Hmmm. There’s something to think about amidst all the fashionable protests about Tibet. But I think you know that I’m pro-Chinese on that issue. Maybe not a popular position these days, but so be it.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
China: Another Perspective
Lou Dobbs: SPP/NAU Talks in The Big Easy
Harper is nowhere to be seen in this segment. He refused to hold a press conference for the Canadian media, who only have the opportunity to ask TWO whole questions during the wrap-up presser with Bush and Calderón, one of which was about In-n-Outgate that drew an utterly predictable response about the raid being “the same story as before” with Elections Canada.
“They will have some jambalaya, eat some gumbo and send the right signals, but don’t expect much.” — Prof. Michael Hart
The Great Green Smokescreen
Seeing as it’s Earth Day an all, I thought it might be appropriate to run this Channel 4 documentary from last year that reveals how attempts to buy our way out of climate crisis may not be delivering. Science Correspondent Tom Clark examines many of the “solutions” to global warming — from carbon off-setting to green energy tariffs.
Update: Ah yes, the fully anticipated gratuitous assholery from retarded “classical liberal” fuckwits and FFoF wannabes who just don’t get it and feel that going out of one’s way to be a complete jerk is somehow making a bold statement for individual freedom. Yawn.
Peter Van Pantload: Discussing the “Visit” (Updated)
Shorter version: But, but… ADSCAM!!!
Update: I had initially dismissed the contention that the additional Conservative spending may have affected the outcome of the election, but Steve at Far & Wide has some very interesting stuff on this:
“What I see here, with VERY few exceptions, the Conservatives topped off ridings that weren’t in play, in order to use that money where it could make a difference. The above supports the idea that this extra money was very important for Conservative fortunes, spent in targeted regions, it could very well have made a difference, as suggested by both the Liberals and NDP.”
Update2: So much for that “free speech” argument. What a load of bollocks.
The Hour: McVety on Bill C-10
I know we’ve been through this before, but Lindsay has an update on the situation over at Canadian Cynic’s place along with a response from Senator Hervieux-Payette. Also, I hadn’t seen this interview with everyone’s favourite fundie wingnut Charles McVety talking to George Stroumboulopoulos.
“I’m a conservative, I don’t believe in censorship.” — Charles McVety
LOL.
Monday, April 21, 2008
“It just doesn’t seem to go anywhere…”
Ain’t it the truth?
“New evidence indicates the boring, meaningless, repetitive plot is snuffing out Canadians’ interest in politics. After two years of Tom and Jerry hijinks, an Ipsos Reid poll for Canwest News Service/Global National shows the support for Liberals and Conservatives is virtually unchanged.”
“Muddier and Muddier Update”: Apparently, it seems that according to some nutcases, we live in a dictatorship run by Elections Canada and the Liberals!!! Awwwwkkkkk!!!!
“Who are the Liberals going to use next? Where is their next mole hidden? Dirty politics, the only thing Liberals know how to do well.”
It’s a vast conspiracy!!! It’s all a nefarious, sinister, criminal plot, hatched by those nasty, perfidious Lieberals and their complicit media goons!!!
I can hardly wait for “Trusty Tory” to weigh in on the matter with his usual sober, objective judgment…
Harper Party in a Nutshell: “materially false and misleading statements”
Disclosure of information concerning the Elections Canada/RCMP “visit” to Conservative Party headquarters last week (gory details here) confirmed what everyone already suspected about the “creative accounting” scheme allegedly designed to mislead Elections Canada, exceed spending caps during the last election and defraud taxpayers of several hundred thousand dollars. What’s vastly more amusing at this stage however, was the bungled attempt at “spin control” by Conservative officials yesterday that will certainly do nothing to endear these chuckleheads to the mainstream press for which they have so much visceral antipathy.
Via The Globe & Mail:
In releasing the abridged version of the documents to select media, the party hoped to give Mr. Sparrow, campaign organizer Doug Finley and party lawyer Paul Lepsoe a chance to explain the Tory point of view.
In the end, the plan went horribly awry.
On Saturday night, Mr. Sparrow called a number of reporters to ask them to come to meetings that had been scheduled for yesterday at the Lord Elgin Hotel in downtown Ottawa saying it “would be worth their while.”
But media outlets who were not among those invited got wind of the meetings yesterday morning and began to ask what was going on. When one reporter asked in an e-mail about the news conference, Mr. Sparrow replied: “No conference, not sure where you got that from.”
The reporter then flipped Mr. Sparrow back an e-mail in which he had told another reporter who was on the list that the briefing would be at “4:30 Lord Elgin, Boardroom 800. Embargo until 7:30 pm Sunday night.” To which Mr. Sparrow replied: “I meet with journalists privately all the time.”
Shortly after, the Liberals found out about the briefings and advised all of the Ottawa press gallery, some of whom were quite miffed to find they had been excluded. When they threatened to show up at the Lord Elgin, despite the lack of an invitation, the meeting was secretly moved to the Sheraton.
The first briefing for select television outlets took place but, by then, the excluded reporters found out the new location and began to stake out the hotel. That led the Tories to cancel all subsequent briefings, including the one they had planned with The Globe. And Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Finley and Mr. Lepsoe fled from the Sheraton down a back set of stairs.
“Theme & Scheme” Update: If you ever questioned whether “Teh Blogging Tories” and Stephen Taylor in particular were unpaid shills for the Conservative Party of Canada, the ferocious spin surrounding the “In-n-Outgate” should quick dispel any doubts.
Stealing Your Freedom
Peter Hitchens looks at the creeping destruction of time-honoured civil liberties and gradual erosion of laws that protect individual freedom in the
“Once, our police were the servants of the law and the people… in a startling change, they’ve begun to carry out the political will of the state. And the state itself, claiming to act in our interests, has been gathering increasingly detailed information on us. These growing databases are only one of the ways in which it seeks to pry into our lives.”
Meanwhile, at CPoC Spin Central…
Given the bizarre overture yesterday, the events that are bound to unfold today should be more than a little interesting, no?
Update: It seems Stephen Taylor is already getting in shape for the pretzel logic that’s sure to come.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Eres Lo Que Lees
I saw the story about this conceptual artwork earlier in the day over at CC’s place and had a mild chortle over it. Funnily enough though, Ben Stein’s commentary on CBS Sunday Morning this week was about the pet animals that are often overlooked and sometimes abandoned under harsh conditions in the wake of financial setbacks being experienced by many Americans. To the surprise of some perhaps, he made an impassioned plea for a small amount of the taxpayers’ money on behalf of “the absolutely most innocent victims of the housing mortgage bubble — the dogs and cats abandoned by owners fleeing their foreclosed homes or homes they can no longer afford.” It’s extremely doubtful of course that any of the quite worthy suggestions that Stein proposed will receive the slightest bit of funding whatsoever. So in a sense, it proves the point Vargas was making about the hypocrisy of those who profess to be so compassionate about the welfare of animals; the stingy mooks at SDA and numerous others who were duped by this artful hoax being a case in point.
Shock Video: Morten Gungle
A little late night, NSFW entertainment. Here’s a clip from Adam Buxton, wherein he and Joe Cornish talk rubbish over softcore porn collected from TV stations around the world.
Pat Condell: On Free Speech in Canada
What he said.
Not “politically correct” (as if I care), but spot-on for the most part.
And speaking of “blowhards” here’s an update of sorts with Rex Murphy’s comments on the matter from last month.
Chairman Harper’s “Little Blue Book”
“In Harperland, a nation can have many national governments. There, people are not bound by the reactionary need to see a nation as a unitary organism, bound by collectively experienced values and ambitions. There, all physical, biological and political laws obey the Chairman, so that nations comprised of politically autonomous, culturally disconnected entities are perfectly viable—even ideal. Similarly, Harperlanders do not consider the human body to be in optimum physical condition until it has had its limbs and head lopped off and become a body of six sovereign, decentralised bodies.”
Immigration Reform: A Matter of Time (Updated)
If I understand the supposed “reforms” proposed by Immigration Minister Diane Finley that are contained in the budget bill known as C-50 correctly, this will give the minister discretionary power to sometimes whimsically adjudicate cases and, according to official sources, “streamline the processing of the current backlog of immigrant applications” or some such thing. Well, that all sounds quite fine. The Liberals oppose this because… well, that’s what they do — oppose things; also, they contend that such changes will give too much unwarranted discretionary authority to the minister while doing little to make a serious dent in the enormous waiting lists that are currently pending, which they have to take a good deal of responsibility for having helped to create in the first place through their bungling and mismanagement of this portfolio over the years...
As a matter of fact, the “Conservatives” have proudly, and quite rightly, boasted of their “aggressive immigration policy” that’s resulted in the number of immigrants hitting record levels. This may actually be something that doesn’t entirely please many of their more xenophobic supporters if they were aware of it, but as Harper pointed out the other night at a Canada-India Foundation gala dinner in Toronto “We are bringing in more immigrants than any previous government. You can see this has been an upward trend in the past four decades. The Mulroney government had higher immigration levels than (the previous) Trudeau government… Since we were elected in 2006, actual immigration across categories has risen yet again. Including I might add 56,000 new immigrants from India alone.” As well, the “Conservatives” have been quietly funneling tens of millions of dollars into a number of key cities to bolster various support programs for new immigrants.
But let’s concentrate on the matter at hand, which is the assertion that “reforms” contained in the proposed legislation will help clear the appalling backlog (the largest in the world, according to Harper). The most contentious parts of the bill seem to center on allowing the Immigration Minister to establish categories (or otherwise) by which applications will be determined, to prioritize those categories, to set the number of applications that will be processed and to intervene at any time “for the disposition of applications and requests.” Critics contend this is an “executive power grab” but that just sounds like a lot of bollocks to me. Perhaps I’m missing something here, but the proposals don’t really sound terribly unreasonable at all. I rather doubt that they’ll make much difference in the end and don’t seem to amount to much more than a bit of administrative tinkering, so what’s all the fuss and bother about? Apparently, I seem to missing something.
Just as a matter of amusement however, I wonder how long it would take the Minister to clear the backlog with her new-found powers if they were given full reign. On an individual basis, allotting five minutes per case, it would take 75,000 hours, or 3,125 days, or 8.6 years… this, of course presuming that each case was decided every five minutes without stop 24/7 over that period of time. But let’s say, she makes categories for the claimants… and this will help, how exactly? Will they just get rubber-stamped now based on being categorized and/or prioritized? Surely, there must still be some individual review of each application involved, so it’s a little difficult to see how these proposed “reforms” are really going to make any sort of difference whatsoever to the backlog of applicants. But again, maybe I’m just not “getting it” when it comes to what’s so egregiously awful about the proposed reforms.
Update: It seems I’ve been duped and that the “Conservatives” have actually cooked the books in order to support their claims of increased immigration. I really should know better than to take this government at its word or think for a moment that they’d ever be truthful about anything. Consider me chastened.
Furthermore, thanks to Rob for setting me straight and pointing out the following article entitled “Tory bill stifles debate” by Guidy Mamann of the immigration law firm Mamann & Associates.
The Harper government is promoting its controversial immigration bill by promising that it will reduce our backlog, produce faster processing times, and make our system more responsive to Canada’s labour market needs.
The Conservatives propose to accomplish this by giving our immigration minister, Diane Finley, unprecedented new powers.
If I believed this, I would easily support this initiative.
In an interview last week with CTV’s Mike Duffy, Finley confirmed that our backlog now stands at about 925,000 applications. The government maintains that the Minister needs these powers to cherry pick applicants who are needed here on a priority basis. She was asked by Duffy, if under the present system, the department was able to fast track, say a welder who was desperately needed in Fort McMurray. Finley answered “The way the law stands now we have to process the oldest application first. If that person is number 600,000 in line we’ve got a lot of applications to get through before that”.
This is simply not true.
Our current legislation states that the federal cabinet “may make any regulation ... relating to classes of permanent residents or foreign nationals” including “selection criteria, the weight, if any to be given to all or some of those criteria, the procedures to be followed in evaluating all or some of those criteria… the number of applications to be processed or approved in a year” etc.
In fact, in the case of Vaziri v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Federal Court held in September 2006 that our current legislation “authorize[s] the Minister to set target levels and to prioritize certain classes of PR applicants” without even a regulation being passed. Accordingly, Finley has more than enough power under our current legislation to make virtually any changes that she wants subject to the Charter.
So why should we care if this bill passes?
Simply, because we already have far too little debate on the kind of immigration program this country needs. Often when I explain some aspect of our immigration law I am asked “who came up with that?” This proposal will push policy-making deeper into the backrooms. The proposal, which really belongs in an immigration bill, is tucked into a budget bill. It can only be defeated if Stéphane Dion were willing to defeat the bill and force an election which could easily cost him his job. If successful, Finley would be free to govern by decree, virtually eliminating the need for any legislative debate on immigration policy. The publication of the minister’s “instructions” in the Canada Gazette would be no substitute for an open discussion.
The Minister pledged “I can stand hand on heart and say this is good for immigrants, good for business ... and ... good for the country”
I say that the best way to eliminate the backlog and speed up the immigration process is by dedicating more resources to them, increasing our levels, and/or by simplifying the process. If we need people here quickly, the minister can simply issue work permits to those in line with job offers. This bill does none of that and the transfer of power from the cabinet to the minister will accomplish nothing. Hand on heart!
Channel 4 - Greatest Funniest Moments
Clips are: 1) The Numa Numa Dance; 2) Howard Stern-Private Part; 3) Chris Rock (Black People vs. Niggas); 4) Banzai: Mr. Shake Hands Man; 5) Dennis Pennis: Dude makes fun of celebs right in front of them; 6) Beadle’s About - Fake alien landing; 7) Bo’s Selecta 8) George W. Bushisms; 9) Trigger Happy TV.
That Snail Crossing the Road bit at the end from “Trigger Happy TV” is definitely a must-see (go to 17 min. for the start of that segment).
Fast Food Nation
Eric Schlosser the author of “Fast Food Nation” (an excellent book) talks to Morgan Spurlock who created and “starred” in the 2004 Academy Award® nominated documentary “Supersize Me” about the local and global influence of the American fast food industry.
Schlosser believes that the centralized purchasing decisions of the large restaurant chains e.g. McDonald’s, KFC, Burger King, Pizza Hut now have an unprecedented degree of power over America’s food supply, as well as “wiping out small businesses, obliterating regional differences, and spreading identical stores throughout the country like a self-replicating code.”
Kids Talk Politics
Here’s another, harebrained, groan-inducing idea from the some pretentious douches at an outfit called “Overactive Imagination Pictures”...
Hey, let’s ask 8-10 yr. olds what they think about politics!
Now really… How completely retarded and pointless is that? Of course, there are always some hopeless slackwits this worthless sort of tripe will appeal to.
Jungle Jitters
Perhaps you may have noticed that Kate has this oh-so-clever new feature over at her place called “Frankly My Dear” which spotlights certain “banned” cartoons from past eras that are… how shall we say… um, “politically incorrect.” In other words, they feature blatant racial stereotypes that were entirely typical of attitudes prevalent sixty or seventy years ago.
I’m not quite sure what “point” she’s attempting to make here. Like you I would imagine, I can most certainly appreciate these cartoons for their relative artistic/creative merits (which are pretty damn considerable — come on… Tex Avery: indisputably brilliant!), while at the same time discounting the obnoxious racial prejudice involved by taking into account the appropriate historical context and all that sociological rot. But do these rather bizarre curiosities from the past really have any place in the present-day political discourse other than as cultural detritus or artifacts of bygone times that, let’s face it, were rather tragically unenlightened with regards to matters of race and ethnicity?
Far be it for me to impute the worst sorts of motives to Kate’s endevour, but I can’t help but think that it’s little more than an attempt to be provocative, and a rather “forced” one at that. Certainly it affords the teeming horde of flying monkeys yet another opportunity to expound ad nausea about the evils of “political correctness” and serves as a handy launch pad for all manner of attacks against the evil cultural perfidy of the sinister “liberal élites” and their grinding, jack-boot clad Stalinist oppression, blah, blah, blah. But I don’t know… it all seems a bit silly to me. Frankly, I don’t really give a damn either, but when you deliberately go out of your way in such a painfully obvious fashion to make an “issue” out of it… well, then maybe I should.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
