Having Successfully Ended the Long-form Census but Failed to End the Long-gun registry, Conservatives Determined to Ban Long Johns

Yesterday sources learned that the Conservative government under Stephen Harper is eyeing a ban on long johns. A Canadian tradition, long johns have not previously attracted the attention of the federal government. Minister of Natural Resources, Jim Prentice, stated that long johns are no longer necessary, given the rise of global warming, particularly in the Canadian arctic. Such a strong admission of global warming is rare for the Harper government, but given their determination to stop all things “long”, even deniers of global warming have apparently been thrown under the bus.

A government spokesperson, without confirming or denying a ban on long johns, tried to correct Prentice’s gaffe by acknowledging global warming while questioning whether it is manmade. He added that “long johns are becoming less critical in Canada, and whether we should put our manufacturing and textile industries to such use is an open question.” When asked directly about the ban, he acknowledged that all options are on the table, and admitted that “rural regions may find it more difficult, but the government believes our urban manufacturing base needs support to adapt to change, particularly in the current economic downturn.”

In a related note, some members of the Canadian Olympic Committee have expressed concern about the stability of funding for Canadian long jumpers heading into the 2012 Olympics in London. Long-track speed skating, always one of the best Canadian teams at the Olympics, has already secured its funding for the Winter Olympics in Russia.

Air-conditioning and Toll Roads: Solving America's Energy Crisis

We head down to the Jersey shore for vacation, to a quiet bit of beach far from the boardwalks and miniature golf and arcades. We lay on the beach--ahhh, the sound of the ocean, the warm sun, the…wait, what’s that? A small propeller plane towing a flying advertisement for—but of course—a cosmetic surgeon! Then here come three planes in a row for an internet provider, the three planes offering--in order--a fast, a faster, and a fastest internet connection. Last but not least a plane putters by towing a sign for-–am I reading correctly?—Dick Cheney at the Atlantic City Hilton. Who knew he planned to retire and go on the comedy circuit? America. Empire and carnival for the price of a single ticket.

Driving down we were caught in traffic jams. Were there accidents? Too many cars? No and no. The frequent slow-downs seemed to be caused by the presence of tolls. Lots of tolls, and cars slowing down to figure out which lane to go to—EZ Pass, Cash, Cash with Receipt. I admit I am no longer accustomed to toll roads. Canada doesn’t seem to have them. When I check out details in Wikipedia, it says that most toll roads in Canada are actually bridges to the United States. Is that perfect or what? Canada pays for its roads by something known as taxes. The U.S., on the other hand, makes the user pay—once at the toll and once by sitting in the traffic jam all the tolls create. Sitting in the traffic jams, I couldn’t help but think of how much gas was being wasted; it was like a miniature blowout of an offshore platform in the Gulf—day after day traffic jams waste gas all in the name of a refusal to tax sufficiently to build and maintain infrastructure.

So here’s part one of my solution to solve America’s energy crisis: eliminate toll roads. Here’s part two: lighten up on the air-conditioning. I mean, really, is air conditioning supposed to cool things down so much that your testicles retract? Someone ought to do research on the comparative use of air conditioning. Whether you're in a mall or a home, everyone seems to want to put their bodies on ice. Why not pass a law that says all air-conditioners need to be set to no cooler than 75? Because, duh, that infringes on our fundamental freedoms, you ex-American, law-abiding, government-loving Canadian. Oops, sorry, I forgot. Well, okay, how about if someone makes it a very strong suggestion? You could still chill out, but just not quite so thoroughly. And you’d do the planet a world of good in the process. Think about it America.

My Gift to the U.S. on July 4th: fairy tax dust

An email from a friend from last week:

In the US the state of gov't finances is really grim, massive budget deficits that by law have to be balanced - talk of states like California going bankrupt unless bailed out by the Fed gov't which would unleash a floodgate. Warren Buffet spoke about this last week, saying that after the feds bailed out Wall Street banks it would be inconceivable that they would refuse to bailout a state - good point. And many US voters, in their populist uprising wisdom, have voted in laws essentially giving legislators no decent options for raising revenues, so it's cuts cuts cuts. Not long ago I read that US voters have been convinced - by the Tea Party, Republican types (and then embraced by a lot of Democrats) that they pay high taxes and don't get enough from their government when in reality they have one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world - so there is a huge ideological wall they have to climb before they can deal with this mess they have created. As Buffett quipped, he pays less tax than his secretary.

After reading this cheery email, I came upon a remarkable article in the NY Times titled Illinois Stops Paying Its Bills, but Can’t Stop Digging Hole.
Two paragraphs:
For the last few years, California stood more or less unchallenged as a symbol of the fiscal collapse of states during the recession. Now Illinois has shouldered to the fore, as its dysfunctional political class refuses to pay the state’s bills and refuses to take the painful steps — cuts and tax increases — to close a deficit of at least $12 billion, equal to nearly half the state’s budget.

...From suburban Elgin to Chicago to Rockford to Peoria, school districts have fired thousands of teachers, curtailed kindergarten and electives, drained pools and cut after-school clubs. Drug, family and mental health counseling centers have slashed their work forces and borrowed money to stave off insolvency.

My gift to the United States is an unlimited supply of fairy tax dust. When you toss it over lawmakers, it gives them the courage to raise taxes. When you toss it over the electorate, it gives them the wisdom to accept what is necessary.

Without this gift, you can launch all the fireworks you want but the country will still go nowhere but down.

For the complete article go here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/business/economy/03illinois.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

Happy Birthday Canada!

You don't look a day over one hundred and fourty three. Okay, so maybe the arctic ice is melting and the permafrost is turning to mud, and yes, it's true, the tailing ponds from the Tar Sands are a bit of an eyesore(or is it birdsore?), and we can't deny that the CN Tower is no longer the world's tallest structure, but morally we don't send more asbestos that's banned here to the third world than they can use, and we did just host the G-20 that accomplished (what DID it accomplish? anyone know out there?), and people are admitting that the Parliament that just went home for the summer was one of the most useless on record and--wait, wait a minutes, THAT'S GOOD! they all went home for the summer: Parliament is not in session!
Ah, something to celebrate.

And may you have another one hundred and fourty three to grow kinder, gentler and wiser than you are now.

Psssst, American Companies, Move Up Here

The Director’s of one of Canada’s MBA programs recently had this to say:
“Never in the history of our country have we been ahead of the United States. The United States has always been richer, more powerful, more aggressive, more dynamic, more successful, more entrepreneurial. And right now they’re going off the cliff. Their banking is a mess. Their real estate is a mess. Their tax system is a mess. The place is going bankrupt before your eyes.” He actually thinks “we have the opportunity to steal some of their business” and get American companies to relocate up here.

Think again. Capitalizing on an opportunity happens because you’re aggressive, dynamic and entrepreneurial. And THAT is the essence of Canada…not! Actually, because things are fine up here, why bother, eh? Isn’t it Canada’s low risk-tolerance and conservative banking culture that saved the country’s butt in the first place. Where exactly are these new traits going to come from to capitalize on the opportunity he sees? And besides that, it’s the height of the NHL play-offs. Business opportunity? What opportunity? Pass the chips and dip, and break open the Molsons.

Notes From The Nanny State

THAT would be Canada, at least according to Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (is there an oxymoron buried in there by chance?), he said in his keynote, “You need to understand something here folks, we’re not in a nanny-state induced coma, like Europe and Canada.” My young teenage son, listening along with me, started up a conversation that went something like this:
“What’s that mean dad?”
“Well, a nanny state is a state that takes care of its citizens, it has things like an old-age pension for its citizens, universal healthcare, maybe generous parental leave policies, perhaps national daycare, things like that.”
“But that sounds good, why does he think it’s bad?”
“He thinks it’s bad because it means people will get lazy, and they won’t work hard because the state will take care of them, like a nanny.”
“But if that’s true, why are Americans so lazy? They live in a country that doesn’t take care of them.”
“Why do you say Americans are lazy?”
“Well, geez dad, you’ve been down there, they’re the fattest people around. You get fat when you’re lazy, right?”
And so there, you have it at last—a metric for measuring the degree of Nanny-statism. The U.S. wins by a landslide! No wonder they have that show called The Biggest Loser. France, on the other hand, deep in its nanny-state coma, has citizens known for their thinness. And how about those socialist Scandinavians—aren’t they a bunch of fatties? Wait a minute, they’re actually pretty damn fit….I could get to like this metric.

* * * * *

Parity

That’s been the big word here this past week. Parity. It means the Canadian dollar is of equal value to the U.S. greenback. “Parity” is said with a kind of pride. If the Loonie is of equal value, than the country must be as well. Another metric. Canada, in other words, is finally as good as the U.S.! Right? Aren’t we? I mean, is it okay to say we are? Is that Canadian? Okay, maybe we’re not really as good. But almost, eh?

Truth is, the northern Nanny-state is actually outperforming the U.S.in most economic measures. Take that, Michael Steele. You would think that Canada coming out of the global recession stronger than any other G8 country would also be a source of pride, and it is, but, and this is a big butt, Canada knows its economy is completely tied to the U.S. Canada would actually be better off in the long run if the U.S. were coming out the strongest. It’s why Canada, as much as it may like to see itself as better than the States, can never wish the U.S. anything other than good fortune.

* * * *

The Southern Republican Leadership Conference and Ann Coulter Revisited

Underlying the content of the remarks of those at the conference is a reminder again of the breakdown of political discourse in the U.S. Newt Gingrich described the current administration as “a perfect, unrepresentative left wing machine dedicated to a secular, socialist future.” Sarah Palin was saying the kinds of things Sarah Palin says. Give her points for consistency; then take them away for accuracy…Imagine being fed a constant diet of this stuff, as many Americans are.

Think of political rhetoric as food; given that you are what you eat, perhaps Americans need to eat something more nutritionally balanced. Eating primarily the empty calories of emotionally-charged language is no healthier than eating cheap, overly-processed foods. One is satisfied only temporarily, before one needs to return for more. The reason Canada and Canadians ought not to partake of the words of Ann Coulter and her like is not because of any issues of freedom of speech, but rather because it makes sense to pay attention to what you take in—whether its food or rhetoric. A diet of nothing but twinkies is only good for the producers of twinkies, just as consuming right-wing rhetoric only benefits the producers of that rhetoric. Junkfood is junkfood. Don’t take it in. It’s bad for your health. Eat your vegetables, said your mother. And she was right. The reasonable (and reasoned) language of civil conversation may be a diet that’s a bit bland but it’s good for all of us. Canada still has some of it; the United States, none.

Bringing in those American chefs to listen to their recipes is folly.

Ann Coulter Comes to Canada

Ann Coulter, the conservative American pundit, came to Ottawa to give a speech at the University of Ottawa a few day ago. Protest ensued. The speech was cancelled. Coulter leapt on the opportunity to bash Canada, the U of Ottawa, and the poor Provost from the University who sent her a letter explaining that certain types of speech in Canada can lead to criminal charges (I’ve included the letter in full below).

The kafuffle has created a veritable potpourri of punditry here. What’s not available to talk about—Canada vs. the U.S., left vs. right, freedom of expression vs. hate crime legislation, the role of the University. Everyone is chiming in, and the mean-spirited wit of Coulter has the True North Strong and Free in her sites.

In all the noise, I’ve been wondering what’s really at stake here. What’s at the heart of the matter? Does Coulter’s politics threaten Canada in some way? Her political positions—government is evil, love your country and its Christian heritage, go after your enemies, the State isn’t your mommy—are not new here, though certainly they are not prevalent. Her ideas are, in fact, completely secondary to why she garners such attention. Coulter is not a media phenomenon because of the originality of her thinking but because of the biting style in which her thinking is delivered. Could the mere style of her discourse, rather than her ideas, threaten well-meaning Canada?

Coulter’s rhetoric is mean-spirited and personal. She has honed the art of the humorous dig that has one laugh and say ouch at the same time. For Coulter, vulnerability is opportunity. Her deepest joy is pushing buttons. The living and the dead are equal targets. Witness a recent remark, “The fact that a Republican is in the late Senator Kennedy's old seat probably must have him rolling in his grave, probably spilling his drink.” Coulter not only doesn’t seek to rein in her mean-spiritedness, it is a central aspect of her brand. Of the Provost who sent here the letter, she says he “didn’t even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night,” and that his name, Francis A. Houle, is “French for Frank A. Hole.” The put-down with a nasty bite is her stock in trade.

So what? Why should we care about the language of an American pundit? On one level, we shouldn’t; let her take her travelling road show around the country and then return to the States. On another level, to the extent one believes civil discourse is a key ingredient of a democracy, perhaps her rhetoric isn’t so innocuous after all. One need only look to the January State of the Union address, when a Congressman shouted out that the President was a liar, to know that Americans are fast losing the ability to talk reasonably to one another about issues that matter.

This decline in civic conversation has been going on for some time, though I would claim it first appeared as a significant media phenomenon during the seventies when 60 Minutes introduced its Point/Counterpoint segment, a three minute sound-bite that sought to agitate viewers emotions with ideological positions that refused to be reconciled. Those brief harangues were famously spoofed on Saturday Night Live; unfortunately, those comedy sketches look all too prescient: how much distance is there between that famous line from Saturday Night Live, “Jane, you ignorant slut,” and Coulter’s “Frank A. Hole”?

The health care debate in Washington is only the most recent example. From shouts of “baby killer” to “nigger” to calling the President a “fascist,” the exchange around the issue of healthcare left little to admire. And now the chickens have come home to roost: Americans, following the examples of their elected officials, are calling in death threats to those politicians who took a stance they didn’t like. Coulter threatens democracy because her way of engaging with ideas and people feeds a virulence that prioritizes intransigent opinion over informed dialogue. And though she might, all tongue in cheek, demurely say, “why, you mean little ole me? threaten democracy?,” she is, I think, a seed carrier of this type of discourse and those seeds gets dispersed on the winds of the media.

Coulter, of course, brushes off the charges that she is mean-spirited or promotes hate by claiming she’s merely a satirist. She no more wants to kill all the Muslims than the 18th century satirist, Jonathon Swift, in his “A Modest Proposal,” wanted to sell babies so the rich could use them as food. She might like to imagine herself as a political humourist, in the American tradition of Mark Twain or Will Rodgers, and she’s simply updated the tradition for the 21st century. The problem with such self-dismissal is that context is king, and Coulter appears on the news circuits as a commentator, not in stand-up clubs and not on the Comedy Channel. Her base, the audience she most speaks to, is tuned—in both their politics and their faith—more towards the literal, unfortunately, than the satirical. Words, after all, shape thinking, and thinking shapes actions.

At the end of the recent Olympics, Brian Williams, the host of the Games for NBC, wrote a “thank you note to Canada” in which he thanked the country “for reminding some of us we used to be a more civil society.” The belief in Canada is that it always lags five years behind the States in most everything. If so, the country doesn’t have long to strategize how to keep this crass discourse of American political life from crossing into Canada as easily as an unregistered handgun. However, I prefer to believe that, in the matter of civility, Canada is far ahead of the U.S., perhaps a good twenty years ahead, as the country was, for example, with fully integrating Gays into the military. Canada’s profound need to insure it is “not the United States” is likely its strongest protection against the further encroachment from the sad political exchanges in the U.S. Perhaps as Americans continue to become more unable to talk effectively across their differences, Canada will continue to strengthen its civil discourse, and perhaps, one day, find a way to export that vital asset to its southern neighbour.

(an article providing a relatively brief overview as to how the U.S. electorate became so unable to talk with one another can be found here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/godfrey-hodgson/great-american-refusal)

Below is the Letter from the Provost at the University of Ottawa:

Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa