The Tiger at Home

This space will likely go dark for the next ten days — will be visiting the folks and going to see the extended family across the continent: Boston — Toronto — Bay Area — Toronto — Quebec City — Montreal — Boston.

Shall be carrying both my passports, of course. :-)

My take on the Canada/US passport arguments (submitted to Your View):

Oh, for Heaven’s sake — if one-tenth of the resources spent belly-aching about the new rules were put into the Passport Agency, Canadians would have their passports in time. Furthermore, developing a new border-crossing card is just plain silly — we have a secure document — it’s called a passport.

Here is what Canada should do:

1. Make Canadian passports last ten years again, like in every other civilized country.
2. Allow for a streamlined renewal process. (This is happening — as of this August, many passports will be renewable by mail.)

The Canadian passport regulations only became so cumbersome because it used to be that you could get a passport on the honour system — if you swore you were born in Canada, we’d issue you a passport — and so people like MLK’s assassin ended up with multiple Canadian passports.

That was forty years ago — we have better control over our issuing offices now — and we could go to as simple a process as the Americans have. (I speak from experience, as a holder of both American and Canadian passports.)

These are two separate countries — even I, a citizen of both, carry both my passports when I cross the border. Time for others to grow up and just apply for their own.

But if you don’t like that, there’s another alternative: you can push for a North American customs union, like the Schengen Accord in continental Europe.

If you don’t like that idea, then you must live with reality: it takes a passport to cross international frontiers.

Here, perhaps, is a model to follow — The Freedom Association.

They have an honourable history — their story is told in Tory! Tory! Tory!

Their North American counterparts could take a page from their book, I think.  At least, they’re a group I like most for their platform.

… could well be an election we’re going to get:

The Prime Minister has exhausted his initial agenda. This month’s cabinet shuffle was the first step of a relaunch that should, in all logic, include the presentation of a throne speech. …At the end of a pre-session caucus retreat last week, the Bloc leader warned the Prime Minister against seeking the confidence of the House in the fall. He also said he would not support a throne speech that did not specifically exclude an extension of the current Afghan mission beyond its 2009 deadline.

There is more to these warnings than the routine noises of an opposition leader seeking to demonstrate that he cannot be taken for granted, and more also than just a cynical attempt to exploit the rising profile of the deployment in Quebec. …

These days, the Quebecers who are satisfied with the general directions of the government increasingly question why they should stick with the Bloc while those who oppose Conservative policies are increasingly uncomfortable with Duceppe’s support of the Harper regime. Some of those dynamics are on exhibit in the three Quebec ridings at play in next month’s federal by-elections.

In other words, there’s a very ironic situation. Precisely because the prime minister is providing a government that is satisfactory to Quebecers, his government is in danger. If the Conservatives were at rock bottom levels of support in Quebec, the Bloc could continue to prop them up. Now, however…

But the other parties in opposition are in a tough spot, too:

If the Bloc withdraws its support for the Conservatives, the government could in theory turn to one of the other opposition parties. But in practice it is unlikely that either the Liberals or the NDP would step into the breach and vote for a Harper throne speech.

Given their rhetoric, neither could do so without losing face. Yet the Liberals, who don’t sound keen for an election at this stage, could be even less eager for one after the Sept. 17 by-elections. But more on that in another column.

I still say that the Liberals could abstain and say, look, you know we don’t support this, but the country just isn’t ready for an election.

***

How are we doing? The latest polls are fascinating. Basically, the situation is this: Canadians like the government they’re receiving, but they don’t care so much for Stephen Harper. (Interesting discussion here.) Plenty of Liberal voters are open to moving to the Conservatives — the Conservative support is rock solid — but that places the Conservatives exactly even with the Liberals.

Where does that leave us for a November 2007 election? Darned if I know.

If the PM has a grand plan for a winning campaign to take his party to a majority, it could well work out — he’s good on the campaign trail. (Taking out Paul Martin in two elections was well done, especially given that he had little time to prepare for either one.) But this government’s drift suggests that he may not. The opposition parties seem equally listless.

I feel that a 2007 election in Canada may well be like the 2000 presidential election in the United States — heated, but passionless. That’s to say, the two sides will detest each other, but there really aren’t all that many issues to fight over. The big issues have yet to emerge — and we will probably end up surprised as they do.

If we do have to go to the polls, I like my guy’s chances — but really, I’d prefer that the parties keep their powder dry for an election when we really have a major choice to make. I’d rather wait until September 2009.

But hey, it’s fun watching campaigns. So if November 2007 is it, so be it. (more…)

Just had a look at this video of that unfortunate Idaho senator, and I had a thought. You know who he reminds me of, with his voice? A certain former Liberal interim leader.

I speak not of morals or values — simply of voice. Funny, that.

***

Update: But I’ll also say that there’s a sensible way to handle this issue and an unsensible way.

The main idea — in these sorts of cases — is that one does not want one’s orientation to become the defining characteristic of one’s career.  How to do it?

The former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada and former leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition picked the sensible way.  The soon-to-be former Senior Senator from Idaho picked the not-so-sensible way.

Oh, and there’s been what I think will almost certainly be an addition to popular culture — “He’s got a wide stance.“

The waistline is fine, but the legs are getting too thick for the pants.

Must start exercising (cardio) more.

Find it vaguely disturbing that I weigh twenty pounds more than I did this time last year, but the clothes still fit (more or less).

You know, if my ideas about foreign policy towards Iran stem from taking President Ahmadinajad (sp?  Well, whatever — President I’m-a-dinner-jacket…) at his word, I can and must apply that to Russia.

And Russia is worrisome:

The eight-minute clip, which eventually found its way to YouTube, was ostensibly meant to persuade draft-eligible teenagers to seek a career in the army. But its true object was to foment paranoia. Images of U.S. soldiers marching on unidentified soil flashed across the screen, while a narrator warned that America aims to “colonize” Russia for its oil. Former Soviet satellites in the ‘Stans and eastern Europe were depicted as beachheads for an impending invasion. One animated segment portrayed worm-like tentacles emanating from the United States and creeping around the globe through former Soviet republics like the Baltics, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. “They are right next door,” the voice-over said. “They will take any available opportunity to take us over.”

There will not be a war with America only if they are sure that our army is not weaker than theirs?!  (Around the 2:30 mark.)  The damage done by the narrative that we are in Iraq only for oil can be seen around the 3:15 mark of that video.

Agit-prop.

The larger question:

Conspicuously, though, none of those ideas addresses the cauldron of anger and paranoia still brewing inside Russia’s borders. Yet increasingly, that appears the most important dimension of dealing with a country where belligerence is the new political currency. Putin can appear at times rational on the world stage. Other times he seems driven by a near-pathological need to provoke. Which raises one of those chicken-and-egg riddles that bedevil international politics. Is he in command of the radicalism that increasingly defines his regime? Or is it in command of him?

He wouldn’t like this as a comparison:

But as Victor Hugo put it, nothing is so powerful as “an idea whose time has come.” And by the mid-’70s enough Tories were fed up with Heath and “the Ratchet Effect” — the way in which each statist advance was accepted by the Conservatives and then became a platform for a further statist advance.

It probably won’t be all that long until the largest navy in the world flying a White Ensign will be flying not this one, but this one.

I’m watching “Tory! Tory! Tory!“

Here.

It’s an interesting production. Am trying to figure out whether it is pro- or anti-Thatcherism. (Part one seems quite sympathetic. Key sense: “You forget what it was like, living in pre-1979 Britain…”)

Suspect it would make for good viewing for Stephen Harper. Of course, he knows all this intellectual history already…

Update: I love it. The narration is slightly grudging, but the excitement of the intellectual movement just can’t be denied… Am on part II now — The Path to Power.

Update again: Yes, it’s a pretty darned good program. (Got through it all.) Next up: Commanding Heights.

Realization: there really was a global revolution going on during my childhood. And my life — everything I do — is simply a story of reaping the benefits…

Hillary Clinton was just asked whether the day smoking was banned in public places would be a ‘good day’ for the United States.

She said yes. And she wants the FDA to be able to regulate tobacco advertising.

***

Well, we know where these types of politicians stand. Especially Hillary Clinton.

*sigh*

… what with the calls for revolution over in the HuffPo, the opening line of this article startled me:

Pocasset, Massachusetts — Britain’s Royal Navy is opting to go autonomous.

LOL.

Mind you…

This is interesting. [via sda]

Canadian support for the military mission in Afghanistan remains surprisingly stable, including in Quebec, despite the loss of three soldiers from that province in the past week, a new CanWest News Service/Global National poll suggests.

Conducted by Ipsos Reid, the poll found 51 per cent of respondents across the country said they support the mission, while 45 per cent oppose it. The numbers remained virtually unchanged from a month ago.

In Quebec, support for the nation’s overseas combat activities actually rose to 35 per cent this week from 30 per cent in July, while opposition dropped to 61 per cent from 65 per cent. The Ipsos Reid poll runs counter to a CROP survey, released earlier this week, which showed an 11 percentage-point increase, to 68 per cent, of Quebecers opposed to their compatriots being involved in the conflict.

Given that there remains exactly one (1) political party in Ottawa that supports the Afghanistan mission, political considerations in light of this poll are very interesting.

Especially given this.

There is a way that the PM can get around his musings that he wouldn’t want to extend the mission without a multi-party consensus — he could fight (and win — if he loses, obviously he can’t get around them) an election on the issue of the war, and on Canada’s proper role in the world.

Anyway, it’s an intriguing possibility. Electoral breakdowns are a fascinating topic — they get brought up a lot in Bill Clinton’s autobiography…

Update: There are two ways I could see an election campaign going — the Liberals could consolidate the anti-Harper vote from the Greens and some of the NDP base, which would sweep him from office. Alternatively, the Conservatives could build support during the campaign, which is what historically has happened (except in 1993).

(Go see someone’s election from the future site.)

In light of the recent police troubles in Quebec, may I say that I think it is past time for the police to have data recorders with them as they perform their duties?

That is, that cruisers have audio or video records made as a matter of course, that the plans for dealing with demonstrations be monitored and recorded, and that there be an oversight commission set up, as suggested by various members of the press?

Police officers are human beings, with all the virtues and failings that that entails. Sunshine — or the mere possibility thereof — will help keep those individuals who have darker inclinations to keep them under control. Furthermore, peace officers while performing their duties do not have the same reasonable expectation of privacy that ordinary citizens have in their everyday lives.

My sympathies in these sorts of situations — in liberal democracies, I must stipulate — tend to be with the police. But it never hurts to verify what they’re up to. We know of all too many times in our past when they have not acted as they ought.

So let’s help them provide order and preserve constitutional norms by keeping them honest and by showing them to be honest.

This is like installing car counters at toll booths.

This really sucks for Floridian Democrats — even if it is the right decision.

Why? The primary date was set by the Republican majority in the Florida state legislature.

***

If I may be permitted a slightly snide remark: it is interesting to see the Democrats standing for the observance of rules and the prevention of chaos. One wishes that they would observe similar standards in their national platform, but, alas, they are better at sticking to that agenda in their own party than in their policy course for the nation.

It would be (richly) ironic if this action by Republican state legislators leads to people becoming upset with the Democrats in Florida, and to their voting Republican in the general elections.

We’ll see.

Just am watching C-SPAN, seeing Rudy Giuliani present his tax plan (and talk about his dreams about Sarko).

It’s a dynamite speech.  After watching President Bush’s ineptness at presenting his (relatively decent) tax policies (his spending policies, on the other hand…), I’m thrilled to see someone make the case in an articulate way now.

Rudy!  Rudy!  Rudy!

On relative American power.

Iran has a fertility rate of 1.7%, net migration of -4.29/1000, male life expectancy of 69.12 years, per capita GDP of $8,700 and several thriving separatist movements, not least among the 7% of the population who are Kurds.

Venezuela has just 26 million people, a net migration rate of -1.28/1,000, and a per capita GDP of $7,200.

China has a net migration rate of -0.39/1,000, fertility rate of 1.75, 30 million excess males, a GDP per capita of $7,700, and several regions it has no prayer of holding onto including Tibet, Uighurstan, Hong Kong, etc..

Russia has a negative population growth rate at -0.484%, net migration at .28/1,000, fertility rate of 1.39, male life expectancy of 59.12 years, per capita GDP of $12,200, and various separatist movements, like the Chechens.

America has net migration of 3.05/1000, fertility rate of 2.09, life expectancy of 78, and a GDP per capita of $44,000.

A friend of mine makes these points, whenever I’m feeling blue about the future.

Still, bad things can happen…

Update:  For fun, let’s see how Canada stacks up…

Canada has net migration of 5.79/1000, fertility rate of 1.61,  life expectancy of 80.34, and a GDP per capita of $35,600.  Total population of 33.4 million.

We’re getting there.  Things are good.

As the CIA factbook puts it:

As an affluent, high-tech industrial society in the trillion-dollar class, Canada resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and affluent living standards. Since World War II, the impressive growth of the manufacturing, mining, and service sectors has transformed the nation from a largely rural economy into one primarily industrial and urban. The 1989 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (which includes Mexico) touched off a dramatic increase in trade and economic integration with the US. Given its great natural resources, skilled labor force, and modern capital plant, Canada enjoys solid economic prospects. Top-notch fiscal management has produced consecutive balanced budgets since 1997, although public debate continues over how to manage the rising cost of the publicly funded healthcare system. Exports account for roughly a third of GDP. Canada enjoys a substantial trade surplus with its principal trading partner, the US, which absorbs about 85% of Canadian exports. Canada is the US’ largest foreign supplier of energy, including oil, gas, uranium, and electric power.

Not too shabby.

Haven’t seen it? Have a look:

Unlike some, I don’t really think it offensive — but I do think it unwise.

Why? Well, it’s a strategic move, of course — Giuliani is the most dangerous Republican in a general election.

See, here’s the thing: conservatives — even the most fire-breathing religious socially conservative types — are actually fairly open to arguments about civil unions. But they’ll take it much more easily from people they see as their own — the Rudy Giulianis of the world — than from people who are, well, flaming. [Something people have known since the 1968 primary campaign...]

This is an attempt to trigger a visceral reaction against the most camp-like elements of the gay sub-culture. It may succeed in damaging Mayor Giuliani in the South Carolina primary. But surely it’s the last thing that an out-and-proud director would want to encourage.

***

Oh well, whatever. People are free to do what they like — even if it is counter-productive and rather destructive.

Update: Here’s an interview with the guy behind it.

Not VeryBright: How do you think that perpetuating that stereotype and making them flaming would advance your ultimate cause?

jdavisnyc: My ultimate cause of having a Democrat win in 08?

Not VeryBright: I assume your ultimate cause is acceptance, respect, and legal rights for homosexuals.

jdavisnyc: Ah. It’s on my list totally. But, I don’t think it’s our most pressing concern. When we’re on the brink of war with Iran. …

jdavisnyc: Keeping Rudy from the nomination is vital to winning in ‘08. I’ll say it over and over again. I didn’t make this ad to be liked by SC Bloggers. I made it to stop Rudy from being President.

Not VeryBright: And you sold your soul to do that. You decided that people hate gays, so you make your actors as flaming as possible, have them espouse pro-Rudy support, and let that run its course.

jdavisnyc: And, it’s running it’s course. And people are TALKING about how Rudy has flip-flopped on gays. The ad appears to be effective in generating a real conversation. And with that, I’m pleased.

The (conservative, I’m assuming) blogger ends by calling Davis’s tactics reprehensible.

Well, he’s succeeded in getting attention — I’m just furthering his ends by making this post.

Update again: Alternatively, one could look at it this way — this ad (campaign?) is a signifier of how good gays finally do have it in the USA. That is, a New York director (who is gay) can consider foreign policy to be more important than gay acceptance in a national election. He is not afraid that his ad will provoke reprisals or any of that sort of thing.

Politics is the important thing.

That’s actually somewhat reassuring. And hey, Giuliani’s stances are a matter of public record. He’s a big boy — he can defend himself, and justify his stances.  (Ones which had the virtue of being right.  And so too would have been a stance supporting gay civil marriage.  Still waiting to see a major presidential candidate speak to that one.)

Apparently, they’re calling for military officers to arrest the president over at the Huffington Post. [via Instapundit]

What I have to say to that is, well, this:

1. If lefties want to privilege military officers over civilian politicians, they will have a rude awakening when they figure out what the politics of the officer corps (to say nothing of the enlisted men) is.

2. If, as I expect will happen, the Democrats re-take the White House in 2008, they are going to be very, very embarrassed by outpourings like these.

Reactions available from Captain Ed and Hot Air.

***

I think my college roommate who was working for a Democratic congresswoman had it right — if there is a desire to go for the political heads of people in the current administration rather than just run out the clock until January 2009, the Congress would be best advised to try to impeach Vice President Cheney.

But hey, if you want to make it less likely that your side will put up a sensible candidate, go ahead, be my guest.

[I still think the smartest Democratic line -- from a candidate -- towards President Bush would be what Governor Bush had to say about President Clinton at the 2000 GOP convention. That is, he was such a talented man, and that there was such wasted potential, so many wasted opportunities. That allows one to point out flaws while staying, well, presidential.

It also had the virtue of reflecting public opinion -- people liked Clinton well enough, they were just disappointed by his failings. They don't hate people they elect and re-elect -- it just doesn't happen.]

Update, next day: The desperate backpedaling begins.  (Why don’t I believe him?  These comments.)

All right.

Here’s the situation in Canada.  The government will be introducing a new Throne Speech in the fall.  This is necessarily a vote of confidence.

The NDP will not support it because the government will not comply with Kyoto.

The Bloc will not support it because the government will not commit to withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2009.

Which leaves the Liberals in an interesting position.

How?  Both of these positions are now major planks in the Liberal Party’s platform — Kyoto and getting out of the war.

***

Duceppe and Layton are being very clever — they are essentially calling out Dion, the main point being, I suppose, that the Liberals sound very left-wing from the opposition benches, but this disappears once they start governing.  (The Chretien years were better for small government conservatives than the Harper years have thus far been.)

This is especially clever on Duceppe’s part because he puts himself on the 70% side in Quebec — the vast majority of Quebecois now support withdrawing from Afghanistan — leaving his main threat outside Montreal, the Conservatives, on the 30% side.

Update:  A quick Google news search gives us Dion’s response — it’s rather lame.

OTTAWA (CP) - Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says he won’t support the Bloc Quebecois in bringing down the federal government over Canada’s role in Afghanistan.   …

Dion says he wants the same thing, but he wants the commitment now, not in the fall.

And he adds he won’t commit to bringing down the Tories without seeing what the prime minister includes in a throne speech expected this fall.

So he won’t agree to vote with the opposition because he wants the commitment now rather than later.

This is exactly the response that Layton and Duceppe wanted, I think — they have a visual of the Liberals propping up the Tories because they do not want an election.

My advice to the Liberals: abstain on the Throne Speech vote, just like the Tories initially did on the 2005 budget.  Be up-front about just not being ready for an election.  It pays, in the long run, to be honest.