. The undecided CNN diallers in Ohio were unimpressed (@9:43).

Mouths opened, and scripted lines from the war rooms poured out. I think Biden won the debate on sheer knowledge and confidence, delivered in a poised and restrained manner--perhaps a little too restrained, in fact. He'd obviously been gaffe-proofed by the handlers, who weren't about to let Biden be Biden. But Palin's presentation, if not her lines, put her well into the game, and probably firmed up some faltering Republican support.

Here's the debate in full, if you missed it.

Stephen Harper's plagiarism. We all know that politicans don't write their own speeches, and too many don't even think their own thoughts. But the new revelations of plagiarism at J-rad's place this morning have me scratching my head. Not because I am particularly surprised, but because of the comments over there from Harper defenders.

It's as though "leaders" are expected simply to deliver potted messages. I recall a British comic on a radio panel game several years ago saying to a co-panelist: "Don't put words in my mouth--I don't know where they've been." Now we're being told it doesn't matter.

And perhaps it doesn't. Politics these days isn't about leaders sharing their original vision and strategies for achieving what their constituencies want. It's leaders sharing our own thoughts with us: what we already think we know, and what we unthinkingly believe, raising our comfort level by saying, in effect, "I hear ya." So what if we've heard it all before, even in the exact-same words--that's the whole point. The last thing they want is to challenge our complacency and ask us to see the world in a new way.

The plagiarism issue simply reminds us of the degeneracy of political discourse in these post-modern times. Why not copy messages holus-bolus? It's the next logical step, isn't it, now that we're inured to endless distillations and re-distillations of the same political bromides and idées reçues? Think: have you actually heard anything new in the debates here or in the US? Anything at all?

Exactly.

My co-blogger watched the other debate last night. She'll be along shortly to give you her impressions.

Media conspirators made Harper gay

...and other tales from the crypt. Paranoia can be downright funny sometimes:

Is it me, or does the Harper translator sound gay?? (Not that there is anything wrong with that)Yet, the Dion translator sounds scottish. I'm sure this was deliberate.

This format sucks. The C.B.C. is working overtime to protect Dion. 1st by giving him a big manly voice. 2nd by having no order in this debate everyone talking at once. Probably had a heads up on the questions. Finally, by putting the english debate up against the vice-president debate with hopes nobody watches. They know if too many people see him it will send his #'s lower.

By the way,isn't it grand that the french debate is first,pandering to the electorate of la belle province as usual,what a country.

I have to second the comment by anon (9:15) about Harper's translator. Oddly, in the last election debate several years ago, too, the fellow translating for Harper had a lisp and a very high voice. Odd.
And yes, Layton's translator, in stark comparison to Harper's, sounded like a caber-tossing Scot.

The format was choreographed by the network libs to cast the PM's appearance in as dim light as possible, to wit:
(i)Have the so-called moderator face the main camera throughout, and have Mr. Harper in rear profile;
(ii)Have the sissy translator for the PM, and the sonorous Scot for the milquetoast Dion;
(iii)Have Dizzy Lizzy right next to the PM, so she could be the most maximum disruption possible; and,
(iv)Change the usual format to a round table, which minimizes the PM's gravitas and equates the limp noodle professeur with him.

I watched the so-called debate and thought it was a disgrace... It was an ambush on PM Harper, 4 idiots of varying degrees dog-piling on the PM...Very undignified and soooo canadian, but what else could we expect when the media are the ones who dictate every aspect of the debate structure. Dion looked like he was going to shit in his pants, and didn't seem to know what the hell was going on, or why he was there. Crazy Liz is there to pile more confusion and deflect attention away from the candidate from France, or the nation of francaphones or some such nonsense...A total set-up, smear job on the PM...just so the media can dupe Canadians out east into thinking Dijon "did really well, and was the clear winner"...what a load of shit!! The MSM are a disgrace.

You just keep whistling them in, Kate, and I'll take pictures.

Torn

Palin-Biden? Or the Canadian leaders debate?

The Globe and Mail's John Doyle is ambivalent: watch the Canadian debate, he says, even though "[t]his election campaign is essentially over...[a]nd Stephen Harper has won it." If that's the case, who cares?

Besides, my dark side is demanding that I watch Sarah Palin being eaten alive. I would have been one of those Romans utterly offended by the offerings at the Colosseum, while paying my X denarii every Friday for a decent seat.

It's not that the serious side of the Canadian political campaign has escaped me--the thought of a Harper majority is making me consider seeking political asylum at the Cuban Embassy--but there is a vertiginous air of unreality surrounding the current contest, making me wonder what we're all breathing or ingesting.

Candidate after candidate has been dropped. There have been monumental gaffes by seasoned professionals. There were unseemly efforts to stifle debate. The CBC, an institution I have long defended and even loved, has been simply pissing itself with fear, searching desperately for an audience it will never find by trying to be what it's not, even sacrificing one of its own columnists to the Emperor as an act of propitiation. It behaved with ham-handed unfairness after last night's leaders gab-fest: Himself did not approve, we recall, of Elizabeth May's inclusion.

And then the debate about that debate, now supersaturating the blogosphere and the media. I watched the first debate with my co-blogger. I was struck by how good Layton's French was. I was amazed at Dion's performance, which, after a somewhat rocky start, showed us a person at ease, fast on his feet, with a thorough grasp of the issues, and the ability to connect.

Who'd a thunk it? The man was every inch a leader. What have we all been talking about? A gangling, uncertain, aloof caricature disappeared in a puff of smoke. Harper, on the other hand, was like the Pillsbury Doughboy, except that he didn't giggle when poked. His French was formal, tutored stuff, as were his talking points.

The only reason I might have for watching the Canadian debate tonight is to see whether last night was "real," or whether Dion will revert to the caricature. Whether Elizabeth May's English is as good as her French. Whether Jack Layton will come across as genuine again. Perhaps someone will ask him about proportional representation. He's probably in favour. Does it matter? Maybe Harper will play the piano before things get started.

The issues? What issues? This election is about sweaters, leadership, the two kinds of strong, men with matching grey hair and blue ties, and a female arriviste. There is a post-modern instability to all this, a continual shifting of meaning, a de-centring. Or maybe I'm just a little hung over.

And then this morning we had a revelation: the teeth-grinding "40% is majority territory" mantra (meaning that 60% of us just have to grin and bear it under our "first-past-the-post" system) is all the NDP's fault. Yup, the folks who have been pushing proportional representation for years had it in their grasp in 1980 under Ed Broadbent, and they turned it down. Because the caucus thought they'd lose their seats! [H/t Chrystal Ocean]

And with that, something snapped. I had an epiphany (or maybe just a sudden headache). It doesn't matter what the leaders say, what they promise, how they behave, what their body language tells us. None of it has any connection to what will eventually happen, or what has happened in the past. It's an interminable play presented to a passive audience of voters, none of whom will make a dime's worth of difference in what goes on after they leave the theatre. Many will watch the post-gab punditry, or read the reviews the next day, to find out what they saw and heard.

I think it's probably Palin-Biden for me, but I'll keep the channel changer in hand. Popcorn, anyone? It's better than what we're being fed, with our eyes wide shut.