I'm back

Some months ago, I became very busy trying to finish a big project and I stopped blogging at civitatensis.ca, the site to which I had moved after starting to blog here in January of 2005.

I was so busy that I even missed the date for renewing the web registration. Since then, a couple of some ones took over the name. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a free country and a free web, but those who took over the name have been deliberately posing as this writer.

They didn't just use the same web name. They have tried to emulate my graphics with an Ancient feel. That the poor buggers are using Greek architecture to depict a blog with a Roman name is evidence that they have no clue about what the name means. In addition, they use my writer's name, kaqchikel, and use the same descriptor for my blog: "Eclectic commentary about random political and social issues, primarily on federal and provincial politics in Canada, from an Albertan’s point of view."

I have no interest in engaging the fraudulent civitatensis.ca. Imitation is, after all, the greatest form of flattery.

I still have my own archive from civitatensis.ca and I will be loading them here soon.

So, on this day of the Winter Solstice, the birth of the Sun, I am reclaiming in this space my name and my blog. They can steal my writer's name and appropriate the website, but they can't match my graphics and ideas.

WE ARE MOVING!!!

Starting immediately,
our new home
is
www.civitatensis.ca

Mr. Dithers Knows Best

After Dithering for more than a year regarding Senate appointments, Paul Martin claims that his newly announced choices " reflect the choice of outstanding Canadians with a record of accomplishments." But it is hard to think of one thing that Grant Mitchell ever achieved in public life. Conversely, last fall, Albertans elected four outstanding Canadians to represent them in the Senate. Yet, Mr. Dithers refused to name any of them. Many Albertans are rightfully upset. Even the Globe (subscription required) was unimpressed:

Yesterday's first instalment, filling nine seats, was quintessentially Martinesque: not egregious, not brilliant, just middling.

Paul Martin, the man who would wipe out the "democratic deficit;" who claims to be in favour of Senate reform; and who claims to be sympathetic to western concerns now says that he does not want to achieve reform "piecemeal."

That can only mean that the PM has a better plan, and that he knows better than Albertans. If Martin is so wise, will he then present to Canadians his plan to reform the Senate? Considering that he will not accept the proposal that Albertans have placed before him, when will he reveal his?

Perhaps his Senate reform plan will be published at the same time as the still-awaited Kyoto policy. In the meantime, he can continue to make room in the Red Chamber for his liberal friends and pals. Some of them will badly need to continue to contract out their girlfriends.

Cross posted to ThePolitic

Ignorant Albertans?

Commenting on Ralph Klein's position regarding homosexual marriage, The Toronto Star (registration required, no subscription) hints at a conspiracy (Imagine that!). It is predicated on the manipulation of the Albertan public, for as long as it remains, the Star says, "ignorant."

"It's bad to be on the wrong side of the law on an issue of human rights. It's almost as bad to cynically grandstand, to mislead Albertans about your authority, to curry favour from voters you have deceived, hoping they will remain ignorant and supportive."

It does not occur to the Star that not all political issues need be framed in the language of rights, or that the Alberta premier may be trying to do something that Albertans want. If one were to be bet money on who knows the wishes of Albertans better, the Star would not come out ahead of Klein on any list.

Cross posted to ThePolitic

Save Doyle House

A couple of years ago, someone confessed to me that he had selected a particular post-secondary institution because, in his words, "the girls are hot" in that school. Naturally, boys want to be among girls (and vice versa), but not all the time.

Here is a story, from Memorial University, of a bunch of boys who like girls but value living among boys. Manly men know the difference. They live in the last all-male residential building that bureaucrats are trying to convert to co-ed.

The Doyle House boys are lining up to defend their tradition. There are two all-female houses at Memorial, and they support the boys in their fight. A resident of Doyle House said (NP -subscription required):

'There are a lot of things you have to worry about in a co-ed house, a lot of drama. But in an all-male house, all those stresses are gone. You get to be yourself.... In co-ed houses you have to get up and shower right away and clean yourself up.'

I found this refreshing. It is also a question about variety and choice. Another student was quoted by the St. John's CBC:

"If you're taking away the place where we feel comfortable growing and expressing ourselves, and forcing us to mature in an environment we're not comfortable with, how are we going to be able to grow into the individuals we need to be to lead the country in the future?"

The Doyle House boys have an on-line petition of support here.

Is Democracy Hypocrisy?

"Democracy is hypocrisy" was the (in)famous line by Malcom X.

I received a comment about yesterday's post from fellow blogger The Shotgun Solution. I am grateful for her/his visit. Her/his words reminded me of what Malcom X said. S/he accuses my suggestions of hypocrisy. I'll make a couple of comments about her/his reply, but first here is what s/he said:

Politically, the Conservatives can't do anything about Jim Prentice. Imagine the Conservatives, after a policy convention which they were supposed to leave united, block the nomination of a moderate member because of his views on same-sex marriage. If you think the national media was harsh on the Conservatives DURING the convention, check out the massive slamming the Conservatives will get in the media (and public opinion) if they try and silence their moderate members. The Conservatives would lose legitimacy on several fronts. 1) A few days ago they could perhaps be considered a pluralist, moderate conservative voice. Canadians have a new impression of the Conservative party (slightly, Harper is still leader and Canadians will always be skeptical of him) and now the party is considering tarnishing this image. 2) The party claims it will be more democratic, accountable and transparent in government. Apparently, the suggestion is to silence a member through an authoritarian process. How democratic is that?

Your suggestions are hypocritical and poor politics.

1. Let me take the first line of the comment: "the Conservatives can't do anything about Jim Prentice." Here, it is obvious that Shotgun Solution and I may have a different understanding of what a democracy is supposed to be. Contrary to the Shotgun Solution's contention, if one reads my previous post, I am arguing that the constituents of Calgary North-Centre are not invalids. They have choices, real political choices; they have abilities, and no one should tell them that there is nothing that they can do. That kind of politics, the top down kind, don't go very well in Alberta. I am arguing that they are in charge of their own course, and that they can make sure --if they wish-- to have choices when next election comes.

2. To me, homosexual marriage is not the center of the issue, and neither does it seem to be for Shotgun Solution. For her/him is party unity and media reaction. We seem to agree that the question of democracy, however, is central here.

3. The prudential counsel that the media will have a field day is well taken, and should not be discounted. I have no doubt that this is true. That is why I said that it would be a little hellish. But that is no reason to do nothing. If, for example, the Media (by which I assume Shotgun Solution means the liberal media) were the principle concern of every good Tory, if Mr Prentice were solely worried about the portrayal of optics of disunity within the party, he would not have EVER made his announcement. If Shotgun Solution calls immoderate anyone who would not tug the party line and puts the party in a position of having to defend itself against charges of disunity, then I am afraid that Jim Prentice fits that description as well.

The question then is: Why are Prentice's actions, in full display of disunity, a good thing, but dissenting from his decision labeled "poor politics"? In all evidence, Prentice was not worried about the optics through which the media would portray his about face. In his calculations (see this post) he knew that he would get favored media attention; he also knew that the media would say all kinds of things about a rift in the party (as indeed they did). He put at risk the unity of the party in the wake of the national convention. That much seems clear to anyone that can see. But he went ahead and did it anyway, right? Shotgun Solution seems to be saying that after Prentice rocked the (party) boat and compromised unity, no one should be allowed to rock the boat. I'd be surprised if the party constituents in North-Centre will swallow that.

4. Prentice made a decision based on conscience, on principle, on can say. Personally, I don't really buy that, but I'd respect it if it were true. So in a spirit of respect, let us assume that it is true. Then, if Mr. Prentice can act on his convictions, why can his party constituents not act on theirs?

5. If Prentice possesses the resolve of his conviction, he should not fear facing the convictions of others, much less the convictions of those whom he serves, the constituents of Calgary-North-Centre. Neither should Shotgun Solution fear them.

6. At bottom here, there may be a conflict between the will of the MP and the will of those who selected him and gave him the party nomination, both apparently based on conviction. If this is the case, and if we profess that the party is a democratic community (not an authoritarian one), it is clearly the will of the selectors that ought to prevail. To deny this would be authoritarian or anti-democratic.

7. Given these, the considerations of the media, liberal or not, and the considerations of the rest of the party, important --no doubt-- though they may be, do not supersede in any way the will of the constituency party members, the Conservative members of Calgary-Centre-North.

8. Hypocrisy, let us be clear, would be to advocate one thing and to do another. Hypocrisy would be to claim the right to adopt a position on grounds of conscience and then blatantly or subtly to deny to others the benefit of the same position. I am not trying to call Shotgun Solution hypocritical by saying this, let me be clear. Insofar as I ignore her/his motivations, I could not reach that conclusion. But the position is not very consistent.

9. Finally, there is nothing authoritarian about my suggestions. On the contrary, they are "more democratic, accountable and transparent." My suggestions may not be convenient to Mr. Prentice and his acolytes; they may not even be convenient to the party brass, but that is another matter. It is up to the party constituents of Centre-North to decide. There is nothing intolerant or immoderate about my suggestions. They are perfectly consistent with the most fundamental principles of the democratic ideal, and with the principles upon which the party rests.

Malcom X was simply wrong. Shotgun Solution might be in good company.

Sex Awareness 4

This is the fourth and final posting on this question, I am hoping. In my first post I wondered if it was true that Honey Houston was Miss Nude Canada 2005 as it was being claimed in the newspapers and blogs. Poking around, but apparently not enough, I was led to conclude that it was untrue for reasons that I mentioned here.

Three days ago, I got a copy of an e-mail from Chris Landale, the owner of the contest, in which he confirmed my suspicion. Here is part of his e-mail.

...this is Chris Lansdale, I am the owner of The Miss Nude Canada Pageant? and can assure you and the rest of the world Damanda Moore is the reigning Miss Nude Canada? for the year 2004/2005. Honey Houston won the title Miss Nude Canada? Au Natural�, she was also voted by all the contestants Miss Congeniality for The Miss Nude Canada Pageant? National Finals 2004/2005.

Have you check [sic] out the website www.missnudecanadapageant.com and the specific link contained there within for Pageant Results? The official awards and titles for the various years are all shown there.

Thank You for your attention to this disturbing matter.

I am told that Au Natural, for those wondering, means that there are no artificial elements involved. Who knew? Congeniality? Well, that is likely the side of Houston that the guys at the Gaunlet will likely never see in court. Since I received the message from Chris Landale, and while I wondered whether to post on this once again or not, a reader found postings here, confirming the same. Boy, and someone thought that I was being too diligent about this.

I am guessing that Houston probably told the papers her whole proud title: "Miss Nude Canada Au Natural" and that they omitted the last part; or that she did not mention the last part. Mistake or negligence? Either way, the report that Honey Houston is Damanda Moore is incorrect.

Landale has written to the papers to rectify the error. I am not sure that the Herald will publish his letter, and doubt whether they would want to admit any mistakes on this. Voila!

Previous:

• Sex Awareness
• Sex Awareness 2
• Sex Awareness 3

Knock, Knock, Knocking on Prentice's Door

Yesterday, a reader left the following commentary on a posting from last month regarding Tory MP Jim Prentice's opportunistic volte face on the question of homosexual marriage. It has prompted me to remember some of the history of the riding in which I lived for a few years, and to ponder some of the avenues open to Prentice, and to those who oppose his about face.

As a resident of Prentice's riding, I'm disappointed by Jim's decision to support the Liberal redefinition of marriage, but not the least bit surprised. As mentioned on the blog, Jim is a calculating man. Joe Clark held this riding before Prentice. He won because NDP and Liberal voters in the riding threw their support to Clark to prevent an Alliance candidate from winning. Prentice is calculating that he will pick up more than enough NDP/Green/Liberal votes to offset the few Conservative votes he will lose, thus guaranteeing him another win. Unfortunately Jim has sent a message to Conservative voters like myself that says - if he can change his mind on one Liberal issue, why note another - like gun control, or decriminalizing marijuana?

Thanks for the comments, JR.

The Joe Clark element that JR identifies is very much on the radar for Prentice, we can be sure. But there are a couple of things that lead into that first. Prentice is counting on the fact that candidates' nominations in the Conservative Party will be grandfathered for all MPs heading into the next election. Prentice's calculating mind knows that he will not have to face a nomination race, in other words. He can coast from here to the next election, he has figured. And by the time the next one after that comes around -- five, six, seven years from now-- no one is going to remember any of this. Time is on his side. Sounds like a good bet for him.

But Prentice must also be counting on Harper to sign his nomination papers. Harper might be encouraged not to, though, if there is enough pressure put on Harper by the grassroots in the constituency. It might be a little hellish, but it can be done.

My guess is that the Tories from Calgary Centre-North should not wait until there is an election called to try to move on this. It will be too late by then. They should move now, get some speed going, and press Harper not to sign Prentice's papers. If the constituents of Centre-North do nothing or if they lose in their attempts to remove him, they'll end up with a pro homosexual marriage MP no matter what. They got nothing to lose in that sense. And, as JR points out, what else will Prentice sacrifice his constituents about in his effort to be more appealing down East? What else will he switch camps on? And even more so now that he will learn that he can just get away with it if nothing is done.

Pushing Prentice out is about the only option they have left, if they wish to have choices in the next election. That, or more democratic deficit, if you will. Conservatives in Centre-North will have to choose and vote between an all pro gay marriage political cast. In the absence of a contrasting choice, I will repeat myself, if the Libs run a strong pro homosexual marriage candidate, s/he would have an excellent chance of taking Prentice out.
Constituents of Centre-North can make the argument that the party could lose the seat to a pro gay marriage Liberal. All things being equal, why would voters want to vote for someone who changes his mind and betrays his partisans? Even Liberals understand loyalty. Has Prentice not been watching the unfoldings of the Gomery Commission? What would be the incentive for a Liberal to vote for a candidate like Prentice, if their own is also in favor of the same thing?

What is more, sensing the softness of the riding on the question, the Liberals would be encouraged to launch a strong candidate to get that seat, which would turn into a cabinet seat, in Calgary, should they win the big prize. Why would a Liberal back Prentice when s/he could end up with a Liberal cabinet minister instead? And one more: Why would a pro gay marriage Liberal vote for Prentice if he and his ideological kin in the Conservatives are but a small rump, rather than having a Liberal of their own representing their views among a bigger, friendlier caucus? Conversely, if the Conservative Party wins the next election, and Prentice gets into cabinet, he will be even more inclined to do what he wishes, instead of listening to his constituents. Centre-North will be looking at an even greater democratic deficit then.

At first blush, the calculation that Prentice might pull a Joe Clark in the riding seems like a long shot. Joe --for better or for worse, actually more likely for worse-- was a former PM. He has a wife and a daughter that worked their tails off for him. In the days when Clark knocked off Erick Lowther, the Alliance and the Tories were split, and the Libs were running a nobody. Therefore, the logic and incentive (against Lowther and) for a pro Clark axis (Tories, Greens, NDs and Libs) was strong. One imagines that those conditions will not be repeated in Centre-North the next time around (And Prentice does not enjoy the organizing talents, and the restless work of Maureen McTeer; nor is Katherine likely running to come door-knocking with Jim).

On the surface, Prentice's chances are not as good as they seem, as I argued in the post last month, unless... any of three scenarios (or a combination thereof) come to be:

1. Prentice vaults and runs as a Liberal candidate (Laugh, if you will, but I am not discounting this one. Prentice walked the line between the Alliance and the Tories without blushing before, and he is now walking the line between the Grits and the Tories. It's clever positioning. Let's give him that)
2. Prentice cuts a deal with the Liberals and the other parties, like Joe Clark did back in 2000, to abandon their own candidates in favor of him. (But such a deal will not come for free. The question here is: what will Prentice promise them in return? Do we see another Grand Marshall pushing a broken car in a parade already?).
3. The Conservatives in Prentice's riding submissively take their MPs about face and don't do anything at all

I am assuming here that Prentice has not already worked out a deal with the Liberals in his riding before he made his public announcement. Prentice may have inherited more than a grandfatherly nomination; he may be the natural successor to the Joe Clark deal of five years ago. From the Conservative grassroots point of view, that should be reason enough to act. If Prentice has negotiated with the other parties already, the riding's Conservatives will have to take him out. Harper will pull the proverbial trigger, one hopes. If Prentice has not yet cut a deal, why wait until he does, or until the constituents finally find out that he has, after the election?

Leave Canada!

A CBC radio personality and a Toronto blogger are going at it. My money is on the blogger, for the record.

CBC's Andy Barry sent a terse reply to Angry in the Great White North blogger, after the latter requested an explanation regarding public funding and the ideological preferences of a CBC's broadcast. Barry replied:

I've got a way for you not to pay for the CBC. Leave Canada.

Worked for me. I didn't want to pay for the Viet Nam war, so I left. Consider it a fair trade. You'll be in the only country in the industrialized world without a national broadcaster, and you'll have the satisfaction of not having to see you tax dollars wasted. And I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that someone who gets his facts from Fox won't be voting in any more Canadian elections. You won't have to be Angry in Toronto any more.

You can be Happy in Toledo.

Then everybody's happy.

First, I though: Uhhmmm! How poetic that the quitter advises others to quit their own country. Tried, tested, and true. How conservative of him.

I wrote yesterday (right below) about deserters and brain drained Americans coming up to Canada to stay. Voila. Barry's invitation may be the thing to do for many of us. But the agreement would have to be fully reciprocal --or it will not work. Carolyn Parrish will be Canada's ruler then.

(Hat tip: Bene Diction Blogs On)

This Trade is Not Free

VDH laments the propagation in the readily use of Hitler analogies.

So what gives with this crazy popular analogy --one that on a typical Internet Google search of "Bush" + "Hitler" yields about 1,350,000 matches?

These betray enormous ignorance of the conditions under which Hitler rose and thrived; ignorance of the beliefs that fuelled his policies and actions, and the results that they produced. All true.

My question is: why is it that half the moronic souls comparing GWB to Hitler always want to head up here to live in my country?

For decades Canadians have decried the "brain drain." It typically meant that Canada's brightest were often heading south of the border looking for more opportunity: a better life, better careers, less commies and less taxes. Bad enough for us then? It just got worse. Now we are inheriting half the "brain drained" from the United States. How long can this possibly go on before Canada collapses under the weight of the aerocephalines?

If this is what free trade means, I want out!

Related: Deadbeat Hero

Invisible Minority

In spite of the openess and availibility of blogs, they tend to be populated by whites males, some have remarked --and it has led to some bemoaning. I wonder what Harvard president Larry Summers will have to say about this.

One out of two ain't bad for me.