So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish

Just to make it all official-like, the great political experiment of Kats 'n Dawgs is officially done. Kaput. This is an ex-blog.

Raph discovered that having a new home, a new job and a new baby was actually cutting into his blogging time, and I certainly had my hands full with my three other blogs (four if you count my DailyKos diary). So, by mutual consent, we have shut 'er down for good.

It was fun while it lasted.

I encourage you all to continue reading both of our individual political blogs, Unambiguously Ambidextrous and Runesmith's Canadian Content, in the spirit of rational discourse and debate that we hope informed our efforts here.

Play nice. And No Shrieking!

Our Top Story: OMG Garth Turner Said Something Controversial on his Blog!

I wasn't even going to dignify this with a response, but as a Halton constituent and regular over at The Turner Report I felt that it was incumbent on me to explain something to those of you who may be unfamiliar with Mr. Turner and his blog:

GARTH DOES SHIT LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME!

Really. He does. At least once a week. So much so that when I first read the latest offending post, I didn't even notice or think twice about the "losers" crack.

I realize I'm stating the obvious here, but apparently the point has been lost on our national media in their frenzied efforts to turn this into some sort of Reverend Wright scandal. As usual, they have been so diligent in reading from the prepared script handed to them by the powers that be that they have forgotten to ask any of the important questions. Like, for instance, what could possibly have motivated someone, somewhere, to bring this particular post to their attention at this particular time when, as I said, you can pull intemperate and even offensive quotes from Turner's blog pretty much any day of the week?

Instead, they plod merrily along, reiterating and regurgitating the same identical CP article and replaying the same clips of Turner with Dion and Turner in his biker leathers and calling him the "Maverick MP" because that sounds clever.

This is what the big boys call "journalism".

Impolitical may have hit the nail on the lead by asking why John Baird of all people has been selected to be the PM's point man on this particular non-scandal scandal instead of Petite Pierre or any of the other usual sock puppets.

Look, bright shiny object over there says Baird

Don't be distracted by John Baird's hyperventilation, which seems to have reared its ugly head once again in this Globe report:
"G8 won't set emission targets: Baird." Read that title, that's the big story. Baird, however, would like you to focus on a Garth Turner blog post from the other day and turn your focus toward Stephane Dion as he heads to the G8. Not. Gonna. Work.

(...) Paul Kurugman wrote a great column Friday about Rovian tactics, the politics of elevating obscure sideshows to frenzied levels of concern. All the while, important issues are relegated to the sidelines. Baird's frothing at the mouth today is a prime example of that phenomenon.

If you care, here's Turner explaining exactly what he said and why, as the CTV interviewer makes sure to keep the focus on his bike and leathers.

Not that Turner wasn't happy to oblige by wearing them for the interview. It's all about the show, man.

The Green Shift: Rational Discourse

With so many people, bloggers and otherwise, either defending the Liberals' 'Green Shift' plan uncritically or dismissing it out of hand - with their positions almost always based on party affiliation - I cannot tell you how refreshing it was to read the following from Devin Johnston:

Stéphane Dion has asked Canadians to engage in an honest discussion of his "Green Shift" carbon tax proposal. I thank the Liberal leader for his maturity in engaging in an open policy discussion of a matter of critical importance to the country, unlike the Conservative government which has adopted the strategy of inaction and denial on the climate change issue, while using immature and dishonest rhetoric rather than substantive policy analysis in opposing Dion's proposal. While I ultimately conclude for reasons to follow that the proposal as it currently stands is bad policy, the potential exists for the Liberals and NDP to come together to create broader-ranging, multifaceted plan that makes better policy sense. I encourage both parties to seriously examine this "third option" instead of allowing their differences to prevent substantial action from being taken (as was the case on the Afghanistan file.)

He goes on to provide some of the most intelligent and thoughtful analysis I've read so far on this issue, discussing the pros and cons of not only the Liberal plan but the NDP plan as well, and making some concrete suggestions as to how the best elements of both might be combined.

Before proceeding to some of the pros and cons in general terms, though, it should be pointed out that there is nothing incompatible about these policy options. A hybrid system in which there is a hard cap and emissions under that cap are taxed is possible. Moreover, neither one of these options is viable in and of itself. Any basis policy framework aimed at reducing carbon emissions must also be supplemented by additional measures such as investments in green technology and low-interest loans for home retrofitting (just to give two examples.) Moreover, both increase the cost of goods and thereby distribute the burdens addressing climate change on to individuals, leaving lower income persons particularly at risk. Therefore, climate change policies must include provisions that soften the blow to the working poor, who are often not in a position to adapt to a less carbon-intensive lifestyle.

It goes on, with even most of the commenters making rational, productive contributions to the discussion. Read and learn.

This is how the grownups do it, folks.

Gasoline Marches Up And Up

Actually the prices have been quite stable in Vancouver for around two weeks now. It's been consistently $1.48 and fluctuating around the number for some time. The recent gas tax by Gordon Campbell's Liberal government sent the price up by $0.023 per litre, which means most gas prices were $1.52 today in North Vancouver [it's a bit of a misnomer since we get a 3.5 cent deduction off the cost per litre]. It's quite remarkable they've hovered there because the trading of sweet light crude has never been higher. Another day and another record in the New York Mercantile Exchange. Suddenly invading Iran and lapping up all that sweet, sweet oil must be sounding like a more sane plan all the time:

NEW YORK — Oil prices shot to new records above $144 (U.S.) a barrel Wednesday as the U.S. government reported a bigger than expected drop in U.S. supplies and the threat of conflict with Iran weighed on traders' minds.

Light, sweet crude for August delivery rose as high as $144.13 on the New York Mercantile Exchange shortly after the market closed. The contract also notched a new closing record, settling at $143.57 — a full $2.60 above the previous high from a day earlier.

Meanwhile, the former juggernauts of the auto industry have been literally forced to their knees by fuel efficient Japanese imports and an exodus from the purchase of large automobiles. Sales of the GM automaker are down 23.8% from last June in Canada, and the news is even worse in the U.S. Toyota, with most of their cars placing in the top ranks of fuel efficiency, have gained 3.2% of the market share at the expense of GM's slovenly reaction to the market.

I bet they regret this decision right about... now.

Abortion And The Order Of Canada

From the very beginning, this kind of designation was doomed to be one of the most polarizing and divisive. To give an award of the highest order to a Canadian who made it his life's mission to seek out the freedom for women to terminate a fetal life form is destined to create a huge outcry. Everybody has their own stance on abortion, and there are varying degrees to which people consider it acceptable or not acceptable. There are those who consider it an abomination of God's gift of life, a murderous rejection of the very creation of His finest work. And on the other side of the spectrum are those who believe in the ultimate sovereignty of a human being to choose precisely what she does with her body, and that business being no one's but her own.

I'll finally come clean on my own opinion. I favour the freedom of choice for women. There, I've said it. I think that if a woman really doesn't want to bear a child there is little the law can do to coerce her otherwise. I'm not going to argue that point with anyone, but the facts remain that complete bans on abortion lead to nothing but human misery. My view of abortion is based largely on the concept of "potentiality" as conveyed in this post.

The problem with complete choice or complete restriction is that it doesn't account for the variability of human nature and circumstance. This is why I support a change to the legal definitions of abortion, granting women the choice to make that decision during the very first trimester when the potentiality of the fetus is at the weakest stage. I have strong reservations about abortions after three months, and I support Ken Epps bill C-484 on recognizing fetal rights in the case of crimes against the mother.

Obviously not everyone will agree with my views on abortion, and that's fine. It isn't possible to come to agreement on this divisive issue, just as it isn't possible to come to agreement on the designation of the Order of Canada for Dr.Henry Morgentaler. And so what we come to is a compromise. The compromise says that while some Canadians reject abortion as a crime against human nature, others see it as an ultimate freedom. And while some reject Dr.Morgentaler as a criminal, others see him as a hero who has used his energy to fight for women's rights. But whichever side of the fence you sit on, I believe it is undeniable that Dr.Mortgentaler has taken a very brave stand for his beliefs and convictions in the face of undeniable resistance. Should the Order of Canada reflect only what all Canadians believe in, or is there room for controversial figures, and people whom you may even find disagreeable? Victor Wong speaks eloquently on the matter:

And that, it must be said, is the biggest problem with today’s Order of Canada: the idea that it should be something that everyone agrees on. In other words, inoffensive. And the trouble with inoffensive things is that they’re easily forgotten.

[...]An appointment like this, that generates controversy, is exactly what the Order needs, because it forces Canadians to ask, “What exactly constitutes a lasting contribution to the Canadian way of life?” It can’t be denied that Morgentaler is a prominent part of 20th-century Canadian history, and it can’t be denied that he has supporters as well as detractors. If Dr. Morgentaler receives the Order, or is denied it after an outcry, then it says something about how Canadians and the Canadian Establishment defines a famous Canadian’s role in Canadian history and society.

Dr.Henry Morgentaler deserves a place in the Order of Canada precisely because he is controversial, not in spite of it. His lasting contribution to changing the way we look at abortion in Canada has defined the spirit of that debate ever since. You may not agree with his views or efforts, but it does not change the fact that to many women throughout the country he is such a hero for them. For them at least he is every bit as deserving as you believe he is not.

Thumbs Up For Stockwell Day On Crime

It pleases me to write that Stockwell Day is headed in the right direction for Canadians in crime prevention and public safety. The Minister has been said to favour former police officers and corrections officers for appointments to the National Parole Board since Stephen Harper's government took office 875 days ago. Of the 36 new members that Mr.Day has named to the Parole Board, 23 are retired police officers or former corrections staff. And this is somehow, unbelievably, drawing criticism from the soft on crime opposition parties who accuse the Tories, ridiculously, of extending their own brand of "tough on crime" politics into corrections and rehabilitation:

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh and New Democrat MP Joe Comartin add that the trend — combined with other measures the government has taken to increase the role of police officers in the criminal justice system — indicates the government is in danger of “politicizing” police forces across the country.

[...] Mr. Dosanjh linked the increase in police presence in the justice system to the determination the government showed when it threatened an election to get Parliament to pass new sentencing laws that included mandatory minimums for a range of crimes.

“What this government is trying to do is actually take us down the U.S. route,” he said. “Their (U.S.) jails are overcrowded and the mandatory minimums haven't lowered the crime rate.”

As opposed to what, Mr.Dosanjh? This? 148 convictions ranging from break and enter, theft, and assault over 27 years, and the man continues to be a presence in our society? This is the Liberal ideal for our crime laws.

I can't for one moment imagine the Liberal and NDP criticism of Stockwell Day's appointment of those who are the most qualified to be serving in the positions of the National Parole Board, such as police and corrections officers who have seen the day in and day out realities of how the law and system works [or doesn't]. Stockwell Day should be applauded for having the common sense to appoint those front line workers who understand what it means to implement proper penalties, not bureaucrats who have been pushing pencils since the third grade.

If you need any more proof that the opposition in on the wrong side of law-abiding Canadians, just take a gander at the comments. It's almost unanimously in favour of Mr.Day's decisions. We're all sick of soft crime laws and judges, and we're all sick of chronic offenders getting out again and again. We're sick of rapists and pedophiles reoffending, or thieves getting wrist slaps for the 100th conviction. The appointments of retired officers is a prudent and wise decision and the fact the opposition isn't in favour of it only shows how shallow their political motives are.

Forget Dion, We're Already Paying Carbon Taxes

I said it before, but the salient fact is that while the Conservatives attack the Liberals on their carbon tax plan, little is being said about the massive windfall the federal government has received from the price of gasoline. Readers of my blog have said that the Conservatives can't do anything about interfering with the price of the market or speculators. Fine. Don't do anything. But there's no excuse not to tax gasoline on a sliding scale. If the Conservatives oppose the carbon tax on the principle it hurts people based on a fixed income or working families, then the government has done nothing but prosper from that higher gas prices:

Soaring prices at the pump add up to a tax bonanza worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government, says the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Ottawa takes in $100 million in additional GST for every 10-cent rise in the price of a litre of gas, says Maureen Bader, the federation's B.C. director.

"High gas prices are good for the federal treasury," she says.

But it's not just the feds who are making out like bandits. The Gordon Campbell government will be raking it in with their new carbon tax tomorrow, and this is on top of existing taxes that push the price up 30% at the pump. Long forgotten taxes, too, like the federal deficit-reduction tax is still going strong despite the fact the feds have run surpluses for a decade. If oil prices stay high for a year, Ottawa will receive $400 million of our tax dollars just in profit from our own misfortune.

The federal government helped consumers with a 2% cut to the GST, but the rise in gasoline prices have pretty much eroded that benefit. As crude tops $143 a barrel, the government is getting richer. And you aren't.