He told the Toronto Sun he is frustrated federal and provincial governments aren’t doing enough for municipalities.

He maintained if Toronto was a province it would qualify for transfer payments from Ottawa.

So, basicly, if toronto was a province, the rest of Canada would have to give them more money they likely would have just as much (read: absolutely no) trouble finding things to do with due to the way equalization’s been set up, and the fact they’re bleeding red out both ends. Yeah, tell you what. No. Spend a few million less, then maybe talk to us about separation. Quebec could use some company on that front. Or better yet, just get rid of Giorgio Mammoliti.

Share this:

Marcelle had served in the Senate as a page for nearly a year, but she decided to take action a few days ago because she said Harper doesn’t reflect the majority of Canadians.

“Harper’s agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation,” Marcelle said.

She added that the government is “blowing billions of dollars” on fighter jets and corporate tax cuts, but ignoring important environmental issues like climate change.

But since Harper recently won a majority, Marcelle said that staging “creative” protests is the only way to fight back.

“I think that Harper’s agenda is so damaging that it called for something that is different,” she said. “I think we really need to take action.”

Ms. DePape continues, informing anyone who’ll listen that we could benefit from our very own version of the Arab spring. There’s a comment in here somewhere about just how ridiculous and, dare I say, out of step a call like that actually sounds in Canada of all places–you know, one of those places where people in the midst of their own Arab spring come to and enjoy the very thing she’s telling us to protest. I can’t put it into my own words. Instead, I’ll borrow from this opinion piece.

DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab Spring.” That’s right, we should all take to the streets and demand free and fair elections — you know, like the one we had on May 2. Now you’d think that a college student would know that we enjoy the freedom and system of government that thousands of Arabs are fighting, and dying, to achieve. But she somehow thinks that our first-past-the-post system invalidates the entire democratic process. I suppose we should expect contradictions like this from someone who professes to support democracy, but took a job in the unelected Senate.

Thanks for that, Jesse Kline. When asked what kind of people would support such a poor, misinformed soul, you need look no farther than the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), who was gracious enough to offer her a job. Oh, and Michael Moore–yeah, that Michael Moore. Maybe I’m the odd man out or something, but when Jack Layton, also known as Mr. “Harper Is Evil”, says himself what she did was wrong, that should say something.

This kid comes out of the University of Ottawa, lands herself a pretty nifty job for a university student while she’s attending, then turns around and does something like that. And all because the party she voted for wasn’t elected, so clearly there’s no democracy here. A little advice for Ms. DePape, not that she’d take it. What you’re protesting? Yeah, that thing over there? That’s what the Arab spring’s all about. Please, for the love of chese, do a little research before somebody protests the kind of education people are getting at Ottawa U these days.

Share this:

I’m not entirely sure if he was intending to channel Springsteen in that speech or if the reference to him was just coincidental, but well, er, it kind of fell over either way. So the folks over at Newstalk1010 in Toronto thought it might be fun to give him a hand with it. They put together a clip of his speech, with “Rise Up” by the Parachute Club as the background. Kind of puts the video above in a different light. I got my hands on the audio of that clip, which will join the video of Ignatieff’s speech–you’ll find that below. Again, readers of the LJ/RSS variety may or may not need to click over to the actual site to listen.

I’m told they didn’t need to make any adjustments whatsoever to Ignatieff’s timing or the music to make this fit. Coincidence? You be the judge. Amusing either way. Now to figure out if he’s trying to be a politician or a revolutionary.

H/T: the National Post’s Full Comment section.

Share this:

I voted in the 2004 election. I even voted in the 2006 election. When 2008 rolled around and we went for a third straight vote in 4 years, I didn’t bother. The platforms were the same. Most of the major players were the same. My local representative remained the same–mostly because the alternatives to him remained pretty much the same. And truth be told, I’d much rathered be at work than standing in line for an hour and not getting paid for it. I will not be voting in 2011. Why? See my reasoning for 2008, minus the whole being at work thing. It’s been 3 years since the last election, and for the better part of 2 of them, they’ve been talking about the next one. Hi, really really old Michael Ignatieff quote. Nice to see you. And of course, surprise of surprises–here we are again. I can has stability plz? No, somehow, I didn’t think so.

Share this:

We already have to apply for a passport before we even think about crossing the border, which is bloody expensive enough–hi, at least $75 and that’s only if you don’t mind waiting a few weeks to actually receive it. And even that was a tiny bit of a pain in the ass to get my hands on. The wait times for those are even getting a little up there, along with some of their fees. Visas to get anywhere else generally take longer than that, and from what I hear, cost more–suddenly not so worth it if you’re only coming down here for a week or two.

Little things like this tend to escape the twitchy parts of the US government, like senator Lieberman. Fortunately the Canadian government isn’t quite so twitchy. Now, perhaps someone over in Washington will provide this unfortunate senator with a little education on just how the real world actually works. Hey, one can dream. In the meantime, keep this man away from anything to do with border security. Clearly, he know not what he do.

Share this:

Okay, I get it–everything that may remotely involve Quebec must be completely bilingual, french first, and must shine a light on just how wonderful and glorious Quebec is. Yes, even if it’s a factual account of Canadian history–can’t have Quebec coming out like the spunge it is, after all. But really, now. This was 2010 when it happened. And it was one evening. That Quebec is still to this day going on about it, I think, says more about Quebec than the events they’re complaining about. Thankfully I’m no longer surprised the ones doing the complaining are the pro-Quebec, anti-Canada political parties currently in opposition in Quebec’s “national” legislature. But still, you’d think they’d glom onto an issue to beat dead that’s a little newer than this. After all, regardless to who’s side holds the more truth, if any of them actually do, you can’t undo the cerimony. It still happened the way it happened. And hey look, Quebec would still be complaining about it. And the rest of Canada’s tax dollars are paying for the complaint. Only in backwards Quebec.

Share this:

Canada hasn’t recouped all the jobs lost during the recession after all, Statistics Canada said Friday in a blow to the federal government’s boast about the strength of the recovery.

They say the reasoning for the difference in overall results is they had been using census data from 2001 and had just now switched to using that of 2006. Not that the 2001 picture was looking a whole lot better, but hey, we knew this already. And yet, I’m probably one of 3 people who weren’t entirely surprised. Canada’s unemployment rate’s still up there. There’s a lot of places that no longer actually do anything–hi, former call center location in Ottawa who’s future is, I’m pretty sure, still kind of questionable. Job postings are few and far between, and decent ones are at a premium. And we’ll just not touch the fact the US is still kind of hanging out somewhere between pannicky and flatlining. Nope, recession’s not quite as over as they said it was. But who’s actually surprised? Well, besides Statistics Canada.

Share this:

Flash forward another few months. I get two more emails, in the span of two weeks. They both get replied to, with the same request. All goes quiet, so I figure this time, it worked. Flash forward to late in 2009. I’ve moved out of Ottawa by this point. The first of the emails re: actually doing something with Lansdowne Park besides stare at it come across my desk–for the record, the project was brought up in the media in late 2008. Once again, emails get replied to–this time, with the added note that I’m no longer living in Ottawa and would really like to not have to resort to technical methods of blocking these emails. All goes quiet, until municipal election talk starts up. Then, emails start coming to me from Doucet’s election-related mailbox. This one, thank Christ, has an unsubscribe option. I made very quick use of it. Then, I wrote this entry. I didn’t hear anything more from “Clive Doucet for Mayor”, at least.

Flash forward to today. I was introduced this morning to yet another mailing from Doucet’s city of Ottawa mailbox. And, surprise of surprises, it’s back to discussing the Lansdowne project–which they really can’t be doing much about until the new council takes over in December anyway. Also surprise of surprises, this one doesn’t have an unsubscribe option. Time for yet another reply to a soon to be former councillor.

Another small note to Clive. I already opted out–multiple times–of both your mailing lists. That’s usually an indication I don’t want to be emailed. Please, for the love of everything good and all that, say no to spam. We still don’t like opt-out mailing lists.

Share this:

Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, decided to pick option D.

“Bob Speller is simply trying to distract from the dismal Liberal record on helping person with disabilities,” said a statement from Finley’s office. “In fact, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals are constantly voting against support for persons with disabilities such as when they voted against the creation of the historic Registered Disabilities Saving Plan and the Enabling Accessibility Fund.”

That’s cold comfort to her constituents who must make an appointment with Finley and meet her off-site, perhaps at Tim Horton’s.

I’m not sure what to be more irritated with. The fact this chick’s got a visual impairment and should therefore know better than to make a statement like that, or that statements like that are the norm when folks get called out for crap like this–at just about all levels of government. Or both, in equal proportions.

Small note to Minister Finley. You’re in charge of things to do with people finding employment. You’re also in charge of things to do with people with disabilities. You are, therefore, in charge of things to do with people with disabilities finding employment. Please stop being a tool and actually try removing a barrier that keeps certain individuals in your constituency away from you. And please, for God’s sake, stop with the making it all about the liberals. I’m sure they didn’t put you in an inaccessible office. Nor, I’m sure, are they making it difficult for you to move, should you decide to do so.

Note to Stephen Harper. I think you need a new minister.

Share this:

Hey, Sharron? Turn around. Yeah, that way. See that other border over there? You know, the one with all the “undocumented immigrants” casually jumping the fense? Yeah, there you go. bitch about that one. If you’re looking for porous borders, you can probably start there. Or is the fact George Bush pretty much twisted our arms to slap a requirement for passports to cross the border into the US not secure enough for you?

PS: Canada has no control over border security going into the US, thank you kindly. If we took control of that, you’d still be throwing a fit. So, please, if you must blame the nonexistent Canada/US border problems on someone, throw it at your customs folks–you know, those guys who actually get to decide hey, you don’t get to step foot in the US.

Canada’s not exactly very impressed with you right now. No, scratch that. At the moment, we hate you. Oh well, don’t feel too bad. We hate her too.

Share this:

• Andrew Hayden: spending most of the debate picking at the other candidates, and interjecting his 0.5 cents where it’s not welcome–like, say, when someone else is supposed to have the floor. Go away, Andrew.
• Clive Doucet: Pro-LRT, anti-tunnel, no idea what he’ll do with municipal taxes to compensate–or if he knows, he sure as hell isn’t saying. Also: Really? You’ll criticise O’Brien on how he handled the OC Transpo strike, but you’ll give me the stink eye for criticising the same? And yeah, I’m still not a fan of spam. You go somewhere else, too. Just not the same place as Andy–I don’t think he likes you. Or anyone.
• Jim Watson/Larry O’Brien: Where’s the difference? One taxed us municipally, one taxed us provincially. Both are pro-LRT, pro-tunnel, anti-clue. And they spent the debate sniping back and forth at each other more than Andrew Hayden did at any of them. But aside from the fact Watson actually answered a question re: how much the LRT system would cost, whereas Larry well, um, did the exact opposite, they look very much the same to me.

I asked the candidates in the debate to maybe knock off the bickering and actually answer the questions being asked. I don’t particularly think they came close to doing that. If I didn’t one day plan to rmove back to the city, I might be inclined to view this more comically. As it is, though? I think I’m actually kind of scared. That’s not an easy accomplishment. Nice work, guys.

PS: Andy, the biggest criticism we had about Larry O’Brien is he wouldn’t work with city council. You didn’t even work with the moderators of the debate. You fail. That is all.

Share this:

Related: Why do people in politics insist on asking the same questions 2 and 3 days in a row? Particularly when they know damn well they’re probably going to get exactly the same, word for word answer. Can anyone explain that to me? I’ve run out of clue.

Share this:

I sent one, maybe two emails to councillor Doucet in early 2009, as a direct response to the fact OC Transpo had been dragging the bus strike out and making it nearly as political as some of the crap that came out of the house of commons. The response I got to that email was, pretty much, a politically correct version of “Go screw yourself”, and a reminder that the wicked evil cruel union wouldn’t be pushing the city around if he could help it. I pretty much wrote him off as an ass–even if he was one of the two people who actually did get back to me (the other was a form letter that pretty much said they’d look into it).

That was pretty much the end of my exchange with Ottawa city councillors in general and Doucet in particular. Flash forward to the start of the municipal campaign runs. I get up, go through my morning routine, and the very first email that shows up in my inbox? a newsletter from “Clive Doucet for mayor”. Flash forward again to tonight. I wrote that off as a simple mistake–he doesn’t strike me as very tech savvy, honestly–none of them do, really, but him in particular. Tonight when I got in, I was treated to another newsletter from “Clive Doucet for mayor”. This one, at least, came with an unsubscribe link–the last one didn’t exactly have one.

Hey, Clive? I emailed you a year and a half ago. At most twice. How does that translate to I want to receive advertisements or what have you from you? Most particularly after I no longer live in the city you fully intend to handle I’m sure with the same positively charming touch you demonstrated during our brief conversation. Tell you what. Nobody likes opt-out mailing lists. Particularly from charismatic individuals such as yourself. On the up side, at least you’ve given me a solid reason to avoid emailing you from anything other than a throw-away address from this point. Thanks for that, at least. Now, please, set your spam on fire. I’d appreciate that very much.

Share this:

More and more American citizens are becoming disenchanted with the way Barack Obama’s handling t hings south of the border. In fact, it’d probably be simpler to say if opinion polls drove presidential elections, he’d be looking for another job tonight. But that hasn’t been able to grab headlines since about 6 months after he took office–something about the status quo being considered old news or something. So instead, headlines are shifting to another viewpoint–the religious aspect. And, right on queue, they latch onto a poll that escentially says more people think Obama’s a muslim than did last year.

What a person’s religion should have to do with how they’re running the country, so long as the more extreme elements of that religion don’t end up making it into law–no honour killings, thank you very much, I will probably never understand. But, the majority of folks who seem to think of Obama as a muslim also happen to be in the same camp as folks who don’t approve of how he’s handling things so far as the economy, healthcare, etc. Anyone else seeing a patern, here?

I’ve been known to miss the obvious a time or three, but I’m not getting what his being christian, muslim, gewish or whatever has to do with his ability or lack thereof to run the country. Aside from the fact that in some US camps, all non-christians should be placed on a terrorism watch list–but that’s a rant for an entirely different entry. He has a congressional majority, at least until November. He has a senate majority, or close to it, also at least until November. If he really wanted to bring in whatever laws are more appropriate for whatever religion he chooses to subscribe to, you’d think it wouldn’t be entirely too difficult to do so.

Once again, the US has Canada’s problem in reverse. Where south of the border there’s a growing faction of folks trying to label Obama a pro-muslim nazi dictator, in Canada we have the same faction–meaning folks who don’t necessarily agree with what the current government up here is trying–naming Stephen Harper as a pro-christian dictator. I’m willing to bet neither is coming altogether entirely too close to the truth, though they do unintentionally reinforce the opinion that religion, be it favourable or not, has absolutely no place in the political halls of your country of choice.

In continuing with the theme of the previous entry, even at this level and on this side of the border, nevermind all politics being local–all politics is becoming more and more personal. Where a mayoral candidate broke the wrong law 11 years ago, Barack Obama was given the wrong name, and lived in the wrong country, with the wrong parents when he was a child. Now, t hey both get to wear that in 2010 while media and political entities established to oppose them go to work t rying to turn that into someething damning to their chances at actually doing a semi-decent–or at least, less aweful than those who came before them–job at keeping their respective jurisdictions from going completely to hell–metaphorically, or religiously. Forget about the issues of the day. We’ve got ages old dirty laundry to sling!

Put religion in bed with politics, you’re gonna have a bloody divorce. Put teenaged mistakes in bed with politics, you’re gonna have a hell of a fireworks display. Put either in front of a TV camera, and it’s a match made in hell. Doesn’t it just make you want to run for office?

Update: Apparently, changes to the Google Analytics code over here do not play nice with the LJ copy of this entry. We’ve fixed that malfunction. Small note to LJ: let me use javascript in my goddamn entries, goddammit.

Share this:

Take the latest kerfuffle surrounding Toronto mayoral candidate Rob Ford as a prime example. According to various media sources, he’s been previously convicted of DUI. And by previously, they mean over 10 years ago. Now, considering in spite of DUI being a federal offense in Canada the most you’ll get in several dozen cases is a very light slap on the wrist, you’d think it wouldn’t be made into a huge deal. Particularly if, as reports have been saying, it happened in 1999. But then, he wasn’t running for mayor in 1999.

Now, okay, I can see folks sounding alarms if this guy was a real problem insofar as being well-known for having a few and then hitting the road. Or if he’d gone and did something equally stupid in the months or so leading up to, or during, his campaign. But let’s keep this semi-real, here. It happened in 1999. According to what’s publicly available, the guy’s around 30 now. Which would have made him 19, 20 at best, when he up and decided it’d be fun to have a drink or two and drive home–or wherever it was he was going after he decided to have a few. Or, as us non-political types like to put it, he was young and stupid.

Around that time I was 16 and right smack in the middle of my own stupid decision or two. Now, 11 years later, I’m no longer in that particular situation, and probably a couple degrees smarter for it. A whole crapload’s changed on my side in 11 years–and this guy’s not a whole lot older than me. But, because he up and decided to run stupid as a teenager, back when several hundred other teenagers were all busy doing pretty much the exact same thing. And now it’s a headline in a political campaign in Toronto.

I always figured all politics was local, but this t hing about all politics being personal? That’s new. Not altogether surprising, but new. And just one more reason you’ll never see my name on a voters’ balot–unless as a direct result of one hell of a technical glitch.

Update: Hey look. Another Toronto candidate has some dirty laundry she, or someone else, would like you to see. This one’s also 11 years old. Hey, I know. Let’s all just scrap the political system and pick the one with the better criminal record. Yeah, that’s more fun isn’t it?

Share this: