On Jack Layton...

I join everybody in offering my condolences to the family of Jack Layton for his passing. I did not agree with many of his political policies, however I certainly can agree that he did love Canada and continually acted with the best intentions to improve the lives of many Canadians.

I wanted to also share some thoughts on the more interesting things I read over the last couple of days...

• Carly Weeks in the Globe and Mail takes a different angle on the death, choosing to argue that Layton did not lose a battle against cancer. Instead he died of cancer.
  
  When you think of this, it gives you pause. It's too easy to use the analogy; it's very common and in fact it is the terminology that Layton used himself to describe what laid ahead for him.
  
  Obviously this isn't what anybody intends to imply. Using the battle/fight analogy is meant to honour the person, not denigrate them. However, that is the underlying message. It's just not the message that you think of when you first are offering your support to the patient, or when you are the patient. The problem, as is pointed out by Mike Marqusee in the Globe article, is when the cancer "defeats" the patient. If the cancer ends up "winning", does that mean the patient did not fight hard enough? Were they not good enough to beat cancer?
  
  Sometimes it's necessary to take a step back and consider the words that you are using. Even though you might only intend one way of interpretation, they can have unintended consequences. I know that when somebody close to me (or even I) faces cancer, I will offer my support in a different manner than the battle analoy.


• The National Post lets us know that the State Funeral for Jack Layton is unprecedented. The thing is that having an Opposition Leader die while still in office is pretty well unprecedented.
  
  Ignoring the political implications that the Post covers, it's just the right thing to do for a politician whose popularity seemed to be increasing only 3 months prior.


• Christie Blatchford found herself in a bit of trouble for a column that ended up on the internet on Monday evening. In it, she criticized the coverage of Layton's letter to Canadians, which was fair game. The coverage and commentary about the "extraordinary" letter did seem to be over the top at times and probably needed to have a bit of air let out of the balloon. The problem came when she criticized the contents of the letter and Layton's intentions.
  
  A significant figure dying is always difficult. You have to balance having respect for those who are mourning the death, while also presenting a balanced view of their life. I'm not sure if Blatchford felt as though the scale was extremely skewed towards the praise of Layton and felt she needed to try to balance the coverage all by herself, but whatever her intentions, she failed at them. By putting this column out so soon after Layton's death, any insight she had was buried by the argument over her sensitivity towards the mourners of Jack Layton.
  
  As for her criticisms of the letter, I tend to end up agreeing with Chris Selley, who notes:
  

  If you find the letter over-earnest and platitudinous, well, at least it’s genuinely over-earnest and platitudinous. Would you have preferred he’d revealed it was all an act?

Sleight of hand

I will never understand the Conservative government of Canada. I'd come to this conclusion a while ago, but every once in a while, I'm reminded of this. For example, this interview with James Moore.

It's not that he's saying the CBC needs to expect to lose 5% of its funding from the government. That's the right of the government to determine, and if they feel that the CBC should be included in the parlimentary review, that is fair. Instead, it's that two months ago, after their majority victory Moore said that the government "will maintain or increase support for the CBC."

Why does the government feel a need to do this sort of stuff? All Moore had to do in May is point to the budget tabled in March, and say we're using this as our economic platform for this year, and we have our review of expenses going forward. While there might be complaining about the potential of cuts, it would passed over once the cuts did not appear in this budget. Instead, Moore chose to appear as though he wasn't telling the truth previously by blatantly going against what he said two months earlier.

As an added bonus, he claims his statements in May were based on the 2008 election platform which leads to the following questions:

• 1. Did Moore know what was in the 2011 Conservative election platform in May?


• 2. If Moore did know what was in the 2011 Conservative election platform, why did he respond to the CBC funding question by referring to the 2008 platform after the 2011 election?


• 3. What possible relevance does the 2008 platform have to the results of the 2011 election and CBC funding?

I want to believe the Conservatives are competent managers. I truly do think that they are going to make changes based on their beliefs, but are not going to make extreme changes to the country. But these sorts of actions make me think that they aren't satisfied by just winning a majority - they want to screw around and humiliate the institutions that they do not like.

I can't say that's something that I want to see my government do.

(h/t: Tod Maffin)

Agendas and perspective

Two unrelated pieces of writing which struck a nerve...

Lorne Gunter has a lot of things to say about Jack Layton and Olivia Chow's trip to Disneyland and junkets in general. I agree with him in principle; politicians shouldn't be taking trips from lobbyists, especially if it can influence their position on legislation.

However, look at the top junket takers and the places they went. Jim Karygiannis took top spot with 16 overseas trips worth $71,950. Pretty damning. So, where did he go?

• Greece. Yup that's pretty nice. Definitely not good.


• France. Another vacation spot.


• Belgium. I can see wanting to go to Belgium and maybe enjoying a beer or three.


• The United States. Well, it's possible he had work there, but there sure are a good number of vacation spots.


• India. It is emerging as a power...


• China. We are trying to build better relations with China...


• Egypt. There are places to go where you can really enjoy luxury. But if you went in the last few months, it might not be so comfortable.


• Nigeria. Maybe he was collecting his money owed from a Nigerian prince?


• Bangladesh. Maybe he was going for some spiritual awakening?


• Cyprus? Haiti? If he was vacationing or going on a junket to these spots, I think he's doing it wrong.

Same goes for John Williams, who intersperced trips to Germany, England, Monaco, South Africa, the United States, Mexico and Qatar with trips to Albania, Serbia, Columbia, Kuwait and Indonesia.

Lorne really buries his lede here by showing us all of the trips and including trips that certainly look like they are related to an MP's job. But by not including those, it would look like he's actually trying to plump up the charges of junkets. It's great that he's decided to point out the worst offenders to taking trips from lobbyists. At the same time, it would be better to try to determine which trips were relevant, and which ones weren't.
***
On the other end of the spectrum, Robin Leach gives us a "report" of Danielle Staub's activities. (see bottom.)

Leach lets us know that Staub is gone from the Real Housewives franchise, and is no longer developing a show with them. Leach takes it a step further to tell us that Staub is making appearances at Score's in Manhattan, which is a topless club. There's a certain amount of glee that Leach seems to be taking with bringing us this and sure enough, Leach himsels tells us why he is so giddy. Staub in the past had said she was going to be the next Robin Leach.

Under most circumstances, this would be a tough situation of media letting their bias come through in their repoting. But with this being Robin Leach, it's more or less accepted that Leach's biases will be apparent in his reporting, and you go from there.

Both stories that I've mentioned here give us an idea as to how important perspective is for getting a better understanding as to what is driving the story and/or how big of a story it actually is. Without that, it would be very easy to over react.

The Art of the Misdirection

When I was much younger, I had some eclectic tastes and interests. One thing that interested me was the rise of Donald Trump. I read Trump: The Art of the Deal with a lot of interest. I own a first edition of Trump: The Game(*)

(*) That reminds me that I should play this again sometime.

This is a roundabout way to say that I'm not surprised by what he's been doing by flirting with running to be president of the United States. And nor will I be surprised when he doesn't formally declare as a candidate.

The biggest thing to realize about Donald Trump is that the biggest reason he has been so successful in business is his name. Trump has built the Trump name up to be one of the biggest hotel brands in the world. And his method of building up that Trump name is to get personally involved in many other projects, whether that be the USFL or Trump Ice, his brand of bottled water.

Once he gets involved in these projects, one of three things occur - either the project is a success and he's able to claim some credit for the success, the project is slightly successful and Trump takes credit for this part of the success, or it fails and Trump avoids being the scapegoat by placing the blame elsewhere.

So let's look at his recent musings about running for President.

The first key to his musing is that Trump recognizes that there is no shining star in the Republican ranks to take a run at President Obama in 2012. The early returns on the presidential candidates is that there are no good candidates there; the best option is Milt Romney and he does not appeal to the Tea Party part of the Republican caucas.

Trump saw this and took advantage. He knew by flirting with running, the public would know his name and this would allow him to do well in polls. In turn, this would give him some credibility with the journalists who would otherwise dismiss his flirtation as a publicity stunt. (This isn't to say that it still isn't being dismissed by some as a publicity stunt; instead any "publicity stunt" argument comes with a caveat that Trump is polling well and might be resonating with the public.)

Next, Trump starts making stump speeches in locations. These speeches contain a lot of "no nonsense" talk about the economy and what needs to be done to fix it. It appeals to the Tea Party side of the crowd which again helps him with polling, along with getting the positive attention of other Tea Party representatives. These representatives defend him on panels, and further the mystique of a Trump presidential run.

And then there was the birther nonsense. Trump knew that it was a no lose issue for him to tackle. The group that he was trying to get the support of was already of the opinion that President Obmaa was hiding not being born in the US. Trump also knew that he didn't need to have the support of the more mainstream Republicans, as he wasn't planning on running for president. This meant he wouldn't have to worry about the long term ramifications of this line of attack.

The end result if Obama did not release his birth certificate is that Trump could rage on about how untrustworthy Obama was, and that he was hiding something. Trump would essentially be in the same position he was before persuing the Birther argument. Fans/supporters who disagreed with Trump would be likely to dismiss it as another exampleof Trump's blowhard antics, which makes him appealing to watch. The fans/supporters would stay.

Now, when Obama did release his birth certificate, Trump was very quick to take credit for the release. This ended up helping him in two main ways. First, he was able to solidify his position amongst the outsiders of the Republican party. He gained more influence with them, and thus gained more influence in the Republican party. he will now be somebody who the eventual Republican Presidential candidate will have to court.

Second, this gave Trump his exit strategy. He can now say that he has accomplished something in his teasing of running for president, so he can declare it a victory and an accomplishment which nobody else can. He can be gracious in leaving by just saying that he is confident that the Republican candidate is now better equipped to lead the party against Obama (or something). That was the end game for Trump - find a way to say you accmomplished something, while not actually putting yourself out for scrutiny.

(Why has Trump continued on with his attacks by saying that the certificate could have been forged? Because until he announces he is not running for president, Trump needs to keep his base comfortable and activated.)

What's the next step for Trump? Continue on, then on the Celebrity Apprentice finale, announce you will not be running. Then promote your latest venture, while still using your position to keep your values in the forefront.

Trump's motives are prety clear most of the time. You just have to know where to look.

Left Wing Locked

Warning: Canadian Political Content Ahead

A lot is going to be said about the defeat of the Liberal party this week in the federal election. Plenty about how the Liberals need to do soul searching to find out what they stand up for. How the Liberal brand has been tarnished and needs to be renewed. What you are not likely to hear is how the Liberals shot themselves in the foot.

One thing that is obvious from these results is that there is a desire for change. The Conservative seats that had been picked up are on a thin margin, with the NDP picking up a lot of votes from the Liberals. This vote splitting is the biggest cause of the shocking drop of the Liberals. The question is why the vote bleed occurred.

From the start of the campaign, the Liberals made a conscious decision to attack the Conservatives on their actions while in government. A fine idea. However, the Liberals chose to make their platform a leftwing platform. That was their undoing.

The platform had two effects which the Liberals did not seem to anticipate. First, it effectively ran away many of the centre-right voters who might be inclined to vote Liberal. These voters moved to the Conservatives, giving them a chance to pick up some Liberal seats.

More importantly, with the platform being left leaning, it moved into the NDP's territory. This set up a direct comparison between the two parties. When this is combined with the general malaise that the voting public was feeling towards the same old parties being in charge (the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc specifically), and you get plenty of voters who would have parked their votes with the Liberals instead deciding to give the NDP a chance.

The Liberals should have been putting themselves into a position to be the alternative to the Conservatives. The easiest way to do this would have been to create a platform that was centre right, which pledged to battle the deficit with the Corporate Tax Rate roll back instead of spending the roll back funds on additional programs. Quite honestly, the deficit is one of the biggest concerns for most of the public, and the public was looking for somebody to step up and show the same concern that they were feeling. Nobody really did that, so the public gravated towards the party they felt was the lesser of a bunch of evils

The Liberals still could have used some of their better ideas (such as the Education Passport), but funded them in other manners. They could have created a much better narrative, using the Conservatives own blundering, combining it with Stephen Harper saying that Canada wouldn't go into a recession, and dusting it with a bit of 90's nostalgia to remind the public that they actually had previously slayed the deficit that a Conservative government had left them. All of this would have resonated well with the public, and would have shown the Liberals as trying to lead the country, instead of auditioning for the role of main opposition.

The Liberals chose to stake their ground on the left; that gave the Conservatives much more room to manuever, and gave us three parties trying to battle over the left. When all was said and done, the Liberals found themselves with very little area left.

Going forward, the Liberals will likely go through the motions of refreshing and renewing their brand and party. With any luck, somebody will remind them that if they had only tried to battle the Conservatives on their ground, the results could have been very different.

Changing of Perspective

Sun News has done a fantastic job of building up a reputation. First they launch a news network which is criticized for trying to draw based on sex appeal. Then they have to back off of a story that they published and claim that they felt had been planted by a Conservative operative.

Now they've essentially accused NDP Leader Jack Layton of being found with a prostitute. And guess what? There's questions about how the story was obtained.

There are two things which stand out to me on this story:

1) Jack Layton's "yup, this story happened, but there was nothing improper about what happened" reaction was a classic "Tell the truth and hope the story goes away" reaction. This is probably the best way for Layton to handle it, but unfortunately there will be some that will question whether he is telling the truth.

2) I do not understand why the media was quick to run with this story. The Sun had already shown that it could be manipulated by a juicy story, so wouldn't a healthy dose of skepticism be worth it in this case?

Ultimately, what Chirs Selley says is going to be true: This story isn't going to matter.

Quick hit

You know, back in the day if you were "taking responsibility" for breaking the rules, no matter how unintentional, you would actually suffer the consequences yourself.

The contradiction that is Rob Ford

Compare and contrast:

• Peter Worthington, Sunday: By presenting himself as a blunt-talking, straight-arrow, tell-it-like-it-is guy who radiates honesty, Ford leapt into the lead among Torontonians fed up to the gills with the spending and self-justifying nonsense of our present mayor and many in council.


• Toronto Sun Editorial, Friday: Rob Ford's honesty in question

Oddly enough, this is one of those rare times when the Toronto Sun Editorial Board gets one right. Ford can be the biggest straight shooter in terms of what the city needs. The problem is, his actions whenever faced with a possibly negative story is to deny first, then admit guilt when faced with evidence proving his guilt? An honest man would own up to his transgressions when first given the opportunity, not deny and hope that it is not followed up on. This is even more troublesome when you are running a campaign with a basis on trust.

Worthington acknowledges that there's an issue with Ford's honesty, but waves it away by saying "There’s a difference in not being blatantly honest about embarrassing incidents in your own life, and looting the public till and not being honest with taxpayers’ money." This doesn't deal with the pattern that Ford is setting, nor does it acknowledge that Ford is actually willing to spend cash that city council identified as a savings.

(In a related note, how bad are things when the city's conservative newspaper calls out the front-running conservative mayor candidate?)

I also have to wonder about Ford's move to not officially comment about anything to the Toronto Star. Aren't you just opening yourself up to even more one-sided reporting due to not giving a response to any story brought by the newspaper?

Rob Ford's ideas might be what the city of Toronto needs. I'm not sure that his other actions are needed though.

Your rhetorical (and somewhat cynical) question of the day

If Richard Neufeld was a Liberal senator, would the reaction to his about face be reversed?

The World's Game

Let me throw in my condemnation of Peter King's tweet and article about the USA/Slovenia game. Specifically this:

Putting a ref from a small African country in charge of a vital WC game is like a Mid-American Conference ref doing the Super Bowl.

And this:

But in his first World Cup game, referee Koman Coulibaly, from the landlocked West African country of Mali, ran into the fray and blew off the goal.

Without queston King's misses the mark when he brings up referee Koman Coulibaly's home country. It has absolutely no relevance to his competency and destroys his larger point.

(What's especially odd is that he feels the need to point out that Mali is landlocked. Did I miss the memo that "landlocked" is a codeword for something classist or racist?)

King's point is at best clumsy: he claims later on that his point was that the ref was less qualified than some sitting at home, and is the result of FIFA trying to have referees from each continent. One thing that is missed by King is that _all_ international competitions attempt to get representation of all regions. This isn't professional sports, so using that as an example and/or a standard is misguided.

But more importantly, King puts far too much value on this battle, likely because it involves the USA. When he says that USA/Slovenia was a "vital WC game", I think he shows us his ignorance of the sport. A first round match in the World Cup is no more vital than any other. His analogy to the Super Bowl also belies his mistaken belief. The Super Bowl is the apex of an entire season of play; what football players dream to accomplish. While a futbol player would love to make the World Cup, their dream is to win it. A better analogy would be the regular season of the NFL: a referee error could cost the team from making it to the playoffs, but it might not. There is significance, but it alone will not end up deciding the winner of the World Cup.

I do wonder if this reaction would have occurred if it was to the benefit of the USA. Well, I don't, as it is obvious this isn't the case. King never mentions the elbow that Nathan Dempsey delivered in the early part of the game that went without booking. Many people feel as though Dempsey could have been red carded for the infraction, and yet, King does not mention this as proof of how Coulibaly was over his head and wasn't an appropriate choice of referee for the game. Why he wouldn't, when it only helps his point, is not obvious unless you accept that his narrative isn't that the referee was sub-standard, it's that the US got screwed because the referee was sub-standard.

Which ends up getting to the crux of the issue for King. He isn't upset because an injustice occurred in the World Cup, he's upset that an injustice occurred against the USA. Within that is that King (and Joe Posnanski) will not be able to tell the story that they wanted to tell ("The USA showed grit and never gave up!" - especially with the "No team has ever come back from a 2-0 lead after half time" meme, as though coming back from a 2-0 lead after 50 minutes was less of an accomplishment.) Instead, they have to give their readers another story; in this case they chose to focus on the referee story and how it affects the USA.

Further is the implication that this will prevent the sport from growing in the USA, as though this is a significant worry for FIFA. (Joe Posnanski is another advancing this train of thought.) Fact of the matter is that this is not a worry for FIFA. It is a big deal in the US, and will continue to be so unless the US becomes an also ran. As well, it will continue to be a significant event in the rest of the world. If anything, this brings the USA closer to rest of the world. Everybody, from England to Ireland to many other countries have had a missed or blown call affect thei World Cup in various way. The US is just the latest to be affected.

So congratulations to the USA for joining the rest of the futbol world. Next step, learn to accept missed calls.

The ball that continues to roll downhill

Nobody have accused politicians of seeing the blatantly obvious. In today's example, it's MPs dodging any attempt to have their expenses become public knowlege. And the cherry on top is that the MPs do not want the Auditor General to see their expenses either.

I can not begin to explain why this is a bad idea. It should be obvious to anybody with half a brain that the MPs' actions are only going to lead to more questions, and ultimately they are going to end up losing to the masses who want to know what is happening with their tax money. No amount of reasons are going to make this seem like something that shouldn't be pursued, and the more you complain and/or make excuses, the more it seems you have something to hide, and thus the better the idea looks. After Paul Szabo's musings about how expenses revealed will show how often MPs are sued we saw the following responses:

• MPs' expenses must be made public


• MPs should allow the Auditor-General to audit their expenses


• Dumbest anti-audit argument ever.


• Secretive MPs should follow Toronto’s lead on expenses


• MPs' secretiveness gets even more tiresome


• What the Auditor-General can do


• Politicians abuse taxpayers’ money? Nah, not in Ottawa


• A petition


• 
  Don't be shy, Sheila. Secret MP budgets need scrutiny

All because MPs didn't even try their normal bafflegab answers. Heck, they didn't even consider that being open with their expenses might actually differentiate them from their colleagues in a positive way. There are a few who have had the foresite to get ahead of the game and supporting the opening up of the books. But most have the hope that burying their head in the sand will make the problem go away. Unfortunately for the majority of MPs, they're going to be run over by the ball rolling down the hill.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Republican representative heckles Obama during Address of Congress. Does this Republican think that he's a Canadian politician?

Iran - a quick hit

I have been a bit neglect in my following of the Iran Elections, um, fiasco, but I wanted to bring to your attention a couple of articles.

The first, from 2005, is Michael Ignatieff's article about his visit to Iran. It's a handy backgrounder for (a) how one of Canada's political leaders was thinking about Iran at the time and (b) how, in part, we got to this point.

The other is Paul Wells' blog post about where we are now in Iran, and where we are likely to go from here. It's a post that helps to bring everything together in a clear vision.

Let it never be said that Halton is a boring political riding

First it was the Garth Turner fiasco of getting kicked out of Conservative caucas, and him becoming a Liberal MP. Now, Lisa Raitt pulls a Bernier and leaves classified documents at CTV's Ottawa Bureau. Maybe the Conservatives should just stay out of Halton for the next election; winning the riding seems to bring more headaches than anything else.

(Note: It isn't clear if Raitt herself left the documents, or if it was an aide. My guess is that some poor ministry staffer is going to lose their job over this.)

Finally, a candidate all of Canada can get behind

In responding to a query as to whether he would become Governor-General, William Shatner reveals his ultimate goal: to be Prime Minister of Canada.

Before and after

Then: "The Trap is Set"
Now (well, Monday): "I for one think that while the opposition has the right to play their games, this is the wrong time for Canada."

This is why he gets paid the big bucks

Paul Wells has the most prescient analysis about all of this talk about Stephane Dion resigning as Liberal leader. Specifically, what the hell good is it going to do?

Just when you think he couldn't sink any lower

Mike Duffy does it again.

When opposing MPs don't join on your chosen theme, especially when it would cause embarassment to their main opponent, you know that you've fucked up huge.

I'll see Andrew Potter's Mike Duffy is a despicable human being and raise him a "Mike Duffy just needs to retire, for his own good."

I'll also throw in a Stephen Harper is very afraid right now, why else would he desperately grab at this?

This just in

Mike Duffy is a braying jackass.

UPDATE: Seriously, the comparison of this 5 point plan to Paul Martin's Notwithstanding Clause bullshit from the last election is stupid. The Notwithstanding Clause had nothing to do with the last election and was a desperate gambit. A 5 point plan on what to do about a weakening economy is actually a good idea. Duffy's continued comparison is bullshit and it's shameful that he mocks Dion while not mentioning that Harper's plan is "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

And now Duffy just said there's no point to try to analyze "the translators'" points and instead we would get "real analysis" tomorrow. Seriously? Fuck off Mike Duffy. If there's no point in trying to analyze anything in the French debate, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING ON MY TELEVISION RIGHT NOW?

UPDATE 2: Duffy just got knocked on his ass when the La Presse reporter said that the French debate was the best that he had seen in years. Maybe you're out of touch on this one, Mike?

To steal from Norman Spector

I was trying to figure out exactly how to say what bothered me about this whole plagarism hullabaloo, but Chris Selley says it better than I could.