#1
The paper going to $1.31 finished it. It wasn’t the extra 6 cents, finally; it was the inconvenience of dealing with the change. $1.31?! What kind of price is that? How does one keep enough change on hand?
There have been lots of other irritants, of course: the days the paper just simply didn’t show up, or the fact that one cannot get a Globe delivered here in Campbell River, or the fact that sometimes, if I was a bit later than usual on a day when there had just been some significant news event, they’d sold out by the time I arrived.
Nonetheless, it’s a rupture. For more years than I care to recall we’ve been going to the local Mac’s every morning to pick up the Globe. These days I’m such a regular, they have a running joke about it as I scan the paper and put my money on the counter: “Your cheque is in the mail!”
But I’ve had it, and that chapter is over, even though I’m going to miss the walk first thing in the morning, before breakfast – before coffee even – rain or shine.
It doesn’t hurt that an on-line subscription is less than half the price of the paper version, or that I can reduce my recyclable paper volume by about three-quarters, or that I’m guaranteed a paper unless the power is off or my high-speed provider is off-line. (This, incidentally, is so rare an occurrence that I can’t clearly recall the last time it happened.)
My change pot is about to revert to being a coffee mug.
And I’m going to spend even more time behind my computer, which makes today’s Page 47 headline and story, “Computer work may hurt your eyes, but not your eyesight” more than usually comforting!
#2
As my favourite columnist, John Doyle, might say, “The CBC? Don’t get me started!”
Of course, he’d be talking about TV, and I pretty much gave up on that years ago. But radio? Sandy and I have been loyal CBC radio addicts since before we were married, which would make our allegiance very long-term.
Over the years we’ve had our differences with the CBC. We used to say that in the whole of Campbell River only Tom Barnett had a thicker file of correspondence with them. Mostly, this was (for us and for Tom) about the appallingly-bad AM service. The reception for 690 AM was, when we arrived in Campbell River in 1973 (and continues to be) impossible much of the time, especially from dusk to dawn. Then we got a pair of FM repeaters, a choice of 92.5 or 104.5! And that worked splendidly.
Until those became repeaters for the new Victoria station, which we tried, but never embraced. (I mean, come on! Give up Stephen Quinn or Rick Clough? Traffic slowing over the Johnson Street Bridge over the drama unfolding on the Patullo or the Port Mann? Give me a break!)
So we reverted to the impossible 690AM when we could, and, because we had cable by then, turned to Radio 2 when we couldn’t.
Well, we all know what happened to Radio 2. The short version of this story is that I sent them another sample of my eloquence and biting wit, and we haven’t listened to it since.
About the same time the CBC asked for and received permission to move 690AM to the FM band. Apparently the AM will still be available, but we all know it’s old technology and won’t be maintained, so this was very bad news.
And then we discovered digital streaming, which provides perfect CBC Vancouver on demand.
CBC: all is forgiven.
Until the next time.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The pit bull vs the collie
Brenda Leigh won in Strathcona Regional District’s “Area D” in the recent civic elections:
Brenda Leigh 645
Kellie O’Brien 433
Tom Kennedy 240
Bill Olsthoorn 12
The campaign against her re-election started early in September, when the first yellow-on-black
“Hey, hey, ho, ho/ Brenda Leigh/ has got to go”
signs went up along the highway. The first locations were suggestive of an organization behind them: well-known advocates of unrestricted development. It wasn’t long after that these locations also sported John Duncan signs and, when the municipal campaign fired up, signs for Kellie O’Brien. (Coincidences? I doubt it!)
I’m not a fan of Brenda’s, and I’m not at all sure I’d have voted for her if we lived in Area D. Nonetheless, I predicted she’d win, and I based that prediction entirely on her campaign, in the Fall of 2004, to win the nomination of the North Island NDP, which she lost in a squeaker to Claire Trevena, our present MLA.
In that campaign Claire was a political neophyte, ex-member of the Green Party, new to the NDP and to North Island, who didn’t have the support of either the constituency executive or local union leadership. Brenda did have that support, and consequently she and her supporters were visibly astonished when she lost.
They shouldn’t have been. Although Claire was unpolished, she was supported by a very experienced political team; Brenda had simply been out-organized.
This loss wasn’t for lack of trying on Brenda’s part. A year after the nomination, when the Membership Secretary started to contact many of the 1200 new members the nominating campaign had attracted, he discovered that Brenda had signed up whole streets in Area D. Many of these voters had no idea that they’d become NDP members in the process. Several of them, having voted for Brenda, had no intention of voting NDP!
Which brings me back to the election of November 15.
Brenda once described herself as a “pit bull”, and that’s not far off the mark, vocally or visually. Kellie O’Brien, what I saw of her, reminds one more of a collie. Anyone who knows anything about political campaigns knows that vocals and visuals are usually important.
As soon as the federal election was over, the Kellie O’Brien signs started to go up. Soon the old highway from the Parkway to the Oyster was awash with them. They were light blue on white, easy on the eye, and pronounced O’Brien “A Breath of Fresh Air”. It took Brenda several weeks to get hers in place, and when she did they were an unsophisticated black on white. Or home-made black on purple. Everyone I talked to thought this time Brenda was going down.
I obviously don’t think O’Brien lost because of her sign campaign, and I don’t think Brenda won because she was on the right side of the issues. The referendum she promoted and O’Brien opposed went down badly. She didn’t say anything else that was very different from what her opponents were saying. Furthermore, as near as I could tell O’Brien ran an error-free campaign, with one notable exception: she should probably have participated in the televised debate, if only because all the other candidates did, and virtually all Area D voters get Channel 10. I don't know if the yellow-on-black anti-Brenda campaign affected the outcome, but given where the signs were placed, they might even have helped Brenda.
I’ll bet how Brenda really won – and I’m only guessing at this – was by contacting almost every one of her supporters, and a good many people who didn’t vote for her as well. And I’ll bet her team got the vote out.
Being the incumbent obviously didn’t hurt either.
Brenda Leigh 645
Kellie O’Brien 433
Tom Kennedy 240
Bill Olsthoorn 12
The campaign against her re-election started early in September, when the first yellow-on-black
“Hey, hey, ho, ho/ Brenda Leigh/ has got to go”
signs went up along the highway. The first locations were suggestive of an organization behind them: well-known advocates of unrestricted development. It wasn’t long after that these locations also sported John Duncan signs and, when the municipal campaign fired up, signs for Kellie O’Brien. (Coincidences? I doubt it!)
I’m not a fan of Brenda’s, and I’m not at all sure I’d have voted for her if we lived in Area D. Nonetheless, I predicted she’d win, and I based that prediction entirely on her campaign, in the Fall of 2004, to win the nomination of the North Island NDP, which she lost in a squeaker to Claire Trevena, our present MLA.
In that campaign Claire was a political neophyte, ex-member of the Green Party, new to the NDP and to North Island, who didn’t have the support of either the constituency executive or local union leadership. Brenda did have that support, and consequently she and her supporters were visibly astonished when she lost.
They shouldn’t have been. Although Claire was unpolished, she was supported by a very experienced political team; Brenda had simply been out-organized.
This loss wasn’t for lack of trying on Brenda’s part. A year after the nomination, when the Membership Secretary started to contact many of the 1200 new members the nominating campaign had attracted, he discovered that Brenda had signed up whole streets in Area D. Many of these voters had no idea that they’d become NDP members in the process. Several of them, having voted for Brenda, had no intention of voting NDP!
Which brings me back to the election of November 15.
Brenda once described herself as a “pit bull”, and that’s not far off the mark, vocally or visually. Kellie O’Brien, what I saw of her, reminds one more of a collie. Anyone who knows anything about political campaigns knows that vocals and visuals are usually important.
As soon as the federal election was over, the Kellie O’Brien signs started to go up. Soon the old highway from the Parkway to the Oyster was awash with them. They were light blue on white, easy on the eye, and pronounced O’Brien “A Breath of Fresh Air”. It took Brenda several weeks to get hers in place, and when she did they were an unsophisticated black on white. Or home-made black on purple. Everyone I talked to thought this time Brenda was going down.
I obviously don’t think O’Brien lost because of her sign campaign, and I don’t think Brenda won because she was on the right side of the issues. The referendum she promoted and O’Brien opposed went down badly. She didn’t say anything else that was very different from what her opponents were saying. Furthermore, as near as I could tell O’Brien ran an error-free campaign, with one notable exception: she should probably have participated in the televised debate, if only because all the other candidates did, and virtually all Area D voters get Channel 10. I don't know if the yellow-on-black anti-Brenda campaign affected the outcome, but given where the signs were placed, they might even have helped Brenda.
I’ll bet how Brenda really won – and I’m only guessing at this – was by contacting almost every one of her supporters, and a good many people who didn’t vote for her as well. And I’ll bet her team got the vote out.
Being the incumbent obviously didn’t hurt either.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Carbon Circus
I was tidying up, throwing out old files, when I re-discovered this from last July, which I thought was at least interesting, and possibly still germane: an article by Jerry West, publisher of the Gold River Record, and my response.
B.C.'s carbon circus continues
by Jerry West
July 9, 2008
British Columbia's carbon circus continues. On July 5 Premier Gordon Campbell published an editorial in the Vancouver Sun titled "Climate change is our problem to solve." It would be nice if the premier was serious about actually doing something effective to address the climate change problem. It would be even nicer if he admitted the truth that our climate change issue is only a symptom of a much bigger problem. But don't hold your breath, his political backers would be rid of him in a minute if he got serious about climate change, and they would go wild if he even mentioned the core problem.
We have a climate change problem because....
Premier Campbell and the economists and environmentalists that support his position are going nowhere near the solutions that we need to solve the problem. Instead of applying a solution based on ecology to our ecological predicament, they are applying an economic one. And not only that, they are applying it in such a way that its effects will be negligible if not counterproductive.
If Campbell and his environmentalist friends were serious about dealing with the environmental problems facing us they would dump the economists and economic approaches into the trash bin and address the issue from an ecological stand point. Carbon use must be reduced, as must a lot of other consumption, and the surest way to achieve that is to limit supply, not raise taxes. Limiting the supply of energy and other goods will of course curtail growth, a good thing for the environment, and a good thing for future humans, but not a good thing in the eyes of those who bankroll Premier Campbell. The Premier said that "climate change calls on all of us to rise above business as usual." And, it does, but you can bet that he won't.
Also in response to a discussion on an environment list where someone said: "the NDP stand is not effective and doesn't even have the appearance of effectiveness"
If we want an effective stand it will have to be for limiting the sale of fuel to a certain amount per time period. That is precise and gets us exactly the reductions that we want. Fairness in any limiting of supply would require a rationing plan, too, so everyone gets a fair share.
Does anybody think we can sell that idea? Until that is the plan all anyone is doing on this issue is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Tax shifting, neutral taxes, and so on are economic smoke and mirrors to make it look like something is being done while actually doing very little as far as significant effects go. These are a shell game concocted by economists to preserve the economy and the interests of the wealthy, not save the environment.
Campbell's plan is not only such a shell game, but has been put in such a way to foment divisiveness between the NDP and some environmentalists. No doubt that, more than any environmental concern, was the plan all along. People arguing over the merits of the Liberal vs NDP plans have gotten caught in this fly paper.
Jerry,
You won't be surprised when I tell you we're all going to agree with you: rationing of oil isn't going to happen anytime soon. Most of us just weren't that enamoured of Stalinist economics.
However, the rest of your argument is mischievous in that it's really just a rationale for not doing anything about greenhouse gases caused by transportation, and while joining the Harperites is certainly an option, the consequences of such a policy aren't that attractive to many of us either.
You've (I suspect deliberately) misunderstood the point of carbon taxes: of course the tax solves nothing in itself; it isn't meant to. The tax merely makes the commodity more expensive. The expected consequences are that people will modify their behaviour by buying smaller vehicles, running them less, and pressing for improved public transit. It is also meant to encourage companies to find other ways of producing and using energy, and consumers to buy the resultant products. (I draw your attention to a tiny little report in yesterday's Report on Business, noting that Toyota has shifted its lines producing the Tundra truck to production of the Prius. Not a major shift, perhaps, but nonetheless indicative.)
Do economic incentives even work? Why was it we spent a lot of money to get rid of that old oil furnace and replace it with a high-efficiency gas one? Of course they do!
Yes, the oil companies are raking in huge profits, and yes, the carbon tax compounds the injury. So tax the oil company profits, and apply the money raised by carbon taxes to the social good, public transportation being a priority.
We can probably all agree that the global warming problem won't be solved without changing the attitudes and behaviours of the people on the planet. Carbon taxes won't do it all, but they can be part of the solution. At least they point in the right direction.
As for Campbell, it may well be that his motivations are all political, but he's done more to bring this defining issue of our times home to BCers than any other politician, and all the environmental organizations combined!
--Justus
B.C.'s carbon circus continues
by Jerry West
July 9, 2008
British Columbia's carbon circus continues. On July 5 Premier Gordon Campbell published an editorial in the Vancouver Sun titled "Climate change is our problem to solve." It would be nice if the premier was serious about actually doing something effective to address the climate change problem. It would be even nicer if he admitted the truth that our climate change issue is only a symptom of a much bigger problem. But don't hold your breath, his political backers would be rid of him in a minute if he got serious about climate change, and they would go wild if he even mentioned the core problem.
We have a climate change problem because....
Premier Campbell and the economists and environmentalists that support his position are going nowhere near the solutions that we need to solve the problem. Instead of applying a solution based on ecology to our ecological predicament, they are applying an economic one. And not only that, they are applying it in such a way that its effects will be negligible if not counterproductive.
If Campbell and his environmentalist friends were serious about dealing with the environmental problems facing us they would dump the economists and economic approaches into the trash bin and address the issue from an ecological stand point. Carbon use must be reduced, as must a lot of other consumption, and the surest way to achieve that is to limit supply, not raise taxes. Limiting the supply of energy and other goods will of course curtail growth, a good thing for the environment, and a good thing for future humans, but not a good thing in the eyes of those who bankroll Premier Campbell. The Premier said that "climate change calls on all of us to rise above business as usual." And, it does, but you can bet that he won't.
Also in response to a discussion on an environment list where someone said: "the NDP stand is not effective and doesn't even have the appearance of effectiveness"
If we want an effective stand it will have to be for limiting the sale of fuel to a certain amount per time period. That is precise and gets us exactly the reductions that we want. Fairness in any limiting of supply would require a rationing plan, too, so everyone gets a fair share.
Does anybody think we can sell that idea? Until that is the plan all anyone is doing on this issue is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Tax shifting, neutral taxes, and so on are economic smoke and mirrors to make it look like something is being done while actually doing very little as far as significant effects go. These are a shell game concocted by economists to preserve the economy and the interests of the wealthy, not save the environment.
Campbell's plan is not only such a shell game, but has been put in such a way to foment divisiveness between the NDP and some environmentalists. No doubt that, more than any environmental concern, was the plan all along. People arguing over the merits of the Liberal vs NDP plans have gotten caught in this fly paper.
_______
Jerry,
You won't be surprised when I tell you we're all going to agree with you: rationing of oil isn't going to happen anytime soon. Most of us just weren't that enamoured of Stalinist economics.
However, the rest of your argument is mischievous in that it's really just a rationale for not doing anything about greenhouse gases caused by transportation, and while joining the Harperites is certainly an option, the consequences of such a policy aren't that attractive to many of us either.
You've (I suspect deliberately) misunderstood the point of carbon taxes: of course the tax solves nothing in itself; it isn't meant to. The tax merely makes the commodity more expensive. The expected consequences are that people will modify their behaviour by buying smaller vehicles, running them less, and pressing for improved public transit. It is also meant to encourage companies to find other ways of producing and using energy, and consumers to buy the resultant products. (I draw your attention to a tiny little report in yesterday's Report on Business, noting that Toyota has shifted its lines producing the Tundra truck to production of the Prius. Not a major shift, perhaps, but nonetheless indicative.)
Do economic incentives even work? Why was it we spent a lot of money to get rid of that old oil furnace and replace it with a high-efficiency gas one? Of course they do!
Yes, the oil companies are raking in huge profits, and yes, the carbon tax compounds the injury. So tax the oil company profits, and apply the money raised by carbon taxes to the social good, public transportation being a priority.
We can probably all agree that the global warming problem won't be solved without changing the attitudes and behaviours of the people on the planet. Carbon taxes won't do it all, but they can be part of the solution. At least they point in the right direction.
As for Campbell, it may well be that his motivations are all political, but he's done more to bring this defining issue of our times home to BCers than any other politician, and all the environmental organizations combined!
--Justus
Friday, November 14, 2008
Race, Culture, and Politics
It’s probably understandable that liberal Americans, after enduring eight years of international disapproval because of the politics and policies of the George Bush presidency, after just electing their first black president pat themselves on the back in amazement and relief and then crow, “See? We’ve proven it again. Only in the USA!”
“Only in the USA” is one of the most fundamental of American national myths, which I guess is why it inevitably got the standing ovation whenever it was trundled out in either Obama’s or McCain’s campaign speeches.
But it’s pretty discouraging when Canadians whose politics I respect, agree, especially as it’s certainly untested and probably untrue.
I wouldn’t, in any way, attempt to belittle the Democrat victory, or President-elect Obama’s role in it. He and his team ran a brilliant campaign. It will spawn much learned analysis, many articles and books, and it will, without any doubt, become the model that will define American political campaigns for the next 20 years. The lessons, both learned and perceived, will percolate around the world, and will infect democratic political campaigns everywhere.
But that’s the thing: Obama is an exceptional political talent, a transformational politician the likes of whom we haven’t seen take the leadership of a western democracy in a very long time, who was spotted, groomed, and promoted years ago. He came up through a system. He didn’t win because of his colour, or sexual orientation, or brilliance; he won because he was the right candidate at the right time, with the right organization, in tune with an electorate that wanted to believe his message.
And he won because he’s of the right class. During the campaign his back-story and funny name became irrelevant for the vast majority of voters, but could anyone think, all else being the same, that if his educational resume had been as slim as Sarah Palin’s any Canadian would be holding him up as a model now?
Not a chance, I say. And that’s why I think that, while his achievement is historic, to assume that it couldn’t be repeated elsewhere is mere chauvinism. It's like assuming that only Jamaica could produce a Usain Bolt, or Austria a Sigmund Freud or Wolfgang Mozart.
Not to mention an Adolf Hiltler.
“Only in the USA” is one of the most fundamental of American national myths, which I guess is why it inevitably got the standing ovation whenever it was trundled out in either Obama’s or McCain’s campaign speeches.
But it’s pretty discouraging when Canadians whose politics I respect, agree, especially as it’s certainly untested and probably untrue.
I wouldn’t, in any way, attempt to belittle the Democrat victory, or President-elect Obama’s role in it. He and his team ran a brilliant campaign. It will spawn much learned analysis, many articles and books, and it will, without any doubt, become the model that will define American political campaigns for the next 20 years. The lessons, both learned and perceived, will percolate around the world, and will infect democratic political campaigns everywhere.
But that’s the thing: Obama is an exceptional political talent, a transformational politician the likes of whom we haven’t seen take the leadership of a western democracy in a very long time, who was spotted, groomed, and promoted years ago. He came up through a system. He didn’t win because of his colour, or sexual orientation, or brilliance; he won because he was the right candidate at the right time, with the right organization, in tune with an electorate that wanted to believe his message.
And he won because he’s of the right class. During the campaign his back-story and funny name became irrelevant for the vast majority of voters, but could anyone think, all else being the same, that if his educational resume had been as slim as Sarah Palin’s any Canadian would be holding him up as a model now?
Not a chance, I say. And that’s why I think that, while his achievement is historic, to assume that it couldn’t be repeated elsewhere is mere chauvinism. It's like assuming that only Jamaica could produce a Usain Bolt, or Austria a Sigmund Freud or Wolfgang Mozart.
Not to mention an Adolf Hiltler.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Turkey Talk
Until you think about it, this is a routine and undistinguished photo of my dad talking to Nora in Ankara last Sunday morning. It was about 11:15 AM here, about 10:15 PM there.But what an extraordinary photo!
My dad was born in 1915. He remembers hearing the first radio programs in Holland, when he was in his late teens in the early 1930’s, and he remembers the first time his family had a telephone, the astonishment of being able to talk to someone who wasn’t in the same room, maybe not even in the same community!
Here he is, captured by my digital camera having a perfectly normal, real-time, face-to-face conversation with his grand daughter living in Turkey.
And here am I, posting it to my blog so you can see it.
I doubt he would have foreseen this coming when he was my age, back in 1979, and I certainly have no idea what the world will be like in 2037, when I’m 93, either.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Investing Words with Meaning
"Obama will reinvest words with meaning. That is the basis of everything. And an American leader able to improvise a grammatical, even a moving, English sentence is no bad thing."
--Roger Cohen, New York Times, November 6, 2008
More than enough has been written about Sarah Palin already. But I can't pass this up: how ironic is it that John McCain, in his concession speech – probably the best and most honest of his entire campaign – paid tribute to her as a "great campaigner"?
And that he wasn't entirely wrong?
And that, in spite of her abilities, she probably lost him any chance he had?
He obviously wasn't just thinking of her nomination acceptance speech, written by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully a week before she gave it and then tailored to her, which she delivered brilliantly. She made that speech sound both so personal and so sincere that even seasoned commentators forgot that the words weren't actually hers.
But Scully clearly wasn't responsible for her subsequent speeches, and although they were received just as rapturously by her crowds, they didn't actually say anything or make a case for anything but groupthink.
Here's a typical excerpt, from a speech she gave in Clearwater, Florida:
As I explained to Senator Biden, John McCain is the only man in this race who will solve our economic crisis and not exploit it. And he's the only man in this race with a plan that will actually help our working families, and cut your taxes, and get our economy back on track.
(Applause.)
He's the only man in this race who talks about the wars that America is fighting and he isn't afraid to use the word victory.
(Applause.)
Our opponent gives speech after speech about the wars that America is fighting and it sure would be nice if just once he'd say that he wants America to win.
(Applause.)
See our opponent voted to cut off funding for our troops even after saying that he would never do so.
(Boos.)
You really have to see the video clip to appreciate the impact of this pure – and effective – demagoguery.
By October 6, when she gave that speech, in spite of the crowds and in spite of her presentation skills, her credibility was already pretty much over. Palin's Couric interview on September 24 had cruelly exposed both the breadth of her ignorance and her inability to string together a coherent sentence or thought:
Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?
Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric: Can you think of any?
Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
In the euphoria of the Obama-Biden's victory it would be easy to forget that 46% of the American electorate voted for the McCain-Palin ticket, and that a significant number of them did so because of, not in spite of, Palin's belief system and rhetorical powers.
And it would be easy to forget that she's one of 28% of American adults who have earned a university degree. That's compared to only 23% of Canadian adults!
(I notice that Occidental College in Los Angeles, where Obama spent his first two years after high school, prominently features this fact on its website; I couldn't find any reference to Palin (nee Heath) on the website of the University of Idaho, from which she graduated with a BSc in Communications-Journalism in 1987!)
--Roger Cohen, New York Times, November 6, 2008
More than enough has been written about Sarah Palin already. But I can't pass this up: how ironic is it that John McCain, in his concession speech – probably the best and most honest of his entire campaign – paid tribute to her as a "great campaigner"?
And that he wasn't entirely wrong?
And that, in spite of her abilities, she probably lost him any chance he had?
He obviously wasn't just thinking of her nomination acceptance speech, written by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully a week before she gave it and then tailored to her, which she delivered brilliantly. She made that speech sound both so personal and so sincere that even seasoned commentators forgot that the words weren't actually hers.
But Scully clearly wasn't responsible for her subsequent speeches, and although they were received just as rapturously by her crowds, they didn't actually say anything or make a case for anything but groupthink.
Here's a typical excerpt, from a speech she gave in Clearwater, Florida:
As I explained to Senator Biden, John McCain is the only man in this race who will solve our economic crisis and not exploit it. And he's the only man in this race with a plan that will actually help our working families, and cut your taxes, and get our economy back on track.
(Applause.)
He's the only man in this race who talks about the wars that America is fighting and he isn't afraid to use the word victory.
(Applause.)
Our opponent gives speech after speech about the wars that America is fighting and it sure would be nice if just once he'd say that he wants America to win.
(Applause.)
See our opponent voted to cut off funding for our troops even after saying that he would never do so.
(Boos.)
You really have to see the video clip to appreciate the impact of this pure – and effective – demagoguery.
By October 6, when she gave that speech, in spite of the crowds and in spite of her presentation skills, her credibility was already pretty much over. Palin's Couric interview on September 24 had cruelly exposed both the breadth of her ignorance and her inability to string together a coherent sentence or thought:
Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?
Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric: Can you think of any?
Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
In the euphoria of the Obama-Biden's victory it would be easy to forget that 46% of the American electorate voted for the McCain-Palin ticket, and that a significant number of them did so because of, not in spite of, Palin's belief system and rhetorical powers.
And it would be easy to forget that she's one of 28% of American adults who have earned a university degree. That's compared to only 23% of Canadian adults!
(I notice that Occidental College in Los Angeles, where Obama spent his first two years after high school, prominently features this fact on its website; I couldn't find any reference to Palin (nee Heath) on the website of the University of Idaho, from which she graduated with a BSc in Communications-Journalism in 1987!)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
letter to Fernie Free Press
The Editor,
Dear Sir:
Today I heard East Kootenay MLA Bill Bennett tell Mark Forsythe of the CBC Radio program BC Almanac that he was enthusiastic about the win of US President-Elect Barack Obama, and that he hoped it would improve relations between our countries.
Fortunately for all of us, MLA Bennett is in a position to help move this agenda along. Unfortunately, he's on record as doing the opposite.
A very senior Democrat, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the Chair of the US Senate Committee on Finance, was re-elected with a huge majority in the same election. He's not a fan of MLA Bennett, because Mr. Bennett actively promotes the creation of new coal mines and the extraction of coalbed methane in the watershed of the Flathead River, a river of vital interest to Montana.
According to an article about Senator Baucus in Wikipedia, "In February 2008, Baucus touted success in preventing a coal bed methane project that was proposed by BP Canada in British Columbia, Canada. He claimed that this project would have had environmental impacts in Montana which is downstream from the project. It was later revealed that this project was not in fact canceled"
So may I suggest to MLA Bennett that if he really wants to help and not just mouth platitudes, he could start by mending fences with Senator Baucus, our influential next-door neighbour. Promoting the establishment of a park to encompass the Flathead watershed would be a good beginning.
Sincerely,
Dear Sir:
Today I heard East Kootenay MLA Bill Bennett tell Mark Forsythe of the CBC Radio program BC Almanac that he was enthusiastic about the win of US President-Elect Barack Obama, and that he hoped it would improve relations between our countries.
Fortunately for all of us, MLA Bennett is in a position to help move this agenda along. Unfortunately, he's on record as doing the opposite.
A very senior Democrat, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the Chair of the US Senate Committee on Finance, was re-elected with a huge majority in the same election. He's not a fan of MLA Bennett, because Mr. Bennett actively promotes the creation of new coal mines and the extraction of coalbed methane in the watershed of the Flathead River, a river of vital interest to Montana.
According to an article about Senator Baucus in Wikipedia, "In February 2008, Baucus touted success in preventing a coal bed methane project that was proposed by BP Canada in British Columbia, Canada. He claimed that this project would have had environmental impacts in Montana which is downstream from the project. It was later revealed that this project was not in fact canceled"
So may I suggest to MLA Bennett that if he really wants to help and not just mouth platitudes, he could start by mending fences with Senator Baucus, our influential next-door neighbour. Promoting the establishment of a park to encompass the Flathead watershed would be a good beginning.
Sincerely,
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Good dog Eli
Most days my buddy Eli and I go walking in the Beaver Lodge Lands.
Usually our progress is pretty routine, and we do the circuit without much incident, busy in our individual ways, but occasionally there are surprises. The other day, for example, Eli managed to spook a whole flock of mallards, which rose up, complaining loudly, from where they had been busy on the new pond just off the Butterfly trail.
This gave both of us a good deal of pleasure.
Because Eli wears a bear bell when he's in the Lands these days, he doesn't get this kind of thrill as often as he used to.
About a month ago, pre-bell, just as the huckleberries were at their best, we were on our usual route up from the ERT road to the Dogwood end of the Pony trail. Eli was, as usual, quite a ways ahead. Suddenly I heard some crashing in the bush, and then Eli barking. I'd seen a couple of bears while running on the ERT road in that area earlier in the week, so I wasn't very surprised when I got there to see a substantial black bear, sitting in a clearly defensive position. Eli was doing a little semi-circular dance, keeping about 20 feet from the bear and barking animatedly. The bear was watching.
I walked up to Eli, grabbed his collar, put his leash on, and quickly walked with him to the beginning of the Pony trail, a hundred meters along. Behind us I could hear the bear escaping the area just as quickly as he could.
Eli wasn't at all interested in revisiting this experience, for when I removed his leash a little further on, he stuck close to me for the next bit of the trail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
