Fifty Shades of Gerry

Given the success of “50 Shades of Grey” I have decided to write my own “erotica” novel in a literary attempt to become a billionaire.

Here’s what I have so far:

Chapter One

Sterling Nash sat by the roaring fire, a chilled glass of champagne in his hand, when she entered the room.

With her long, cascading blonde hair and her ruby red lips, Sterling thought she looked like a goddess.

“Welcome,” he said in his most sexy-sounding voice.

“Hi,” she responded. “By the way the fireplace isn’t lit and that’s a glass of Pepsi you’re holding.”

“Well, champagne isn’t exactly cheap,” Sterling noted “And the logs were too damp to catch fire. But never mind that, let’s get more comfortable.”

He started to slowly unbutton his shirt.

“Stop that!” she demanded.

“But this is an erotica novel,” he pointed out with flustered exasperation. “Wait till you see what happens in Chapter Two.”

“Yeah, well there won’t be a Chapter Two you pervert. In fact, this book is over right now.”

Sterling watched in dismay as she spun on her heels and marched out the door.

Then in a blatant effort to pad the novel’s word count, he just sat there puzzled for several minutes.

Finally, Sterling took a sip from his Pepsi and muttered, “I wonder why suburban housewives think this stuff is so hot?”

In Politics Nothing is Innocent

Free political lesson: If you want to attack an opponent you have two basic options. You can attack them for a) all the bad and dangerous stuff they do or b) for all the good and harmless stuff they do.

Yes, that’s right, in politics you can actually attack somebody for doing good and harmless stuff!

How is this possible, you ask?

Well, let me give you three recent examples of ways in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come under assault for doing things any rational person would see as completely innocuous.

Case Number One: Oh My God!

What Harper Did

The Prime Minister, like millions of other Canadians, belongs to a Church, in this case the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Nothing wrong with that, right? After all, in this enlightened age we don’t attack a person for their religious beliefs, right? In fact, embracing Christian and spiritual values might even be considered a good thing, right? Wrong! Harper’s religion apparently makes him dangerous.

Why It’s Bad

Check out, here, here and here, and you will see why Harper’s choice of churches has some people in a tizzy. Basically, the argument goes like this: 1) Harper belongs to an oddball Christian cult. 2) Harper makes his policy decisions based on this cult’s superstitious teachings 3) this explains why Harper is “anti-science” and why he hates the environment. Of course, it’s all nonsense, but sometimes nonsense works.

Case Number Two: Attack of the Photo Op

What Harper Did

During his visit to Northern Canada, Prime Minister Harper did what all politicians do: he took part in a dopey, innocent photo op. More specifically, he drove an ATV. Lots of people, of course, drive ATVs. It’s a fun, outdoorsy activity, yes? Nope! When Harper drives one, it’s a crime against humanity.

Why it’s Bad  

Turns out ATVs should actually be called “Death Machines” on account of riding one of these vehicles will apparently destroy the planet. Or at least that’s how Harper’s critics reacted to the photo op. While many saw Harper’s little ride as harmless, his critics basically argued that by driving this instrument of Satan, the Prime Minister revealed himself to be someone who derives sadistic pleasure from desecrating our pristine environment. This in turn, means his ultimate goal is to strip mine the entire country! Also bad is that the ATV in question was not (horror of horrors) built in Canada. If you are going to despoil our delicate eco-system, you should at least do it with domestic products!!

      Case Number Three: At least he didn’t call it the Hitler Expressway

What Harper did

Recently the Harper government named a stretch of Ottawa road after John A. Macdonald. Surely, this must be the least controversial measure any Canadian government has ever undertaken. Macdonald was Canada’s first Prime Minister, he was a Father of Confederation; we name highways, schools and federal buildings after him. His picture adorns our ten dollar bill. He’s a national icon, for Pete’s Sake. Yet, amazingly even this action rubbed Harper’s critics the wrong way.

Why it’s Bad

The Ottawa Citizen ran an op ed by author Timothy J. Stanley who informed readers that Macdonald was actually a white supremacist! And so Stanley urged the Harper government to drop the Macdonald moniker idea and name the road after a former Liberal Prime Minister. And I suppose if Harper refuses to do so, his critics will take it as a clear sign that the Prime Minister must be a racist.

So now you see how political spin works.

You can take a person who goes to Church, who partakes in outdoor activities and who appreciates our nation’s history and turn him into a bible-thumping, white supremacist who likes to trample on endangered flowers.

Aint politics wonderful!

Harper and Flanagan are a couple of wusses

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his onetime sidekick Tom Flanagan are couple of wusses.

I say that because neither man seems willing to take on their ideological opponents in a fair fight.

If anything, they want to use state power to silence their adversaries.

And to me this is extremely troubling.

I come from an era when conservatives were willing and eager on take on the left. The group I used to work for -- the National Citizens Coalition--- certainly wasn’t afraid to tackle all comers.

During my 20 years or so at the NCC, we battled big union bosses, bureaucrats and politicians of every partisan stripe.

True, we didn’t win every tilt, but our opponents always knew they had been in a fight.

Indeed, the NCC of my day left so many bruises on so many sacred cows, the political establishment decided to strike back.

In 2000, then Prime Minister Jean Chretien enacted what we called a “gag law.”

This law had one purpose and one purpose only: to silence groups like the NCC during federal elections.

It imposed strict limits on how much money individuals or organizations could spend on “political advertising”, meaning the NCC could no longer freely or effectively express its views.

Of course, we tried to fight back. Under our then president - Stephen Harper -- the NCC valiantly waged a costly legal battle against the gag law all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Harper argued the gag law was an infringement on every Canadian’s right to free expression; he argued it would give professional politicians a monopoly on setting the election agenda; he argued it would have a chilling effect on democracy.

Alas, this was a fight the NCC and Harper didn’t win; the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the gag law constitutional.

It was a stunning loss for the NCC and an even bigger loss for freedom -- yet all hope was not lost.

In 2004, Harper, who by then was running for the leadership of the Conservative party, signed a pledge to repeal the gag law.

Yet six years have passed since Harper became Prime Minister and still he has not kept his promise to restore free speech to Canadians.

The gag law is still on the books.

And so Harper is now treating his adversaries the way Chretien treated the NCC.

Maybe like Chretien, Harper sees the advantage of a law which censors his opponents.

Or to put it another way, maybe he is just afraid of open, unfettered election debate.

And Harper isn’t the only Conservative displaying intellectual cowardice.

Tom Flanagan, an academic, a prominent conservative and Harper’s former campaign manager, recently wrote a column calling for Ontario to impose its own Chretien-style gag law.

Flanagan, like Harper, once opposed gag laws as attack on free speech.

So why does he support them now?

Well it seems he doesn’t like the fact that a union front group called “Working Families” spent a lot of money on ads in the last provincial election, urging voters not to support the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

To Flanagan this sort of advertising is wrong, which suggests he only believes in free speech as long as he agrees with what’s being said.

Of course, if Flanagan and Harper had confidence in the value of their ideals, they wouldn’t need to rely on gag laws.

They would be willing to put their principles to the test and let voters decide.

At any rate, Harper and Flanagan should come out and openly admit their fear of debate.

At least then they would be honest wusses.

Romancing the Bethune

Canada’s intellectual and political elite have a dilemma: how do they deal with Dr. Norman Bethune’s legacy?

On the one hand they desperately want to praise Bethune for his so-called “humanitarian” and innovative efforts as a surgeon, but on the other hand there’s that nasty little historical fact concerning the good doctor’s sordid political beliefs, i.e. he had a crush on Joseph Stalin.

Stalin, recall, is infamous for  butchering millions of people, for creating one of history’s most brutal dictatorships and for ruthlessly terrorizing half a continent – and that’s when he was in a good mood!

Yet Bethune the “humanitarian” thought Stalin was the bee’s knees, so in 1935 he joined the Communist Party.

That’s right instead of joining his local Rotary or Optimist Club, Bethune thought he could best help society by doing such things as advocating cockamamie economic theories, waving red flags and whistling L'Internationale.

Now in the 1960s and 1970s, this Stalinist past actually wasn’t much of a problem for Bethune worshippers. Those were the days, after all, when supporting the communist ideal was still trendy in left-wing academic and media circles.

Sure communism wasn’t perfect, they argued, but anything was better than capitalism, which simply didn’t work and which they confidently predicted would collapse in or around 1985 due to its own obvious internal contradictions.

Yep the super-geniuses in academia had it all worked out.

Except reality didn’t co-operate. In fact, after 1991 it sort of became clear that capitalism was in reality far superior to a system whose existence required generous doses of barbed wire, secret police and Siberian gulags.

Even Ivory-tower-ensconced university professors couldn’t help but notice the Berlin Wall toppling, the once mighty Soviet Union dissolving and China adopting a decadent, non-progressive, quasi-market-oriented system.

The only truly Stalinist state left was North Korea and aside from its snazzy military parades, it just wasn’t all that cool. It’s kind of hard even for intellectuals to idealize a society where the chief leisure activity is known as “Trying not to starve to death.”

Consequently by the onset of the 21^st century communism lost much of its cachet.

Which brings us back to Bethune. For better or worse, the guy will forever be tied to a discredited and blood-drenched ideology, yet oddly, there are still those in Canada who seek to romanticize his life.

And to do so, Bethune groupies have come up with two ways to overcome the "Bethune was a tyrant-admiring communist" problem.

One way is to simply ignore his communist ties. This is the method, for instance, Treasury Board President Tony Clement used to justify his government spending $2.5 million to build a Bethune Shrine in his riding. (Coincidently his riding is also the official federal repository for all things to do with Public Pork and Gazebos.)

Clement basically said Bethune’s communist past didn’t matter. As he put it, “I think we as Conservatives can be comfortable that there’s a message here broader than just his communism, that goes to his humanism and entrepreneurship.”

Well, all I can say to that is ….hey, wait a minute! … did Clement actually call Bethune, the Stalin-loving, Mao Zedong-adoring communist,  an entrepreneur!!!??

Maybe I’m wrong about Clement. Maybe he isn’t a Bethune groupie at all. Maybe he is actually using clever irony to insult the dead doctor.

I mean calling Bethune an entrepreneur would be like calling Thomas Mulcair a member of the Calgary Petroleum Club. As a good communist, Bethune regarded entrepreneurs as bourgeois enemies, as exploiters of the proletariat, as the people who would sell Stalin enough rope to hang everybody.

The best place for entrepreneurs, in Bethune's view, was is in front of a firing squad.

So this leads to the question: why is the supposedly pro-free enterprise Conservative government paying homage to guy who regarded free markets the way Dracula viewed a crucifix.

Well it seems Prime Minister Stephen Harper is really desperate to impress Communist China. The Chinese Communist Party recently gave him a few cute pandas, so the least he can do in return is lionize Mao’s favorite Canadian.

Of course, before the Conservatives could glorify Bethune in this manner they had to first set aside certain facts.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune supported Mao Zedong, a man who surpassed Hitler in the All-Time Mass Murderer Rankings.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune turned a blind eye to the horrific atrocities that took place in Stalinist Russia during his lifetime.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune embraced a totalitarian ideology that had as its goal the destruction of Canada’s democratic values.

And oh yeah, there’s one more thing the Conservatives had to set aside: their principles. 

But I digress.

Let’s get back to whitewashing Bethune’s communist past.

As I said, you can ignore it like Clement did or the other method is just to pretend it never happened.

This is the strategy Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson used in a recent column in which he paid homage to Bethune.

While describing all the supposedly wonderful qualities of the doctor, Ibbitson nonchalantly declared Bethune’s “communist taint” has been “rinsed away.”

Really?

And exactly how and when did this miraculous cleansing take place?

Did historians discover Bethune really admired Groucho Marx and not Karl Marx?

Did any of Bethune’s letters recently emerge in which he wrote something like: “I tried to contact some of my comrades in Russia today, but found out they had all been purged after a series of show trials. Apparently Stalin had them all tortured and then shot. Yikes! I know this might sound bourgeois and all, but it got me thinking that perhaps this working class struggle bullshit isn’t all its cracked up to be.”

If such a letter exists it’s news to me.

Maybe Ibbitson will provide evidence of it in a future column.

In the meantime, I will continue to oppose my government using my money to honour a man who was not only on the wrong side of history, but on the wrong side of morality.

You see unlike Bethune’s apologists like Clement or Ibbitson, I have no difficulty in judging the communist’s legacy.

Nor, I suspect, will history.

Reviewing the CTF Pension Pitch

Call me crazy, but one of my hobbies is dissecting fundraising letters, which I believe are under-rated forms of communication. A good fundraiser has to be informative, concise and most of all persuasive. And believe me, getting people to donate hard-earned cash with written words aint easy.

At any rate, every once in a while I like to review such letters. In the past, I have reviewed a New Democratic fundraiser and one from the National Citizens Coalition.

Now it's the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's turn. Here's my take on a CTF letter that recently turned up in my inbox. My comments are in bold italics.

*************
Dear Supporter,

MP pension reform is a campaign we’ve been waging for over 20 years and we firmly believe that this summer is the last window of opportunity to give this issue the boost it needs.

This opening is OK, but dull. A letter needs more oomph at the top. Why not start with a little outrage over Bev Oda's pension? After all, the retirement of such a wonderful target to a lavish pension is a once in a lifetime opportunity that shouldn't be wasted. Something along the lines of:

"Dear Supporter:
Did you hear the news? Cabinet Minister Bev Oda, who made headlines with her reckless spending on things like $16 glasses of orange juice, has retired and will soon enjoy a massively rich pension!

It's true!

Soon Oda will get a super-rich pension payout that you and I in the private sector can only dream about!

We estimate her pension to be worth a whopping $700,000!

This must never happen again. The gold-plated pension plan must be reformed!!"

OK, that's a little rough but you get the idea.

Prime Minister Harper has committed to bring forward reforms to the MP pension plan this fall.

Why say this? I mean it might be true but it takes away from the letter's urgency. A reader might say,"Well if the PM is going to bring forward reforms this fall, why should I bother making a donation now". Never give a donor an excuse to bail.

If the politicians don’t hear from taxpayers over the summer you can bet that any changes introduced three months from now will be underwhelming.

OK -- but again, a little limp. Why not something a little punchier:"If you and I don't put pressure on this government soon, they won't reform this obscene pension".

That’s why with your support we’re hoping to launch a national billboard campaign this summer.

This is good. Always helps to garner donations when you give supporters a chance to contribute to something concrete and tangible ie a billboard ad. But why not include link to a graphic of what the billboard will say and look like? Make it real. Also don't say "hoping to launch" say "we will launch."

As reported by the CTF on June 28th, the most recently released numbers for 2010-11 show that for every $1 an MP contributed to their pension fund, taxpayers kicked in $24.36.

Would have added a little emotional jab after this fact: It's outrageous!

We were reminded yesterday of just how ridiculous this pension plan is with embattled cabinet minister, Bev Oda, resigning her seat effective July 31st. Ms. Oda who was first elected eight years ago in 2004 will instantly start to collect an annual pension we estimate at $52,183. That’s $701,464 by the time she reaches age 80.

Again, Oda is introduced too late.

Making it worse, unlike a normal pension fund, the MP pension fund isn’t actually invested. The federal cabinet has simply ordered taxpayers to pay the “fund” a 10.4% annual interest payment. No doubt many Canadians who lost their shirts in 2008 would have liked that deal.

That’s the message we plan to take to taxpayers and politicians alike this summer: For every $1 an MP puts into their pension plan, taxpayers put in $24.

All good stuff. Gives the letter some meat. Makes it credible. And the populist appeal about Canadians losing their shirts is a nice touch.

Can you chip in $24 to add your voice to MP pension reform? We hope this will be the last time you contribute $24 towards MPs pensions. You can make your donation through our donation website: https://taxpayer.com/donate

I really like this. Asking for a $24 donation to match what taxpayers kick into the pension plan is a great gimmick. On a campaign I worked on in the US, we asked people to contribute $17.76. Get it? But this ask should be explained a little better to lead the donor with a logical progression.

Something like this:
"To make this campaign a reality we need your financial help. You are forced to contribute $24 to the MP pension plan, but we are asking you to voluntarily contribute $24 to our billboard campaign. Make your voice heard!!"

If we don’t push back on this plan now, it could be years before we get another opportunity.

Needs a stronger conclusion: If we don't win this battle now, we never will! 

Thanks for all you do,

 Troy, Scott, Shannon and the entire CTF team

Posting all the names of staff is cute, but it kind of destroys the illusion that this is a letter from one person to another person. Makes it less personal and thus less effective.

P.S. If we don’t take action this summer, MPs will come back in the fall and rush through some minor changes. Moving from $24 to $1 down to $18 to $1 or $12 to $1 isn’t good enough. Join our effort to demand taxpayers match MP contributions for their pension $1 for $1. Donate $24 here: https://taxpayer.com/donate

Always a good idea to include a PS. But at least when it comes to letters on paper, you should assume the PS is the only thing a donor might read. (Often it is) So it should be a stand alone message that gets your point across succinctly. In this case the PS is more like a continuation of the letter. In fact, this stuff should have been in the heart of the letter.

Now if I seem a little too critical of this letter, please understand, I actually like it. Overall it's well written and it gets to the point with clarity. Plus it's focussed. And getting it out while Oda is in the news shows a good understanding of the importance of timing.

It should raise the CTF some dough, which when you come right down to it is the main thing.

Now That's An Awesome History

Today  is Canada Day.

Amid the hoopla, I hope Canadians remember Canada Day is more than just a holiday; it's also a day to remind ourselves we live in a country with the world's most boring name for a national holiday.

I mean come on, with all the government grants we dole out to writers and poets, you would think somebody could dream up a holiday name that was a little less generic-sounding.

I asked my son to suggest a better name for the holiday and he came up with an excellent idea -- "Awesome Day."

Now that's cool.

But of course, the holiday's name doesn't really matter. What truly matters is on July 1 we salute the fact that 145 years ago, a new nation was forged; a nation dedicated to shutting down the oilsands, raising taxes and bringing back the gun registry.

Oops, sorry that's Canada Day according to the NDP.

What I mean to say is Canada is a special and wonderful place -- a place where people are free to follow their dreams, a place where beautiful landscapes delight the eye and a place where everyone regardless of race, creed or colour has the right to cheer for NHL teams that fail to win the Stanley Cup.

And yes throughout our history we have overcome many challenges.

In the 1970s we endured the "Trudeau Years" when former prime minister Pierre Trudeau sought to impose the Cuban economic model on the country through a program of socialist experiments, bigger government and a poorer Alberta.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Trudeau also gutted our military, alienated our allies and dated Barbra Streisand.

We also survived the Mulroney era. Whereas Trudeau tried to wreck our economic system, former PM Brian Mulroney shattered our domestic peace in the name of granting Quebec the constitutional status of a "distinct society."

Mind you, this was done with the noblest of intentions: To win votes in Quebec.

And so, Mulroney pushed the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, both of which enjoyed the backing of the country's media, intellectual and business elites; and so naturally both accords failed.

Mulroney did succeed, however, in unleashing years of tortuous, nation-dividing and pointless constitutional debates which culminated in the 1995 Quebec referendum on independence.

Ultimately Quebecers voted -- by the narrowest of margins -- to continue accepting multi-billion dollar transfer payments from Canadian taxpayers.

After Mulroney, Jean Chretien of the Liberals assumed control. Unlike his predecessors, Chretien stayed away from grand economic and constitutional schemes meaning his government was free to focus on other more important matters, such as corruption.

So scandal-ridden was the Chretien government that Liberal fundraising letters noted donations to the party could be made by cheque, credit card or cash-stuffed envelope.

But we survived that too.

The point I am trying to make is that despite the best (worst) efforts of our politicians, Canada is still the best country in the world.

Yes we have our problems, but can you really think of any other place you would rather live? (Okay maybe southern California, but that's about it.)

Now if only we could change the name of our national holiday to Awesome Day.

Rating the new Tory attack ad

When you get a reputation for running political “negative ads”, people will almost be disappointed if you don’t go on the attack.

Such is the case with the Conservative Party.

Always aggressive, the Tories seem to take great delight in stuffing their opponents into a media meat grinder.  Just ask Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff.

At any rate, people either love these ads or love to hate them.

And so naturally, every one was impatiently waiting for them to go after the new kid on the block -- NDP leader Thomas Mulcair.

Well, it’s happened; the Conservatives have at long last posted their first true Mulcair attack video.

How does it rate?

Well, I don’t like it.

Yes it has all the standard ingredients that go into making an effective attack spot:  black and white imagery to make the target look menacing, ominous music and a voice of doom narration.

But the messaging in the ad is vague and confusing; so people just won't get it.

My point is a good political ad starts from scratch and basically assumes the voter knows nothing.

Yet this attack spot more or less assumes voters know what “Dutch Disease” means; it assumes they know what a carbon tax is; it assumes they know about trade policy.

And those are all massive assumptions.

Plus, it’s just plain confusing when the words, “Make them pay now for what they are doing” flash on the screen. What the heck does that mean? Did Mulcair say that? If he did, so what? Who are “they” and what exactly are they “doing?"

How does all this lead viewers to conclude that Mulcair has “risky theories” and “dangerous economic experiments.”

It doesn’t.

Why not just come out and say, "Mulcair has attacked Alberta's oil sands, calling it the Dutch Disease, he wants to kill jobs etc."

Simpler is always better.

In short, this is an over the top ad that will leave viewers scratching their heads if not reaching for the remote.

That’s if they pay attention at all.

These are summer days after all, when the only dangerous experiments occur when people try to create their own barbecue sauce.

Score: 4 out of 10.

What's "American-style" Free Speech?

The Toronto Star’s Haroon Siddiqui recently came up with a baffling argument to defend Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 13, of course, is the controversial law which gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission the legal right to annoy Ezra Levant.

But that’s not all. Lots of people also believe Section 13 has empowered government bureaucrats to undemocratically censor free speech. See here and here.

But this doesn’t faze Siddiqui who recently wrote – and this is the baffling part -- that anyone who opposes Section 13 must be an advocate of “American-style free speech”.

Here's the phrase in its full context:

The human rights act and the commission it spawned came into being some 40 years ago as a result of yeoman efforts by the Jewish and black communities. There was to be freedom of speech but also freedom from hate. That was going to be the Canadian way.This was challenged by the advocates of American-style free speech — an unholy alliance of media (that wanted as few restrictions on content as possible) and anti-Semites and others (who wanted to be free to spread their bigotry).

My question is what the heck is American-style free speech? 

I have heard of American-style attack ads and American-style health care and American-style gun laws, but never, ever have I ever heard anyone refer to American-style free speech.

And what exactly is the "Canadian way?"

I am trying to figure all this out.

Perhaps Siddiqui believes each country has its own distinctive brand of free speech. Thus there is a Canadian-style free speech, a British-style free speech, a Mongolian-style free speech, a Bolivian-style free speech and so on.

An interesting idea to be sure, but also kind of confusing.

For example, exactly why do different countries have different styles of free speech? Does it have something to do with different genetic bloodlines?

If so, North Koreans must be genetically disposed to getting thrown into prison or executed any time they utter non-state approved thoughts.  If this is the case, then human rights advocates shouldn't mind if North Korean authorities deal with American-style free speech activists in the "North Korean Way."

But if free speech has something to do with our cultural heritage what happens in a multi-cultural country like Canada? We would have chaos with all those different styles of free speech intersecting and conflicting!

So maybe Siddiqui believes national speech styles are actually the result of local environments.

And so we here in Canada support Section 13 ie "The Canadian Way", because of some natural force which emanates from the Rocky Mountains or from the Arctic Circle.

But if that’s the case, why then did we only enact Section 13 about 40 or so years ago? Surely, the earliest settlers and pioneers were subject to the same environmental forces as we are today. Yet they did not include Section 13-type laws in the BNA Act.

Did John A. MacDonald or Wilfrid Laurier ever talk about the need for Human Rights Commissions?

Don’t think so.

Plus many Canadians actually oppose Section 13. Are they immune to Canadian-style speech? If so why? Are they “unCanadian" because they don't follow the "Canadian Way." Should they be deported?

That doesn't seem all that democratic.

Mind you, maybe there is another explanation for Siddiqui’s comment.

Maybe he actually used “American-style speech” as a pejorative. In other words, when he said American-style, perhaps what he really meant was “dangerous foreign idea”.

Now, I am no expert in this sort of thing, but to me that sounds like an attitude that’s not tolerant of the customs of people who live in other lands. It might even cause Canadians to look less than warmly on our American cousins or on Canadians who oppose Section 13.

Yet, Siddiqui opposes "hate speech."

Like I said, it’s all pretty baffling.

Luckily, we in Canada have an entity that can help solve this puzzle.

Somebody call the Human Rights Commission!

Analyzing Simpson's Analysis

A couple of days ago, the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson wrote a column bemoaning Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policy.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on international relations, but his piece just seemed a little off to me.

To show you what I mean, I have reprinted Simpson's column below with my observations in italics:

Canada is 'back' on the world stage? Hardly
by Jeffrey Simpson

           

For those who care about Canada's international reputation and Canada's ability to influence others in the pursuit of Canada's self-interest, these are discouraging days.

Sorry Mr. Simpson, I am pretty sure very few Canadians actually care about Canada’s international reputation or its ability to influence others, unless, of course, you are talking about international hockey tournaments.

Everywhere, there is penny-pinching that makes no sense, a hectoring tone not appreciated by others, and a misunderstanding about how international affairs really work. For a government that has proclaimed Canada is “back” on the international stage, what is actually happening would be funny were it not serious.

Most things governments do would be funny, if they were not so serious.

For some time now, the euro zone has been in various states of crisis. To observe that the European Union, and particularly those member states using the euro, needs to improve its internal arrangements is obvious, as is any observation that the crisis there is a long way from resolution.

Translation: Europe is heading down a fiscal toilet.

But if that crisis deepens, Canadians, like people everywhere, will be adversely affected. And so, concerned countries outside the euro zone have been pledging what we might call “just-in-case” money to the International Monetary Fund to use, if necessary, to stabilize the world economy and assist the euro zone.

Pledges of $430-billion have been made. More are to come from large emerging countries such as China, Russia, India and Brazil. Countries that have already pledged include Japan, South Korea, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia and Singapore.

So let me get this straight. The people who created this fiscal nightmare of European overspending and massive debt have come up with a solution: more spending!!

The Harper government, however, rejects the idea of contributing to an IMF fund. Canada, therefore, stands alone with the United States, which unlike Canada is in terrible fiscal shape. Worse, various Canadian politicians, rather than at least using a sympathetic tone, prefer a hectoring, morally superior one toward Europe – a tone ill-becoming a G8 country.

Oh true. Canada has never, ever used a morally superior tone to any other country in its history, unless, of course, you count the million or so times Liberal Prime Ministers have denigrated, insulted or otherwise lectured the United States of America. But maybe that doesn’t count since the US was only a major trading partner and a key military ally. At any rate, why should we give our money to the Greeks, wouldn't it just be easier to waste it ourselves?

Where, except on the Conservative backbench, would one get someone like Pierre Poilievre, MP? He said: “This Prime Minister will not force hard-working Canadian taxpayers to bail out sumptuous euro welfare-state countries and the wealthy bankers that lend to them.” Here is blind ideology blended with profound parochialism of the kind that is giving Canada a well-deserved reputation for being increasingly an outlier, except when it comes to military interventions.

Hmmm, I wonder if any other Canadian politicians have ever made blind, ideologically blended comments? Hey, what about the time former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien seemingly blamed American "greed" and "arrogance" for the 9/11 terrorist attack? Oops, sorry that was an anti-American comment uttered by a Liberal and is therefore allowable blind, ideology.

Canada under this government failed to win a seat on the UN Security Council, a stinging rebuke. Canada's once-sterling reputation for caring about Africa is over. Canada's reputation in the Arab world is mud, because although ministers never criticize anything Israel does, they never miss a chance to lecture the Palestinians.

Oh no, the UN, that corrupt nest of despots, dictators and pathological killers, doesn’t like us!!! And before Prime Minister Harper came along the “Arab world” loved Canada, did it?  I guess that’s why, back in 2004, Al Qaeda put Canada on its hit list.

Canada is about to be spurned in its efforts to join the emerging trade bloc, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Canada's Commonwealth partners are worried the Harper government might wreck the next meeting in Sri Lanka because of its hectoring of that country's government, a policy that curries Conservatives' favour with the large Tamil community in Toronto. Canada's feeble non-climate-change policy is universally panned.

Yeah, imagine Canada "hectoring" a government to recognize basic human rights. How shameful! 

In the current budget, the government is cutting foreign aid by $319-million and taking $170-million from Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The government is selling off residences (that, properly used, are essential for making contacts with key people in other countries, which is what diplomacy is all about), hollowing out staff at missions abroad, closing consulates (in the U.S.), reducing budgets for outreach overseas. (How do you think Mr. Harper was one of the first world leaders to phone the newly elected President of France, François Hollande? Because the Canadian embassy in France worked hard to get Mr. Hollande's personal cellphone number. That's called diplomatic work.)

So we need to spend $170 million to get a guy’s phone number! Seems to me a phone book would be cheaper.

The government is eliminating the small but effective program encouraging the study of Canada in foreign universities. It has ended the annual trip to the Canadian Arctic for ambassadors posted here (for which the ambassadors partly pay) – a briefing trip that gave ambassadors an insight into that increasingly crucial part of the country they would likely not otherwise receive.

Actually, I agree with Mr. Simpson here. Imagine how it would help Canada’s international reputation if, say, Syria’s ambassador to Canada was mysteriously eaten by a Polar Bear!

It is all so penny-wise and pound foolish, especially for a country that once prided itself on punching above its weight and, more important, understood that this is a relatively small country with huge international interests. Now, Canada has retreated into an anglospheric worldview coupled with a focus on trade deals, but lacking any sense of a wider conception of international affairs.

Not sure what an “anglospheric” world view means, but if it includes annoying the French, I am all for it!

Hectoring and lecturing undoubtedly appeals to the Conservative Party's core voters. It does not impress other governments, including friendly ones.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Simpson, no Canadian Prime Minister has ever lost an election because he was unpopular in Paris or Berlin.

The 10 Most Egregious Punditry Errors

As we all know by now the vast majority of political pundits (including yours truly) completely misread the recent Alberta election.

We all thought the Wildrose Party would bloom, but instead it got cut down by the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party lawn mower and then thrown on the compost heap of electoral failure.

What can we learn from this? I mean, what can we learn besides the fact that I am terrible when it comes to making up metaphors.

Well, one lesson we can learn from the Wildrose loss is the inherent dangers of making election predictions, or as I like to call them, "wild guesses".

Fortunately, however, there are ways to improve such guesses.

For one thing, instead of relying on public opinion polls to make a prediction, try using methods that are cheaper, easier and just as scientifically accurate, such as  throwing darts at a board or rolling a die or flipping a coin.

Mind you, even using those methods won’t absolutely ensure prediction success. The fact is predicting the future is hard.

Indeed, although the punditry failure in Alberta made headlines, it’s not the first time “experts” have been completely and utterly wrong.

I did a little historical research and discovered several examples of failed predictions.

Here are the ten most egregious:

“No Cabinet Minister will ever pay more than $14 for a glass of orange juice.”  -- 2005

“Now that Nazi Germany is defeated, one name that will never, ever be uttered again in the House of Commons is, Hitler.” -- 1945

“I have seen the Progressive Conservative Party’s future and his name is Joe Clark!”  -- 1979

“I have seen the Progressive Conservative Party’s future and her name is Kim Campbell!” --- 1993

“I have seen the Liberal Party’s future and his name is Stephane Dion.” -- 2007

“One thing is for sure, the NDP leadership convention will NOT be the most boring, horribly drawn out and technology-glitched event in Canadian history” – 2012

“The emergence of the Sun News Network will usher in a period of serene conviviality in Canada’s news media community.” – 2011

“A political party that wants to ensure an election victory should secure as its leader someone who has lived outside the country for 30 years and who also possesses a post-graduate degree from a prestigious American Ivy League university.:” -- 2009

“Now that Montreal has won the Stanley Cup, you can be sure we will see many, many more Canadian-based teams win the NHL championship.” --- 1993

“When it comes to fiscal responsibility the best thing you can do is purchase an untried, and vastly complicated piece of military hardware.” 2010.

So you see, even, highly trained and professional pundits have been wrong from time to time in the past.

Mind you, I am fairly certain experts will always get it right in the future.

Why did the bloom come off the Wildrose?

I have been trying to make some sense out of the recent Wildrose debacle.

What exactly happened? Why did the Wildrose blow such a seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls?

Lots of theories are floating out there. Some say “strategic voting” did them in or that the “bimbo eruptions” of loose cannon candidates hurt the party and others contend Wildrose is just too conservative.

Wildrose leader Danielle Smith seems to be in the latter camp. Indeed, she is openly suggesting the party may have to rethink some of its policies if it’s to succeed in the future.

However, my view is the Wildrose loss had more to do with tactics than with policy.

Why do I say that? Well, just consider the Wildrose ad strategy in the last few weeks of the race. It ran what I call “Bandwagon” TV ads. These are positive, upbeat ads designed to urge undecided voters to jump on the “winning team”. These can be effective because, after all, people like to back a winner.

And when I saw these Wildrose ads it helped to confirm my belief they would win. I assumed Wildrose’s own internal polling showed them that undecided voters were leaning Wildrose, and that all it would take to win them over was a nudge.

Yet, it seems the undecided vote actually broke overwhelming for the Progressive Conservatives. Or least this is what Smith contends.

Now this is not the kind of trend a public poll would pick up. But the Wildrose’s own pollsters should have seen this coming. They should have known that undecided voters were leaning PC and would likely vote that way in large numbers.

If they didn’t pick up this crucial trend, than they were not doing their job.

On the other hand, if the pollsters did detect it, then the problem rests with the Wildrose campaign strategy.

Rather than running positive ads in the last few weeks of the race, they should have tried to degrade Premier Alison Redford and the PC brand name.

Perhaps this would have stopped the bleeding.

And yes, I know this is all hindsight analysis, but unfortunately it’s too late for foresight analysis.

Pre-election Analysis

When Tuesday morning rolls around and the results of the Alberta provincial election are known, the outcome will seem as if they were pre-ordained.

What I mean is if the Alberta Progressive Conservatives pull off a victory, pundits will point out this result was totally and absolutely inevitable either because a) Alberta’s becoming less “right wing” and more “cosmopolitan” or b) Wildrose leader Danielle Smith blundered when she didn’t denounce the outrageous comments of some of her party’s candidates.

On the other hand, if Wildrose comes out on top, we will be told this result was totally and absolutely inevitable because the Alberta PC dynasty was tired, corrupt and ready for collapse.

In short, political pundits are always brilliant in hindsight.

And so, I am going out on a limb by making a pre-election day analysis. Rather than relying on “hindsight”, I will use the much riskier “foresight.”

But before you read on, a word of caution: I live in Ontario. I am only watching the Alberta election from afar and largely through the prism of the national and eastern media. I have not made any thorough analysis of polling data, nor am I in touch with any sources “on the ground” in that province.

Much of what I am going to say is based simply on my own political instincts. Some might call it “guessing”.

And so with that important caveat in place, here’s my take of what will be obvious to all on Tuesday morning.

To begin with, I am not surprised a bit with the Alberta PC party’s drop in the polls. Recall that earlier this year, the PCs enjoyed 54% support in the polls while Wildrose languished at just 16%. Seemed at the time like PCs were in store for yet another easy majority victory.

Yet as I wrote back in February the “PC support has peaked and is probably pretty soft. That means it can go nowhere but down.”

And that’s exactly what happened.

The fact is, Albertans want change. And why not, the Alberta PCs have been in power since before fire was invented. What this means is that in effect, Albertans were primed and ready not to like newly minted PC leader Premier Alison Redford. All they needed were reasons to reject her.

And Redford obliged.

She pandered to public sector union bosses, she mishandled scandals, she increased government spending.

And in doing all these things, Redford seemingly went out of her way to alienate potential supporters.

Let’s not forget the Alberta Progressive Conservatives are supposed to be … well conservative. In theory, they are a “right wing party.” Much of their base was certainly conservative leaning. But in recent years, many conservatives, disillusioned with the PC party’s drift to the left, defected to Wildrose.

This was a serious problem for the PCs, but the trend was reversible.

Indeed, a sensible and obvious strategy for the PCs would have been to woo as many of these voters as possible back to the Tory fold. And make no mistake, this would have been eminently doable at little political cost.

I say that because Wildrose isn’t so much a party as it is an unwieldy and diverse coalition made up of libertarians, social conservatives, populists and Alberta nationalists. These are groups which don’t necessarily get along. In fact, they sometimes hate each other. The only thing keeping them united right now is that, for a variety of reasons, they all share a mutual dislike for the Alberta Tories.

In other words, Wildrose has ideological fault lines a mile wide. The PCs could and should have exploited this weakness. Simply put, they could have split apart Wildrose by appealing to different parts of its base. Surely, there must still exist in the hearts of one-time PC supporters some residual loyalty for the old Tory brand name.

But Redford made absolutely no attempt to rekindle that loyalty. Instead she pushed away her old supporters and embraced Red Toryism, hoping, it would seem, to recruit Liberals and New Democrats. In effect, she basically wanted to re-invent the PCs as a left of centre party, even if that meant conceding the bulk of the right wing vote to Wildrose.

If current polls are to be believed, that was a huge strategic error.

Mind you, certain things are outside of Redford’s control. For instance, in the past, Alberta PCs could always count on a sure-fire winning formula: Campaign against Ottawa.

What I mean is in days of yore, the PCs framed themselves as the only ones who could defend Alberta’s values and resources from the rapacious designs of Eastern federal politicians such as Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.

And for Albertans, furious about the disastrous National Energy Program, this was an argument that resonated.

But today things are different. Now Alberta has, in Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a friend in Ottawa. 

Indeed, Harper is an Albertan!

Unfortunately for the PCs this means they can no longer bash Ottawa.

And there is something else that’s different about this election: for the first time ever, the PCs face a legitimate threat from the right in the Wildrose Party.

Wildrose has a telegenic leader in Smith, it seems to have lots of money and seasoned political veterans are running its campaign.

And Wildrose has something even more important going for it right now: momentum.

Poll after poll shows the Wildrose heading for a victory on Monday. Yes, I know polls can be wrong or misleading, but just the perception of momentum can be a powerful force in politics. Voters are more disposed to back a party that appears to be gaining steam.

The Alberta Tories and their media allies have tried to counter this momentum with another potent force: fear.

They are declaring Wildrose leader Smith is “untested, untried and unfit” to lead. Or they suggest she is an “extremist” or a bigot.

Typically, such tactics reflect a campaign that’s in desperation mode. And when employed at this stage in a campaign such attacks rarely work. Or at least they didn’t work when used to derail Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher or Mike Harris or Stephen Harper.

It seems unlikely, to me anyway, that Albertans can be convinced to write off Smith, who comes across as pretty affable on TV, as a dangerous radical.

Also a sign of desperation is the fact that the PC party is seemingly pinning its hopes on “strategic voting”, a tactic that only works in the delusional minds of campaign strategists.

At any rate, I guess by now you have an idea of where I am heading with all of this.

My strong sense is not that Wildrose will win on Monday, but that, for all the reasons stated above, the PCs will lose.

Of course, my whole analysis might turn out to be completely wrong.

And if that’s the case, I am sure the reasons for my errors will be completely obvious on Tuesday morning.

Final Days of Alberta Election will Pit Momentum Against Fear

The last few days before an election are always the most crucial.

This is the time when the vast majority of voters actually start paying attention to the race with any degree of seriousness and focus.

That’s why it’s also the time a campaign must run its best and most persuasive messaging.

And so, with that in mind, what will the Alberta PCs and Wildrosers do this last weekend before the vote?

Well, I know what I would do.

If I am on Wildrose team, I would run a “we are gaining momentum, we are an exciting movement of change” style of ad. The idea is you want to urge people to jump on the winning and popular bandwagon.

Here’s a classic example of this sort of ad:

Also, I would air TV ads featuring former PC voters switching allegiance to the Wildrose. Maybe the ads would show people putting up a Wildrose sign on their law or a bumper sticker on their car, as they say something like “I was always a loyal PC supporter, but now I see Wildrose is best for Alberta.”

I call these switcher ads.

Again, voters like to be on the side of whoever has the momentum.

As for the PCs, well the polls show they are trailing pretty badly right now. If the their own internal polls show the same, I expect they will use the only weapon they have left in their arsenal: fear.

I would saturate the market with attacks on Wildrose Leader, Danielle Smith, focusing especially on questions about her competence.

The theme would be something along the lines of “Can we really trust this political neophyte to run the province at this crucial time?”

This could be effective; fear can be a powerful motivating weapon.

It’s what helped kill the Ontario PCs in the last Ontario election.

At any rate, no matter whats ad-wise the next few days in Alberta will be fun to watch.

Never Thought I'd See Such a Stupid Ad

There is always a temptation when running a political attack ad, to get cute. Sometimes this works, but all too often an ad that supposed to be clever turns out to be really, really stupid.

For an example of a really, really stupid ad, check out this video found on IneverthoughtIdvotepc.com, an anonymous website, that was most likely produced by the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party.

Anyway, this ad is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin.

First off, the ad's edgy routine will backfire. What I mean is the profanity and off-colour language, used by the actors portraying an ever so hip and ever so diverse and ever so obnoxious group of young people is so offensive it will turn off  viewers.

Indeed, I suspect anyone who was on the fence before seeing this video will decide to vote Wildrose after seeing it. Also, I suspect many voters who were going to support the PCs before seeing this ad, will change their minds after seeing it and vote Wildrose.

The thought process will go like this: “Any political party these brain dead idiots are against, I am for!”  

Now call me crazy, but I believe airing an ad that actually drives people away from your party, is bad strategy.

And yes, I know the producers of the spot are hoping this will be offset by legions of young chic, urban Albertans who, wishing to emulate the actors in the video, will “vote strategically” to deny the Wildrose a victory.

But there are a couple of problems with this strategy. First, the demographic this ad is targeting --- mainly those people who spend most of their free time playing Xboxes – don’t exactly vote in massive numbers.

Secondly, and more importantly, despite what some media-types and political junkies like to believe, strategic voting doesn’t happen.

Most regular people going into a voting booth don’t think “I don’t like Party A, so I will vote for Party B even though I really like Party C.” Instead, they vote for Party C.

And here's problem with the ad: It contains blatant and absurd falsehoods. During the video actors say Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith “believes the Flintsones are real” and that she “doesn’t believe in gravity.”

Of course, these are lies.

OK I know this is supposed to be “humour”, but this is meant to be a serious piece of political communication. Simply put, lying is wrong in a political spot, even if it's just a lame joke.


Plus the ad isn't even logically consistent. It says to vote strategically, but as my friend Peter Jaworski pointed out on his Facebook page, the spot ends with an actor saying "vote for people who you think are good, man." So which is it? Vote strategically or vote for the guy who is good? You can't do both.

I could go on, but let me finish with one more observation.

The PC party is running this ad because they are desperate and panicky. And losing power after 41 years, probably is a frightening thought.

Yet that does not give the PCs the right to mock and ridicule their own supporters, just for the sake of keeping power.

 And make no mistake, this ad is a calculated slap on the face to every small “c” conservative in Alberta.

The PCs are basically calling conservatives rustic, redneck, rubes in the desperate hope this will curry favor with the trendy left.

This goes beyond crass and cynical. It’s nothing short of despicable.

Premier Alison Redford should be ashamed. 

   
Update:

The producer of the ad says it was not an Alberta PC Party production. I am dubious. 

Schooling Russell on Harper and the Charter

Just sent a letter to the Winnipeg Free Press in response to this column. Don't think it will get printed, so to get it off my chest I will post it here:

Dear Sir/Madam:

Surprise, surprise, Frances Russell has spewed out yet another hysterical and bizarre column aimed at smearing Prime Minister Stephen Harper. (Harper undoing Canada, April 4, 2012)

What is this, the 1000^th such column this month?

News flash Ms. Russell: Other stuff is happening in the world.

Anyway, typically I ignore her simple-minded left wing fantasy rants, but this time she wrote something so ridiculous it had to be challenged.

I am referring to her statement in today’s column that Harper “abhors the 1982 Canadian Constitution and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Really?

Perhaps Russell is ignorant of the fact that during his time at the National Citizens Coalition, Harper used the Charter on more than one occasion to challenge bad laws.

Yes, that’s right. He turned to the court system and to the Charter in his battle to protect individual freedoms.

As Harper himself once put it, “Solutions can only be found in the classical theory of liberal democracy -- checks and balances of institutional power under limited government”.

Hardly sounds like the actions of a man who “abhors” the Charter, does it?

Mind you, I don’t expect Russell cares much for actual facts or research.

After all, it’s so much easier just to churn out mindless garbage.

Baseball Brainwashing Gone Wrong

My son and I love both love baseball, but unfortunately we don't love it in the same way.

And for me that's a cause for real grief.

To understand what I mean, you need to know I am a baseball zealot. And when I had a son, I was determined that he too would share my passion for the greatest of all sports ---whether he liked it or not.

So when he was barely able to walk I jammed a fielder's mitt on his tiny hand; instead of watching cartoons he watched Blue Jay highlight videos and at three-years-old he was using a plastic bat to whack whiffle balls.

I patiently pitched to him hour after hour, and yes, in the process I took a few vicious liners off various parts of my anatomy, but it was worth it:

My son eagerly took to the sport. Indeed, he went on to become a little league all-star.

But for some reason my baseball brainwashing was not a complete success. Yes, he loved the game, but he loved it the wrong way.

The right way to love baseball, of course, is to embrace the game's traditions and myths and legends.

Anyone who has ever seen the baseball movies The Natural or Field of Dreams knows what I am talking about.

Baseball is not about today; it's about yesterday. It's about Bobby Thomson's "shot heard 'round the world," or Babe Ruth calling his home run, or George Brett's pine tar bat.

But my son --- now in his early 20s -- cares nothing for the game's history or hallowed traditions. He doesn't care that the Dodgers once played in Brooklyn or that Ted Williams' nickname was the Splendid Splinter.

If anything he is more than ready to dump the game's grand customs in the name of rationality.

He likes the horrendous idea of a "wild card" team making the playoffs. In fact, he wants (horror of horrors) to add more teams to post-season.

He also supports such heresies as interleague play, the designated hitter rule and using video replays to review an umpire's call.

Where, oh where did I go wrong?

The problem is my son understands the game, but not its soul. And this is clearly manifested in his approach to statistics.

To my mind, for a hitter only three stats really matter: batting average, home runs and runs batted in. For a pitcher, it's wins and losses, earned run average and strike outs. That's the way it's been since the days of Abner Doubleday.

But my son talks about statistics you can only understand if you have an advanced degree in physics.

For example, we will be watching a game and I will say something like "John Jones is a great hitter; he has a batting average of .290."

In response my son will roll his eyes and declare, "His 'isolated power' stats are weak, plus his 'super linear weights' and 'wins above replacement' numbers are a joke."

I nod sagely in response, but what I am really thinking is: "Isn't a 'super linear weight' some sort of exercise machine?"

And he talks about other weird-sounding stats such as Batting Runs Above Average, (B.R.A.A.) which is not to be confused with Batting Runs Above Replacement (B.R.A.R.) or Batting Average on Ball In Play (B.A.B.I.P.).

My reaction is always the same: W.H.A.T.?

And he uses phrases like "regression analysis" and "Pythagorean formulas." It's like talking baseball with Mr. Spock.

The sad fact is, for my son baseball isn't a grand romantic narrative, it's a cold, sterile mathematical equation.

And so we love the same sport, but not the same game.

By the way, I named my son Nolan, after Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan who holds the record for most career strike outs.

You would think that would make him happy?

But it doesn’t.

As he recently put it, "Why didn't you name me after a pitcher with a better walks to strike out ratio?