Firstly, it seems utterly clear to me that Harper had no good reason to prorogue Parliament, as he has felt little in the way of obligation to offer any such justifications to the public. Instead, it seems that Harper has made this decision to halt the momentum behind the work of the House of Commons special committee on Afghanistan and its inquiry into allegations around the improper transfer of detainees into torture scenarios. That is to say that while it is the Prime Minister’s constitutional right to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, it doesn’t mean that doing so to avoid potentially harmful political fallout (as has been done both in 2008 and in this instance) isn’t, as a pretty broad cross-section of experts and commentators have noted, an abuse of procedural power and in many respects anti-democratic.

The Conservative talking point on the issue is simply to repeat over and over again that the decision is “routine”, that it has been done in the past, and that there is nothing to get excited about. Which is, again, to say that they don’t have a valid reason for the decision, but they can do it so they did. Properly understood, proroguing occurs when Parliament has come to the end of its legislative agenda, but the Conservatives have a raft of pending Bills that will now be wiped clean. Killing legislation that your party has worked on extensively suddenly and without explanation is anything but routine, no matter what the Conservatives might say. [Read more →]

It would be another sign of “insane rage” and “violent escalation of rhetoric.” And: RAAAAAAACISM.

But string up a mannequin of Sarah Palin from a rope, and it’s just all in good Halloween fun.

Well, wonder no more, Michelle, because one such effigy* was recently found in Plains, Georgia, home of 39th United States President Jimmy Carter. The reaction from the vast liberal media conspiracy? What response there has been (not a front pager, this one) has stuck to, uh, just the facts, ma’am.

Meanwhile, Instapundit author Glenn Reynolds’ proof positive image of Obama’s haughty condescension has set the blogosphere alight with speculation and debate while the Rush Limbaugh death watch has PoliGazzette’s Jason Arvak sounding the death knell for relevance, focus, and seriousness in political blogging (due exception to the League noted),

And people wonder why fewer and fewer people even bother to write for the blogosphere any more. What’s the point? It’s all just scripts and sharp-elbowed attacks these days. Relatively few bloggers care about anything but somehow “winning” in their hate-war against those who disagree, and the very few who try to sustain some kind of real discourse get shouted down or, more commonly, just plain shunned by the systematic refusal of links.

In 2009, just four short days ago, I probably would have been right there with Jason in shaking my head about all of the above stories and the range of reactions to them, but a ten day blogging sabbatical complete with time to reflect on just what the hell I do on a day-to-day basis at this very site has yielded a slightly different response. I think we need to stop running through the agonized shirt tearing about the ridiculousness of the political blogosphere every time the antics of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Al Franken, or Keith Olbermann take centre stage and reconcile ourselves to a hard truth: this is our politics. [Read more →]

Where we’re at now is that after the generally expressed dissatisfaction over what the BC Civil Liberties Association has described as “heavily, heavily redacted” documents released by the government, Tories like the inimitable Stockwell Day have called asking for more transparency “naive” and fallen back on a ” you want more? take us to court” line of response, claiming that failure to maintain requisite secrecy could, “put Canadian troops lives at risk. Incidentally, in a public letter law clerk and parliamentary counsel Robert Walsh, a legal expert in the laws affecting Parliament, dismissed that reason saying (emphasis mine),

It would appear that providing the documents sought by the Committee without redaction presents concerns for the Government in relation to nation security matters. While the Committee might try in some manner to address these concerns, at the end of the day the Government is obliged to supply the Committee whatever information it requests in the performance of its mandate from the House.

The Special Committee and all House committees act in support of the constitutional function of the House of Commons of holding the Government to account. In keeping with the principles of responsible government, no part of the Government’s responsibilities can by law be categorically excluded or removed from its constitutional accountability to the House and its committees, otherwise it would soon become only partial accountability and perhaps after some years no accountability at all.

[Read more →]

What was I doing out here ? What was the meaning of this trip ? Was I just roaming around in a drug frenzy of some kind… or had I really come out here to Las Vegas to work on a story ?

Who are these people, these faces ? Where do they come from ? They look like caricatures of used car dealers from Dallas… and, sweet Jesus, there are a hell of a lot of them at 4:30 on a Sunday morning… still humping the American Dream — that vision of the big winner… somehow emerging from the last-minute, pre-dawn chaos of a stale Vegas casino.

- Twenty.
- We change a twenty.

- Thank you.

- Here we go.
- Okay.

- Spinning the wheel, spinning the wheel, spinning the wheel. Make me rich. Make me very rich!

- Eee-yo !

- That’s ten.
- Oh, you bastard !

- Shit. [ Sighs ]
- Sorry.

No, no. Calm down. Learn to enjoy losing.

Dean, Hamsher, Greenwald, and an assortment of other progressives who have been keenly outspoken about the shortcomings of the Senate reform bill have come under no small amount of fire (albeit relatively friendly fire) from a number of their fellow progressives who see the bill in a “something is better than nothing” frame. As Ed Kilgore astutely notes at The New Republic, the divide here is more than just a matter of sour grapes and constitutes a real and pressing gap in the analysis and vision of the American left — a divide with which that motley coalition will have to deal  at a point rapidly achieving a status of sooner rather than later.

So while I would likely fall into line with Erik’s ultimate sentiment of supporting the reform (after everything that has happened, to turn around seems unwise), a part of my heart and thoughts follow along the outraged lines of dissatisfied progressives. [Read more →]

Given the kerfuffle happening at The Daily Dish over Patrick Appel and Chris Bodenner’s involvement in the production of the blog, I thought this interview would both be timely and of interest. I had originally planned to present the interview as a profile piece on Patrick himself, who I have understood for some time as playing a key role in the production of the Daily Dish but who, for obvious reasons, tends not to receive a ton of public acknowledgment for that work. The interview was intended as an insider look at how The Daily Dish, arguably the most popular political blog currently active, is updated on a day-to-day basis.

As it turns out, Andrew’s recent break and an off-the-cuff comment by Patrick brought the blog’s operation into focus. As such, I decided to scrap my plans for a profile piece over the holiday break and post the answers Patrick had kindly provided  as a straightforward interview. I’m doing so because Patrick went into a fair amount of detail about the production of The Daily Dish as well as his own involvement with the  blog. Anyone who has taken an interest in how Andrew is personally involved in the blog and to what degree Chris and Patrick are involved would do well to take ten minutes to read through the interview. Many questions are, I think, clarified as a result.

It’s worth noting that Patrick agreed to do the interview back in late August and the email correspondence that forms the interview took place between mid-September and mid-October, a good two months before this blogospheric controversy took shape. Patrick mentions this once or twice, but I will re-emphasize that he does not speak for Andrew Sullivan in any way throughout the course of the interview. Patrick offers insights into Andrew’s style of blogging and what it is like to be intimately involved in his blog, but the perspective offered is his own.

Finally, I’d like to take one more opportunity to thank Patrick for corresponding with me over the course of a month despite one of the blogosphere’s most harrowing schedules – his participation was both engaging and appreciated. [Read more →]

Canadians strongly favour the introduction of voting over the internet according to a major poll of Canadians conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the CBC.

Nearly half of Canadians say they would “very likely” vote online if that option were available to them. Another 15% say they would be “somewhat likely” to do so.

Not surprisingly, young people, who have had lower rates of voting than their elders in recent years, are the most enthusiastic about internet voting.

“Canada’s already anaemic voter turnout hit a historic low in 2008,” said EKOS President Frank Graves. “This lack of participation was particularly pronounced among Canadians under the age of 45. This was in sharp contrast to the significant spike up in voting rates amongst young Americans in the last Presidential election, driven in part by Barack Obama’s candidacy.”

“The clear message in this survey is that Canadians want a secure internet channel to vote online, and that this could increase participation rates most dramatically among young people, where the problem of low turnout is now most severe.”

The report goes on to demonstrate that secure online voting is seen both as popular in its own right, [Read more →]

As a long defunct Christian, I’ve never really understood why the arguably most dominant religious pocket on the entire continent gets so bent out of shape over the idea that some folks would like to not feel pressured or forced into participating in a holiday that their religion just doesn’t recognize. I mean, as one friend once said to me, “We swim in a sea of Christianity here in North America.” So why the big brouhaha over some folks pushing back and saying, “You know, that’s not my bag. Decorate your home however you like, but don’t make me sit through your religious rituals. I don’t make you sit through mine!”

Am I missing something here?

Erik: If you haven’t read Julian Sanchez on the “politics of ressentiment” then you should. I think the idea of a “war on Christmas” is largely grown out of this sense of ressentiment (which also animates much of what drives the conservative base in the larger cultural/political wars. [Read more →]