I am a middle-aged conservative who first became interested in politics when Pierre Trudeau was still the most-despised prime minister in Canadian history, and Brian Mulroney’s interviews were “on background,” not on tape.
My education consists of several years at the University of Toronto (no degree), a Law Clerks’ Certificate from George Brown College, a BAA in Journalism (Magazine) from Ryerson Polytechnic University, and one semester of Cabinetmaking at Humber College (no major injuries). I’ve also taken several continuing ed courses that I can’t be bothered to list in detail.
I have worked as a legal assistant, free-lance writer for Law Times, legislative assistant to Harris-era transportation minister Al Palladini and writer/researcher/librarian for the Ontario PC Caucus.
During the 2007 Ontario election, I blogged on behalf of the PC Party at the "Election Battle Blog" hosted by TV Ontario's "The Agenda."
Friday, September 30, 2005
Global TV using American Footage to Tout its Cultural Diversity
So I was watching the Adam Sandler classic “The Waterboy” the other day on TBS when I noticed that a commercial for an Atlanta Christian radio station featured the exact same clip of hugging, multi-ethnic children that is also in a public service announcement on Global TV, touting Global’s commitment to cultural diversity (sorry, I could not locate an online clip for either commercial).
“How can that be?” I asked myself. Surely Global, a national network with massive production resources at its fingertips would have produced original film with 100% Canadian, ACTRA-card-holding tykes?
Nope. The clip is stock footage from Seattle-Washington based Getty Images, from their “People” category of film CDs. (You have to scroll down to the last two CDs entitled “Lifestyles 2 – Portraits”, click on the “i” to view details, then click on the fourth thumbnail in the top row.)
Ontario political observers may remember that in June 2003 a flap occurred when the McGuinty Liberals revealed that the Eves conservatives had used American stock photo images in a TV ad for their election platform.
A little digging on the Tories’ part soon unearthed that the McGuinty Liberals had used over a dozen American stock photos in their own platform documents, including photos of an MRI machine, a moose, and a guy fishing from a boat with five lines in the water – something that is illegal under Ontario fishing laws. (Full disclosure: I was working for the PC caucus at Queen’s Park at the time and the guys doing the digging were my colleagues.)
Demonstrating the communications skills that have come to serve them so well in explaining their broken promises in office, the Liberals spun back that (1) they had not attributed “voices” to their fake Ontarians as the Tories had in their TV commercial and (2) the guy in the boat represented an American fishing in Northern Ontario. I guess they airbrushed out his assault rifle.
Turning back to Global, if a national network with dozens of cameras, cameramen, and production facilities at its disposal would rather use canned American film than go to the trouble of producing their own footage, there must be good reasons. The ones that I can think of are: convenience, cost, time, not having to find actors/participants, pay them, get releases or pay royalties for each airing.
Someone skilled in this field could probably list a bunch of other reasons. In the case of Global, and in their defence, I might add the CRTC’s policy that “broadcasters accurately reflect the presence of ethnic, cultural and racial minorities and Aboriginal peoples in the communities they service.”
It’s actually kind of fitting that a network called Global is using film of (probably) American kids to remind viewers that it is jumping through whatever flaming hoops of political correctness Canada’s broadcasting poobahs may erect from time as a condition of keeping its license.
The CRTC are the same folks who seem unconcerned that CP24 is ripping off cable subscribers by re-running old CITY-TV newscasts from the 70s and 80s instead of original programming in the dead of night (no offence to the relatives of Colin Vaughan or Bob Hunter). When a 24-hour news channel is allowed to collect basic cable fees plus ad revenue for, say, only 17½ hours of news, it is fair to suggest that Canadian broadcasting regulations operate on the same level of farce as the Canada Health Act, the gun registry and Liberal leadership rules (gosh, I hope I don’t have to add NAFTA to that list). But I digress.
Maybe Global’s use of American stock footage to impress Canadian regulators is some kind of sly inside joke on their CRTC whip holders. I guess there’s no harm in that. But if huge media organizations with in-house production capabilities are resorting to stock images, then perhaps the next time a party is “caught” using them, the media will add some quotes from communications professionals and their own bosses to put the issue in context.
“How can that be?” I asked myself. Surely Global, a national network with massive production resources at its fingertips would have produced original film with 100% Canadian, ACTRA-card-holding tykes?
Nope. The clip is stock footage from Seattle-Washington based Getty Images, from their “People” category of film CDs. (You have to scroll down to the last two CDs entitled “Lifestyles 2 – Portraits”, click on the “i” to view details, then click on the fourth thumbnail in the top row.)
Ontario political observers may remember that in June 2003 a flap occurred when the McGuinty Liberals revealed that the Eves conservatives had used American stock photo images in a TV ad for their election platform.
A little digging on the Tories’ part soon unearthed that the McGuinty Liberals had used over a dozen American stock photos in their own platform documents, including photos of an MRI machine, a moose, and a guy fishing from a boat with five lines in the water – something that is illegal under Ontario fishing laws. (Full disclosure: I was working for the PC caucus at Queen’s Park at the time and the guys doing the digging were my colleagues.)
Demonstrating the communications skills that have come to serve them so well in explaining their broken promises in office, the Liberals spun back that (1) they had not attributed “voices” to their fake Ontarians as the Tories had in their TV commercial and (2) the guy in the boat represented an American fishing in Northern Ontario. I guess they airbrushed out his assault rifle.
Turning back to Global, if a national network with dozens of cameras, cameramen, and production facilities at its disposal would rather use canned American film than go to the trouble of producing their own footage, there must be good reasons. The ones that I can think of are: convenience, cost, time, not having to find actors/participants, pay them, get releases or pay royalties for each airing.
Someone skilled in this field could probably list a bunch of other reasons. In the case of Global, and in their defence, I might add the CRTC’s policy that “broadcasters accurately reflect the presence of ethnic, cultural and racial minorities and Aboriginal peoples in the communities they service.”
It’s actually kind of fitting that a network called Global is using film of (probably) American kids to remind viewers that it is jumping through whatever flaming hoops of political correctness Canada’s broadcasting poobahs may erect from time as a condition of keeping its license.
The CRTC are the same folks who seem unconcerned that CP24 is ripping off cable subscribers by re-running old CITY-TV newscasts from the 70s and 80s instead of original programming in the dead of night (no offence to the relatives of Colin Vaughan or Bob Hunter). When a 24-hour news channel is allowed to collect basic cable fees plus ad revenue for, say, only 17½ hours of news, it is fair to suggest that Canadian broadcasting regulations operate on the same level of farce as the Canada Health Act, the gun registry and Liberal leadership rules (gosh, I hope I don’t have to add NAFTA to that list). But I digress.
Maybe Global’s use of American stock footage to impress Canadian regulators is some kind of sly inside joke on their CRTC whip holders. I guess there’s no harm in that. But if huge media organizations with in-house production capabilities are resorting to stock images, then perhaps the next time a party is “caught” using them, the media will add some quotes from communications professionals and their own bosses to put the issue in context.
Monday, September 26, 2005
What CBC Employees Think of You
In somewhat the same way that Sherlock Holmes always found the most compelling items to be in the agony columns, I’ve long maintained that the most important sections of any newspaper are the Corrections and Letters to the Editor.
For those of you with any lingering doubt about how your typical CBC employee regards conservatives, check out this excerpt from a missive in Friday’s (September 23) Globe and Mail from locked-out Newsworld employee Natalie Ruskin, responding to Patrick Watson’s bombshell op-ed recommending the CBC be shut down and the entire service put out to tender:
Perhaps Ms. Ruskin is too young or has forgotten that the CRTC’s awarding of Canada’s first news channel licence to the CBC was telegraphed and therefore basically fixed in the 1986 Caplan-Sauvageau report on Canadian broadcasting, which recommended an all-news cable channel run by, of course, the CBC. Both this report and the awarding of the news channel to the CBC came to pass under a conservative government. The losing bidder, Western-based Allarcom, appealed the decision to the federal cabinet. A group of Alberta MPs also lobbied cabinet to overturn the decision, but neither was successful. The cabinet did, however, require the CBC to get 20% of Newsworld’s content from private broadcasters and add an all-French news channel.
The Alberta MPs and even some cabinet ministers – including Mulroney, Don Mazankowski and Joe Clark (who was scheduled to appear last week at a rally in support of the CBC) – were reportedly concerned about the additional burden on taxpayers, and awarding a licence to a broadcaster based in central Canada and hostile to the governing party. Wonder why.
This item spurs me to admit that I have been negligent in not checking out the blogs of locked-out CBC workers (lockees?), thinking the occasional glance at Antonia Zerbisias’ column would suffice, but Ms. Ruskin’s shot has prompted me to seek them out.
For those of you with any lingering doubt about how your typical CBC employee regards conservatives, check out this excerpt from a missive in Friday’s (September 23) Globe and Mail from locked-out Newsworld employee Natalie Ruskin, responding to Patrick Watson’s bombshell op-ed recommending the CBC be shut down and the entire service put out to tender:
C’mon Watson, who’s the real dinosaur here? For argument’s sake, let’s overlook Patrick Watson’s complete insensitivity toward CBC workers and their jobs when he writes, “Let’s put public broadcasting out to tender,” and “close down the whole institution.” Those remarks are ancient: They existed way before this lockout, their origins from the same dust-covered crop of conventional conservatives who likely struggle to pronounce the phrase “national dialogue.”
Perhaps Ms. Ruskin is too young or has forgotten that the CRTC’s awarding of Canada’s first news channel licence to the CBC was telegraphed and therefore basically fixed in the 1986 Caplan-Sauvageau report on Canadian broadcasting, which recommended an all-news cable channel run by, of course, the CBC. Both this report and the awarding of the news channel to the CBC came to pass under a conservative government. The losing bidder, Western-based Allarcom, appealed the decision to the federal cabinet. A group of Alberta MPs also lobbied cabinet to overturn the decision, but neither was successful. The cabinet did, however, require the CBC to get 20% of Newsworld’s content from private broadcasters and add an all-French news channel.
The Alberta MPs and even some cabinet ministers – including Mulroney, Don Mazankowski and Joe Clark (who was scheduled to appear last week at a rally in support of the CBC) – were reportedly concerned about the additional burden on taxpayers, and awarding a licence to a broadcaster based in central Canada and hostile to the governing party. Wonder why.
This item spurs me to admit that I have been negligent in not checking out the blogs of locked-out CBC workers (lockees?), thinking the occasional glance at Antonia Zerbisias’ column would suffice, but Ms. Ruskin’s shot has prompted me to seek them out.
Anthony Germane? Hardly
In keeping with the above observation about the gems hidden in Letters to the Editor pages, there was an interesting letter in Saturday’s National Post from Anthony Germain, host of CBC Radio’s The House. Germain notes that his fellow lockee, The Hour host George Stroumboulopoulos, is taking a gig at Toronto talk radio station CFRB and concludes thereby that the money Newsworld spent promoting Stroumboulopoulos is improperly benefiting a private-sector competitor:
Er, no. I can think of a few things wrong with Germain’s thinking:
(1) George Stroumboulopoulos’ profile stems largely from his years in private broadcasting, not his six months hosting The Hour. Germain says the CBC has spent hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars to raise Stroumboulopoulos’ profile for The Hour. First of all, Newsworld – where The Hour resides – is funded through cable fees (or at least it’s supposed to be), not the tax dollars that go to the CBC main network and radio. Second, most people know Stroumboulopoulos from his years at private broadcasters Much Music and CITY-TV. So applying Germain’s premise, this private-sector funded profile actually accrued to Newsworld’s benefit when they hired George.
But what’s the core of Germain’s argument? That the CBC should not raise the profile of people who appear in private media and vice versa? Yet every day journalists from the Star, the Globe, CanWest and Sun Media appear on the CBC/Newsworld. I think I’ve even heard some of them on The House.
(2) Standard Broadcasting is not a competitor to the CBC. The notion of competition for listeners in broadcasting is only relevant where advertising is being sold. CBC Radio has no ads and as a publicly funded broadcaster is free of the commercial imperative to seek or maintain a large audience to maximize its revenue. Therefore the CBC does not – and by definition should not – compete with private radio. Germain’s attitude hints at what many believe is a fundamental problem with the CBC: they want to be high in quality but mass in their appeal and influence.
What’s more, CBC and Standard Broadcasting are actually partners in a satellite radio bid recently approved by the CRTC and rubber-stamped by the federal cabinet. Germain should be more concerned with what the CBC’s partnership with private broadcasters in satellite radio might do to his future prospects, not its imaginary competition with private radio. And no, I don’t endorse Standard Broadcasting working with the CBC. Lenin predicted that “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Some not-so-bright capitalists seem intent on making that prophecy come true. When they do something as stupid as helping the CBC achieve more reach and revenue, it’s not selling them the rope – it’s giving the rope. And when did the CBC ask their shareholders – or at least our MPs – for permission to expand into private satellite radio? But I digress.
(3) A strike or lockout is not a normal situation. As the public sector unions never fail to remind us when they shut down government services, a strike is “not business as usual” and the public should not expect to be served as if it were. After the lockout, Stroumboulopoulos will presumably be back on the CBC (the CFRB show is only one night a week), making good the bucks the CBC spent to promote him. If he keeps the CFRB show, then his profile on CFRB may enhance his profile at The Hour.
(4) Germain’s anger should be directed at Stroumboulopoulos, not CBC management. By taking another paying job during the lockout, Stroumboulopoulos is “lockout breaking” and betraying his brothers and sisters on the picket line who do not have any employment income.
Not only has Germain missed in his attempt to embarrass CBC managers, he has missed the larger picture. The George Stroumboulopouloses(!) of the world have figured out which way the bus is headed. I hope for Germain’s sake he figures it out too, before it runs over him.
I’m writing to see if somebody from the National Post can offer CBC managers a training seminar on rational business plans. As an example, consider the case of George Stroumboulopoulos.
CBC-TV has spent hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars to raise George’s profile for his show The Hour. Now I see that George is also going to host a radio show for Newstalk 1010 on CFRB in Toronto and its sister station, CJAD in Montreal. Standard Broadcasting owns CFRB and CJAD. They directly compete with CBC Radio in the country’s two largest markets. Is not the diffusion of George’s talents a loss for the CBC?
Er, no. I can think of a few things wrong with Germain’s thinking:
(1) George Stroumboulopoulos’ profile stems largely from his years in private broadcasting, not his six months hosting The Hour. Germain says the CBC has spent hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars to raise Stroumboulopoulos’ profile for The Hour. First of all, Newsworld – where The Hour resides – is funded through cable fees (or at least it’s supposed to be), not the tax dollars that go to the CBC main network and radio. Second, most people know Stroumboulopoulos from his years at private broadcasters Much Music and CITY-TV. So applying Germain’s premise, this private-sector funded profile actually accrued to Newsworld’s benefit when they hired George.
But what’s the core of Germain’s argument? That the CBC should not raise the profile of people who appear in private media and vice versa? Yet every day journalists from the Star, the Globe, CanWest and Sun Media appear on the CBC/Newsworld. I think I’ve even heard some of them on The House.
(2) Standard Broadcasting is not a competitor to the CBC. The notion of competition for listeners in broadcasting is only relevant where advertising is being sold. CBC Radio has no ads and as a publicly funded broadcaster is free of the commercial imperative to seek or maintain a large audience to maximize its revenue. Therefore the CBC does not – and by definition should not – compete with private radio. Germain’s attitude hints at what many believe is a fundamental problem with the CBC: they want to be high in quality but mass in their appeal and influence.
What’s more, CBC and Standard Broadcasting are actually partners in a satellite radio bid recently approved by the CRTC and rubber-stamped by the federal cabinet. Germain should be more concerned with what the CBC’s partnership with private broadcasters in satellite radio might do to his future prospects, not its imaginary competition with private radio. And no, I don’t endorse Standard Broadcasting working with the CBC. Lenin predicted that “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Some not-so-bright capitalists seem intent on making that prophecy come true. When they do something as stupid as helping the CBC achieve more reach and revenue, it’s not selling them the rope – it’s giving the rope. And when did the CBC ask their shareholders – or at least our MPs – for permission to expand into private satellite radio? But I digress.
(3) A strike or lockout is not a normal situation. As the public sector unions never fail to remind us when they shut down government services, a strike is “not business as usual” and the public should not expect to be served as if it were. After the lockout, Stroumboulopoulos will presumably be back on the CBC (the CFRB show is only one night a week), making good the bucks the CBC spent to promote him. If he keeps the CFRB show, then his profile on CFRB may enhance his profile at The Hour.
(4) Germain’s anger should be directed at Stroumboulopoulos, not CBC management. By taking another paying job during the lockout, Stroumboulopoulos is “lockout breaking” and betraying his brothers and sisters on the picket line who do not have any employment income.
Not only has Germain missed in his attempt to embarrass CBC managers, he has missed the larger picture. The George Stroumboulopouloses(!) of the world have figured out which way the bus is headed. I hope for Germain’s sake he figures it out too, before it runs over him.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Oh! Carol (apologies to Neil Sedaka)
Note: the author is a conservative who has never belonged to the Reform party or the Canadian Alliance, and came to support merger only after the PCs were reduced to 12 seats in the 2000 election.
I volunteered to be the interim secretary of the GTA Presidents’ council when Brett Snider founded it last year. When I was asked – repeatedly – to stand for the position of permanent secretary, one of the reasons I declined was the involvement of Carol Jamieson, who in recent years has been slowly destroying her enviable reputation as a political organizer, replacing it with a reputation as a political wing nut. My decision was vindicated when she reportedly appeared at the party’s March policy convention, flogging buttons attacking Stephen Harper. Now she has come out publicly calling for Harper’s resignation.
Carol’s claim that Peter MacKay magnanimously declined to run for leader because he believed the new party needed a new face is laughable: MacKay didn’t run because he knew he couldn’t win, and the same likely applies to whatever contenders Carol is referring to who were scared off by Harper. But if the first rationale is what MacKay wants people to believe, then it is a rationale that creates an obstacle to him running for leader next time, unless he wants to be accused of another Orchard-style flip-flop. His campaign-in-waiting should really be a little more careful about these things.
Carol and the others who promoted Belinda Stronach as a viable prime minister (come on down, Mike Harris and Bill Davis!) bear a good deal of the responsibility for elevating her to a position where she (1) eclipsed the many smarter and better-qualified MPs in our caucus (e.g. Peter Van Loan) and (2) gained the profile to inflict serious short-term damage on the party she herself helped found – damage which she gave little thought to inflicting.
Tony Clement was his usual astute self when he observed that Belinda sucks all the oxygen out of a room. Sadly, little of that oxygen seems to reach her brain stem. I suspect that the main reason Harper hired none of Belinda’s acolytes is because accommodating their pay demands would first require the firing of multitudes. (I wonder whether Carol thinks that now that Harper has fired multitudes, he should still hire Belinda’s people.)
Then Carol undercuts all she has just written, with her view that “the new Conservative Party of Canada had no chance of convincing the Canadian electorate that it was any different than the Canadian Alliance once it picked Stephen Harper as its first leader.” So Carol never supported Harper from the get-go and everything that has happened since has served to confirm that view. So where’s the news here?
I did not support Stephen Harper for leader, but I am frustrated and mystified at why so many in the media and even in our own party are so quick to conclude that he is to blame for the opportunism, venality and incompetence of others. Harper does not strike me as a man who has been plotting and scheming his entire adult life to live at 24 Sussex (unlike the current occupant), but who has reluctantly stepped forward on occasions when he looked around and saw the alternatives were no better qualified or staffed than he. I suspect that the antics of the Carol Jamiesons of the party do little to alter that view.
I volunteered to be the interim secretary of the GTA Presidents’ council when Brett Snider founded it last year. When I was asked – repeatedly – to stand for the position of permanent secretary, one of the reasons I declined was the involvement of Carol Jamieson, who in recent years has been slowly destroying her enviable reputation as a political organizer, replacing it with a reputation as a political wing nut. My decision was vindicated when she reportedly appeared at the party’s March policy convention, flogging buttons attacking Stephen Harper. Now she has come out publicly calling for Harper’s resignation.
Carol’s claim that Peter MacKay magnanimously declined to run for leader because he believed the new party needed a new face is laughable: MacKay didn’t run because he knew he couldn’t win, and the same likely applies to whatever contenders Carol is referring to who were scared off by Harper. But if the first rationale is what MacKay wants people to believe, then it is a rationale that creates an obstacle to him running for leader next time, unless he wants to be accused of another Orchard-style flip-flop. His campaign-in-waiting should really be a little more careful about these things.
Carol and the others who promoted Belinda Stronach as a viable prime minister (come on down, Mike Harris and Bill Davis!) bear a good deal of the responsibility for elevating her to a position where she (1) eclipsed the many smarter and better-qualified MPs in our caucus (e.g. Peter Van Loan) and (2) gained the profile to inflict serious short-term damage on the party she herself helped found – damage which she gave little thought to inflicting.
Tony Clement was his usual astute self when he observed that Belinda sucks all the oxygen out of a room. Sadly, little of that oxygen seems to reach her brain stem. I suspect that the main reason Harper hired none of Belinda’s acolytes is because accommodating their pay demands would first require the firing of multitudes. (I wonder whether Carol thinks that now that Harper has fired multitudes, he should still hire Belinda’s people.)
Then Carol undercuts all she has just written, with her view that “the new Conservative Party of Canada had no chance of convincing the Canadian electorate that it was any different than the Canadian Alliance once it picked Stephen Harper as its first leader.” So Carol never supported Harper from the get-go and everything that has happened since has served to confirm that view. So where’s the news here?
I did not support Stephen Harper for leader, but I am frustrated and mystified at why so many in the media and even in our own party are so quick to conclude that he is to blame for the opportunism, venality and incompetence of others. Harper does not strike me as a man who has been plotting and scheming his entire adult life to live at 24 Sussex (unlike the current occupant), but who has reluctantly stepped forward on occasions when he looked around and saw the alternatives were no better qualified or staffed than he. I suspect that the antics of the Carol Jamiesons of the party do little to alter that view.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
So Sean Penn rents a boat . . .
I was disappointed that in his first monologue since the Katrina disaster, Jay Leno somehow overlooked Sean Penn's pathetic showboating in New Orleans, though he want hard on Bush and FEMA.
Penn's transparent effort to embarrass Bush by showing how easy it is to rescue people (until your own boat starts leaking because you didn't put the drain plug in) were ripe for ridicule. Here are a few gags Leno could have used:
Sean Penn went to New Orleans and hired a boat to try and rescue people, but the boat began to leak and he only had a small cup to bail out the water. The only celebrity bailing himself out faster is Jude Law.
When Sean Penn couldn’t find anyone to rescue, he drove the boat around the city inspecting damage from the storm and subsequent looting. Good news: every copy of the DVD of “Shanghai Surprise” was still on the shelves at Wal-Mart.
Sean Penn went to New Orleans and hired a boat to try and rescue people, but the boat began to leak and almost sank. The next morning a hungover Ted Kennedy turned himself in at police headquarters, accompanied by his lawyer.
Sean Penn went to New Orleans and hired a boat to try and rescue people, but the boat began to leak and almost sank. Sean was able to bail himself out, but he learned a valuable lesson: never rent a used boat from Saddam Hussein.
Penn's transparent effort to embarrass Bush by showing how easy it is to rescue people (until your own boat starts leaking because you didn't put the drain plug in) were ripe for ridicule. Here are a few gags Leno could have used:
Sean Penn went to New Orleans and hired a boat to try and rescue people, but the boat began to leak and he only had a small cup to bail out the water. The only celebrity bailing himself out faster is Jude Law.
When Sean Penn couldn’t find anyone to rescue, he drove the boat around the city inspecting damage from the storm and subsequent looting. Good news: every copy of the DVD of “Shanghai Surprise” was still on the shelves at Wal-Mart.
Sean Penn went to New Orleans and hired a boat to try and rescue people, but the boat began to leak and almost sank. The next morning a hungover Ted Kennedy turned himself in at police headquarters, accompanied by his lawyer.
Sean Penn went to New Orleans and hired a boat to try and rescue people, but the boat began to leak and almost sank. Sean was able to bail himself out, but he learned a valuable lesson: never rent a used boat from Saddam Hussein.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Step by Step: Tim Murphy on Principles and Ambition
I picked up Steve Paikin's The Dark Side from a remainder table at Indigo and while leafing through it came upon this interesting passage, which was Tim Murphy's reflection on the same-sex benefits imbroglio in 1993/94, when Lyn McLeod was Ontario Liberal leader and Tim was the MPP for St. George-St. David. It is particularly interesting in light of the past few months.
Murphy insists that the NDP deliberately framed the same-sex benefits issue to trap McLeod (though Rae and Lankin deny it). As reprehensible as Murphy thinks that was, he nonetheless seems to have learned from it.
"Every politician comes to the point where they know when they're making the decision to compromise their principles for ambition," Murphy says. "The danger in politics is not that you get to make that decision all at once. You have to make it a thousand times, step by step by step. And the challenge in politics is when you finally get to the one thousandth decision, is there anything left in you? That's the truth of politics. You don't make one big compromise in politics. You make a thousand little ones."
--The Dark Side, p. 253
Murphy insists that the NDP deliberately framed the same-sex benefits issue to trap McLeod (though Rae and Lankin deny it). As reprehensible as Murphy thinks that was, he nonetheless seems to have learned from it.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Red Ken and Root Causes
The Toronto Star European bureau reports today that London mayor Ken Livingstone “has spent the last two days pinning much of the blame for the July 7 attacks on U.S. and British foreign policy in the Middle East, on the West’s ‘double standards’ in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and on CIA-trained Osama bin Laden turning on his ‘creators.’”
Says Red Ken: “You’ve just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil. We’ve propped up unsavoury governments, we’ve overthrown ones we didn’t consider sympathetic,” he told BBC Radio’s Today program yesterday. And I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s, the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and throw them out of Afghanistan.”
Well, Ken didn’t manage to get these helpful thoughts out of his mouth nearly as quickly as Muslim groups were to pronounce themselves victims of racist “retaliation” that has yet to occur, but I guess less than a fortnight is fast enough, and mighty fast for an old socialist.
At times such as these it is helpful to remember that terrorism is, to choose arbitrary figures, 5% physical and 95% psychological. The psychological aspect of terrorism is not confined to grief over dead innocents or fear of going about one’s daily lives. It extends to the self-doubt and self-flagellation that occur when rational societies return again and again to the question “what did we do to deserve this?”
As much as Islamic terrorists hate Western culture, they understand and exploit it well. They understand that for the modern Western politician, inaction and deferred decision-making are the paths of least resistance; decision and action are swiftly met with criticism; too many decisions and actions tempt electoral defeat. The terrorists also understand that even decisions which are long past or irreversible are open to criticism and revisionism. Most in the West consider this openness to re-examination to be a strength -- those who would destroy Western culture consider it a weakness that works to their advantage, as it leaves their victims in a permanent state of second-guessing past actions, and fear and confusion over future ones. But second-guessing is not in the vocabulary of the terrorists. They do not publicly debate whether killing Muslims is consistent with their professed beliefs and values. They do not regard their bombings of Western civilians as inappropriate meddling in our affairs.
This is not to say that there is anything to fear in re-examining and re-affirming the West’s insistence that Israel be allowed to exist in peace and security; that it was worthwhile to forestall Soviet expansion into the Middle East through Afghanistan; and that, whether or not one of the reasons for invading Iraq was mistaken, Iraq and the Middle East are better off without Saddam Hussein, and America and its allies must remain until Iraq is stable.
I wish, however, that those of Ken Livingstone’s ilk would occasionally add to their list these items: whether it was prudent for the U.S. to reward terrorism by pulling out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing in 1982, to trade arms for hostages in the 1980s, or to treat the major al-Qaeda attacks in the 1990s as criminal matters, not acts of terrorism and warfare. It would also be useful to remember that the West took the side of Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and used force to do so, yet Bosnia and Kosovo were and continue to be recruitment and training centres for Islamic terrorists. If Livingstone were to look at all that has happened since the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, he would see that the terrorists change their spin as frequently and ingeniously as they change their methods, and that Western help for Muslims abroad and weakness on terrorism have hardly diminished the terrorists’ fervour.
Part of fighting terrorism is distinguishing between reasonable reflection on past actions and policies, and the wholesale rejection of past policies and actions, based solely on terrorists’ less-than-trustworthy claims that these are the reasons for their horrific acts. My own suspicion is that if the West is doing things that terrorists say they are angry about, then we are on the right track, not the wrong one.
Says Red Ken: “You’ve just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil. We’ve propped up unsavoury governments, we’ve overthrown ones we didn’t consider sympathetic,” he told BBC Radio’s Today program yesterday. And I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s, the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and throw them out of Afghanistan.”
Well, Ken didn’t manage to get these helpful thoughts out of his mouth nearly as quickly as Muslim groups were to pronounce themselves victims of racist “retaliation” that has yet to occur, but I guess less than a fortnight is fast enough, and mighty fast for an old socialist.
At times such as these it is helpful to remember that terrorism is, to choose arbitrary figures, 5% physical and 95% psychological. The psychological aspect of terrorism is not confined to grief over dead innocents or fear of going about one’s daily lives. It extends to the self-doubt and self-flagellation that occur when rational societies return again and again to the question “what did we do to deserve this?”
As much as Islamic terrorists hate Western culture, they understand and exploit it well. They understand that for the modern Western politician, inaction and deferred decision-making are the paths of least resistance; decision and action are swiftly met with criticism; too many decisions and actions tempt electoral defeat. The terrorists also understand that even decisions which are long past or irreversible are open to criticism and revisionism. Most in the West consider this openness to re-examination to be a strength -- those who would destroy Western culture consider it a weakness that works to their advantage, as it leaves their victims in a permanent state of second-guessing past actions, and fear and confusion over future ones. But second-guessing is not in the vocabulary of the terrorists. They do not publicly debate whether killing Muslims is consistent with their professed beliefs and values. They do not regard their bombings of Western civilians as inappropriate meddling in our affairs.
This is not to say that there is anything to fear in re-examining and re-affirming the West’s insistence that Israel be allowed to exist in peace and security; that it was worthwhile to forestall Soviet expansion into the Middle East through Afghanistan; and that, whether or not one of the reasons for invading Iraq was mistaken, Iraq and the Middle East are better off without Saddam Hussein, and America and its allies must remain until Iraq is stable.
I wish, however, that those of Ken Livingstone’s ilk would occasionally add to their list these items: whether it was prudent for the U.S. to reward terrorism by pulling out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing in 1982, to trade arms for hostages in the 1980s, or to treat the major al-Qaeda attacks in the 1990s as criminal matters, not acts of terrorism and warfare. It would also be useful to remember that the West took the side of Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and used force to do so, yet Bosnia and Kosovo were and continue to be recruitment and training centres for Islamic terrorists. If Livingstone were to look at all that has happened since the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, he would see that the terrorists change their spin as frequently and ingeniously as they change their methods, and that Western help for Muslims abroad and weakness on terrorism have hardly diminished the terrorists’ fervour.
Part of fighting terrorism is distinguishing between reasonable reflection on past actions and policies, and the wholesale rejection of past policies and actions, based solely on terrorists’ less-than-trustworthy claims that these are the reasons for their horrific acts. My own suspicion is that if the West is doing things that terrorists say they are angry about, then we are on the right track, not the wrong one.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Chaoulli: Supremes Play Daddy -- Again
My understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision is this: the court did not say that private health care is superior to public care. The court did not open the door to private health care. The court did not signal the end of Medicare, or “Tommy Douglas’ Dream”, or whatever jacked-up phrase the health care unions are using these days.
All the court said is that if the government enforces one, single-payer system of health care, if that system covers most medically-necessary services (as the tenet of “comprehensiveness” in the Canada Health Act dictates it must) and if citizens are barred from purchasing those services elsewhere in Canada through private insurance or direct payment, then that health care system cannot be a farce. Specifically, it cannot be a farce that allows a good number of people to go undiagnosed, die on waiting lists or live for years in pain and/or disability waiting for surgery or treatment.
This decision, however, is wrong.
It is no mystery to many Canadians that the health care system became a farce long ago. Those who were somehow unaware of this fact could easily inform themselves of it through regular perusal of the major media. Yet at almost every opportunity that Canadians have had to say that the emperor has no clothes – or the patient has no gown, or bed, or MRI – they have voted to continue the farce.
When the Ontario Liberal government moved to ban so-called extra billing in 1986 (i.e. modest user fees set by individual doctors, but not universally imposed), the public cheered, and a Toronto Star editorial cartoon famously portrayed doctors as pigs. The Liberals won a massive majority the following year.
When Paul Martin cut the health and social transfer to the provinces by $25 billion in the mid-90s, he was portrayed as a good fiscal manager. Provincial governments trying to restructure their hospitals and keep up with rising costs and demands were portrayed as villains. Occasionally the Liberals would use the Canada Health Act to threaten provinces who dared even hint at expanding private delivery to improve services (unless that province went by the name “Quebec”).
In the 2000 and 2004 federal elections, the merest whiff of “two-tier” health care, or allowing more private delivery, or even allowing provinces to experiment within the public system, drew high-pitched attacks from the Liberals. Liberal re-election soon followed.
In the 2003 Ontario election, one of Dalton McGuinty’s promises – and one of the few he kept – was to use provincial dollars to buy out nine privately-operated MRI clinics that were providing tests under OHIP, as do hundreds of other private facilities and labs that somehow escaped McGuinty’s notice.
So events suggest that Canadians have quite deliberately chosen this state of affairs. They have chosen anodyne rhetoric over difficult reform. They have chosen 1960s mythology over 21st century reality. They have chosen to risk delayed diagnosis, chronic pain and even death because they accept that all the other options are worse, and one step away from bankruptcy through illness or dying in the street, which happens every day in the United States, don't ya know?
Whether this choice was made consciously or unconsciously is no matter. Voters are adults and should be treated as such. They should bear the consequences of their actions, and not be soothed with the lie that those consequences are not their fault, and it’s someone else’s responsibility to fix things. In short, we have a farcical, Soviet-style health care system that Canadians have affirmed and re-affirmed again and again. Who is the Supreme Court to override their votes? Who is the Supreme Court to save them from themselves?
Yet this is precisely what the Supreme Court, in its well-intentioned way (for they are always well-intentioned when they declare that democracy got it wrong) has done. Is it a mature populace that requires four lawyers in St. Nicholas robes to force them to look at the truths they were vaguely aware of but chose not to see?
Conservatives who have argued for honest language and mature debate on health care have nothing to celebrate in this ruling, even if they do agree with its gist. And it is no less a case of judicial activism than the same sex marriage rulings. “The end justifies the means” is a rationale typical of the other end of the political spectrum.
As for the honest, realistic debate that many hope will be spurred by this ruling, I’m not holding my breath. The Supreme Court is unlikely to wipe away the health care delusions of Canadians, when a decade of declining services and increasing waiting lists have done nothing but reinforce those delusions.
Some may argue that this decision was a blow on behalf of the people against institutions that believe they know what’s best for Canadians, whether those institutions be bureaucracies, legislatures or courts. Sadly, it is just the opposite.
All the court said is that if the government enforces one, single-payer system of health care, if that system covers most medically-necessary services (as the tenet of “comprehensiveness” in the Canada Health Act dictates it must) and if citizens are barred from purchasing those services elsewhere in Canada through private insurance or direct payment, then that health care system cannot be a farce. Specifically, it cannot be a farce that allows a good number of people to go undiagnosed, die on waiting lists or live for years in pain and/or disability waiting for surgery or treatment.
This decision, however, is wrong.
It is no mystery to many Canadians that the health care system became a farce long ago. Those who were somehow unaware of this fact could easily inform themselves of it through regular perusal of the major media. Yet at almost every opportunity that Canadians have had to say that the emperor has no clothes – or the patient has no gown, or bed, or MRI – they have voted to continue the farce.
When the Ontario Liberal government moved to ban so-called extra billing in 1986 (i.e. modest user fees set by individual doctors, but not universally imposed), the public cheered, and a Toronto Star editorial cartoon famously portrayed doctors as pigs. The Liberals won a massive majority the following year.
When Paul Martin cut the health and social transfer to the provinces by $25 billion in the mid-90s, he was portrayed as a good fiscal manager. Provincial governments trying to restructure their hospitals and keep up with rising costs and demands were portrayed as villains. Occasionally the Liberals would use the Canada Health Act to threaten provinces who dared even hint at expanding private delivery to improve services (unless that province went by the name “Quebec”).
In the 2000 and 2004 federal elections, the merest whiff of “two-tier” health care, or allowing more private delivery, or even allowing provinces to experiment within the public system, drew high-pitched attacks from the Liberals. Liberal re-election soon followed.
In the 2003 Ontario election, one of Dalton McGuinty’s promises – and one of the few he kept – was to use provincial dollars to buy out nine privately-operated MRI clinics that were providing tests under OHIP, as do hundreds of other private facilities and labs that somehow escaped McGuinty’s notice.
So events suggest that Canadians have quite deliberately chosen this state of affairs. They have chosen anodyne rhetoric over difficult reform. They have chosen 1960s mythology over 21st century reality. They have chosen to risk delayed diagnosis, chronic pain and even death because they accept that all the other options are worse, and one step away from bankruptcy through illness or dying in the street, which happens every day in the United States, don't ya know?
Whether this choice was made consciously or unconsciously is no matter. Voters are adults and should be treated as such. They should bear the consequences of their actions, and not be soothed with the lie that those consequences are not their fault, and it’s someone else’s responsibility to fix things. In short, we have a farcical, Soviet-style health care system that Canadians have affirmed and re-affirmed again and again. Who is the Supreme Court to override their votes? Who is the Supreme Court to save them from themselves?
Yet this is precisely what the Supreme Court, in its well-intentioned way (for they are always well-intentioned when they declare that democracy got it wrong) has done. Is it a mature populace that requires four lawyers in St. Nicholas robes to force them to look at the truths they were vaguely aware of but chose not to see?
Conservatives who have argued for honest language and mature debate on health care have nothing to celebrate in this ruling, even if they do agree with its gist. And it is no less a case of judicial activism than the same sex marriage rulings. “The end justifies the means” is a rationale typical of the other end of the political spectrum.
As for the honest, realistic debate that many hope will be spurred by this ruling, I’m not holding my breath. The Supreme Court is unlikely to wipe away the health care delusions of Canadians, when a decade of declining services and increasing waiting lists have done nothing but reinforce those delusions.
Some may argue that this decision was a blow on behalf of the people against institutions that believe they know what’s best for Canadians, whether those institutions be bureaucracies, legislatures or courts. Sadly, it is just the opposite.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Reflections on the Revolution
It was 10 years ago today that the Ontario electorate closed the door on 10 years of Liberal/NDP gluttony and government expansion, and took a chance on an 11-toed golf pro from North Bay wielding a driver in one hand and a Common Sense Revolution booklet in the other.
I was lucky enough to be working at PC campaign headquarters, and the day after the election volunteered to help out on the switchboard, which was surprisingly busy. Most of the calls were from regular folks calling to say congratulations or remind us to do what we promised. At one point a scruffy young fellow dashed into the reception area, snatched a small stack of CSRs from a desk, and rushed back onto the elevator before Tony Quirk or I could inquire as to where he got those wicked tattoos, or could he spare a spliff?
I thought nothing of the incident until I saw the same dirtbag and his comrades on the TV news that night, setting fire to their liberated platforms. Many people scoffed at Mike Harris when he talked about the “vested interests” who opposed change. Whenever they did, I would think back to our rude visitors who unwittingly set the tone for the years to come by setting fire to the CSR, doubtless without reading it, and before the government was even sworn in.
Anyhow, the intransigence of the vested interests was demonstrated soon enough. On many issues the revolutionaries prevailed, but I found it remarkable that on Mike Harris’ retirement, he observed that he wished he had moved more quickly on more fronts when he was first elected. I hope our next conservative premier will keep that in mind, because as we soon found out, the vested interests are focussed on government 24/7, while taxpayers are lucky to find an hour a week to be informed or engaged.
Margaret Thatcher once said that the test of her record would not be its effect on the conservative party, but its effect on their opponents. In that respect, the CSR has had some success: though presenting themselves as the antithesis of the Harris regime, the McGuinty Liberals had to present a clear platform and appear to be fiscally responsible – including a promise not to raise personal taxes – in both the 1999 and 2003 elections. Several times as opposition leader, McGuinty called the balanced budget and taxpayer protection laws “the price of admission” for any party seeking government, and even attempted to rewrite history by boasting that the Liberals had supported the concept in 1995 – which they had not (only four Liberal candidates signed the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation pledge in 1995).
Though in office the McGuinty fiscal plan and no-tax-hike promise quickly collapsed, on other issues the Fiberals have quietly affirmed the wisdom of several Harris-era policies, such as per pupil funding and health care restructuring. Yet while the concept of respecting the taxpayer and his dollars has become entrenched among mainstream parties – even the NDP – Mike Harris’ dictum that “there is only one taxpayer” seems to have lost some currency lately. Witness our dear premier’s discovery of a “gap” between taxes paid by Ontarians to the federal government, and the largesse doled out directly from the federal government to the provincial government. This is now blowing back on Dalton, as David Miller has discovered a parallel “gap” vis a vis Toronto taxpayers and the provincial government. Enjoy the whirlwind you have reaped, Dalton!
As unbelievable as it may seem, after all this time there is at least one test remaining for the revolution: is keeping promises still important to voters? Will voters punish the Fiberals for their many broken promises, or be anaesthetized by the quiet in the schools? As Kent Brockman would say: only TIME will tell.
No matter what happens, those of us who had a seat at the revolution can say that we made many long-overdue changes for the better, and “did what we said we would do.”
Vive la revolucion.
I was lucky enough to be working at PC campaign headquarters, and the day after the election volunteered to help out on the switchboard, which was surprisingly busy. Most of the calls were from regular folks calling to say congratulations or remind us to do what we promised. At one point a scruffy young fellow dashed into the reception area, snatched a small stack of CSRs from a desk, and rushed back onto the elevator before Tony Quirk or I could inquire as to where he got those wicked tattoos, or could he spare a spliff?
I thought nothing of the incident until I saw the same dirtbag and his comrades on the TV news that night, setting fire to their liberated platforms. Many people scoffed at Mike Harris when he talked about the “vested interests” who opposed change. Whenever they did, I would think back to our rude visitors who unwittingly set the tone for the years to come by setting fire to the CSR, doubtless without reading it, and before the government was even sworn in.
Anyhow, the intransigence of the vested interests was demonstrated soon enough. On many issues the revolutionaries prevailed, but I found it remarkable that on Mike Harris’ retirement, he observed that he wished he had moved more quickly on more fronts when he was first elected. I hope our next conservative premier will keep that in mind, because as we soon found out, the vested interests are focussed on government 24/7, while taxpayers are lucky to find an hour a week to be informed or engaged.
Margaret Thatcher once said that the test of her record would not be its effect on the conservative party, but its effect on their opponents. In that respect, the CSR has had some success: though presenting themselves as the antithesis of the Harris regime, the McGuinty Liberals had to present a clear platform and appear to be fiscally responsible – including a promise not to raise personal taxes – in both the 1999 and 2003 elections. Several times as opposition leader, McGuinty called the balanced budget and taxpayer protection laws “the price of admission” for any party seeking government, and even attempted to rewrite history by boasting that the Liberals had supported the concept in 1995 – which they had not (only four Liberal candidates signed the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation pledge in 1995).
Though in office the McGuinty fiscal plan and no-tax-hike promise quickly collapsed, on other issues the Fiberals have quietly affirmed the wisdom of several Harris-era policies, such as per pupil funding and health care restructuring. Yet while the concept of respecting the taxpayer and his dollars has become entrenched among mainstream parties – even the NDP – Mike Harris’ dictum that “there is only one taxpayer” seems to have lost some currency lately. Witness our dear premier’s discovery of a “gap” between taxes paid by Ontarians to the federal government, and the largesse doled out directly from the federal government to the provincial government. This is now blowing back on Dalton, as David Miller has discovered a parallel “gap” vis a vis Toronto taxpayers and the provincial government. Enjoy the whirlwind you have reaped, Dalton!
As unbelievable as it may seem, after all this time there is at least one test remaining for the revolution: is keeping promises still important to voters? Will voters punish the Fiberals for their many broken promises, or be anaesthetized by the quiet in the schools? As Kent Brockman would say: only TIME will tell.
No matter what happens, those of us who had a seat at the revolution can say that we made many long-overdue changes for the better, and “did what we said we would do.”
Vive la revolucion.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Was it in the Stars for Belinda?
No lie, these are two of Belinda's horoscopes from May 17, the day she announced her defection to the Martin Team. She is a Taurus (May 2, 1966)
National Post:
Taurus (April 20-May 20): You like it when you feeel good about your financial scene. (You feel wonderful when you wrap yourself in cash.) Things are going swimmingly at work. Many of you are enjoying new duties or new ways of earning money or possibly a new job completely.
Toronto Star:
Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. Having missed out on the first two possibilities, why not hold out for the third option?
National Post:
Taurus (April 20-May 20): You like it when you feeel good about your financial scene. (You feel wonderful when you wrap yourself in cash.) Things are going swimmingly at work. Many of you are enjoying new duties or new ways of earning money or possibly a new job completely.
Toronto Star:
Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. Having missed out on the first two possibilities, why not hold out for the third option?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)