Never let a crisis go to waste

The chips appear to be falling into place for Quebec City as it looks to revive the Nordiques franchise. The province announced Tuesday it would kick in about $180 million to build a new home for the as-yet-non-existent franchise, adding a plea to the feds to do the same. And if the Conservatives have no plans to fund the rink, they’re doing a brilliant job of hiding it—their Quebec City MPs were out and about sporting vintage Nordiques jerseys on Wednesday:

“As far as a new arena is concerned, our government is very interested to know if this can be done,” John Babcock, a spokesman for Transport Minister Chuck Strahl, said in an e-mail Wednesday.

“As the prime minister has clearly said, we would be very happy if (the) Nordiques could make a comeback to Quebec City.”

On the political front, Pierre-Karl Péladeau (the presumed owner of the new Nordiques) couldn’t have hoped for a more perfect set of circumstances to extract money from all three levels of government. Quebec City’s mayor, Régis Labeaume won the last mayoral election with a Stalin-esque 80 per cent of the vote after making his pro-Nordiques pitch a central part of his campaign. Given Labeaume’s immense popularity—the man’s a demi-god in la vieille capitale—it’s hard to imagine a better politician to be seen cozying up to. Moreover, absolutely no one wants to be seen as the politician who put a stick in his wheels. And if it takes a new arena to win a public handshake with the mayor, Jean Charest and Stephen Harper seem all too willing to oblige.

Continue…

Angela Merkel has weighed in on the Islamophobia sweeping the US right now. Short version — Koran burning is wrong, but Mohammed cartoons are ok. I pretty much agree with that, though one thing she said struck me, in her defence of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard:

“It is about whether or not he can publish his cartoons, yes or no,” said Merkel. “Whether they are necessary or helpful or tasteful or not doesn’t matter. Is he allowed to do it? Yes, he is.”

It’s maybe worth pointing out that this is the exact same argument that some muslims have made in defence of the “ground zero” mosque.  American law gives them the right to do it, end of story. In response to which, conservatives have responded with that obnoxious line that was being passed around: “That we allow them to build the mosque says a lot about us; that they’ll build it says a lot about them.”

Again, muslims said pretty much the exact same same thing back when the Danish cartoons were published. It went something like: “Just because you can do something, it doesn’t mean you should, especially if it causes great offence.” It shouldn’t surprise anyone to find muslims shoving that argument back in the face of the people who told them to get stuffed in 2005.

As always, the best-case solution to all of this would be for people to just stop believing in God. Religious intolerance is the proximate cause of the strife, but religious belief is the ultimate source of the problem. As Richard Dawkins likes to point out, religious people shouldn’t find atheism all that difficult. After all, every believer already doesn’t believe in a great many gods — the trick is to just go “one god more” and stop believing in the one god you’ve settled on.

But that’s not going to happen. The second-best solution would be for everyone to exercise a bit of religious toleration.

But that’s not going to happen either. So what to do? I think it is incumbent on all Christian groups, this Saturday, to burn a big stack of Bibles. In such heated times, a show of solidarity amongst all of Abraham’s children would go a long way.

The New York Times’ Ken Belson surveys the legacies of publicly funded sports stadiums in the United States and finds various piles of debt.

With more than four decades of evidence to back them up, economists almost uniformly agree that publicly financed stadiums rarely pay for themselves. The notable successes like Camden Yards in Baltimore often involve dedicated taxes or large infusions of private money. Even then, using one tax to finance a stadium can often steer spending away from other, perhaps worthier, projects.

“Stadiums are sold as enormous draws for events, but the economics are clear that they aren’t helping,” said Andrew Moylan, the director of government affairs at the National Taxpayers Union. “It’s another way to add insult to injury for taxpayers.”

Two weeks ago, Defence Minister Peter MacKay stated his objection to the inclusion of the Taliban in a multiplayer mode of the video game Medal of Honor. In the wake of that and other statements of concern, the New York Times’ Seth Schiesel sorts through the trouble.

So what has appeared to prompt the defense ministers of three Commonwealth countries to blast Medal of Honor is their visceral reaction against the idea that the Taliban is human. The very concept that “their side” has soldiers (not thugs, criminals or terrorists, but soldiers) on an equal footing with “our” soldiers can be tough to swallow.

Is that fictional entertainment, or is that reality?

Likewise, Dan Gardner adds his thoughts.

It is a truism in U.S. politics that, in an election year, once the Labour Day weekend passes, that’s when the real campaign begins. With most primaries done, the polls show a decided advantage for the Republicans, with generic poll numbers giving them a 6-10 point lead. The Democrats are realizing it is now a matter of cutting their losses in order to preserve control of Congress. With less than 60 days left before voters head to the polls, most pundits are predicting the GOP will win the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate .

The economy continues to be the overriding issue. August numbers have clearly indicated a slowdown in the economic recovery, with unemployment at 9.6% and annual GDP growth stuck below 2%. Housing starts are down and the largest stimulus package in U.S. history has been mostly spent. The Republicans will benefit from the situation, not because of better policies, but rather from America’s bad mood. Some call it anger and point to the Tea Party’s growing influence as proof; others like Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson call it a temper tantrum by voters against the incumbents who happen to be the Democrats. Whatever it is, it is real and it is no fun.

Continue…

Bev Oda writes to the Citizen to clarify the record. Seemingly on the subject of Planned Parenthood, she explains as follows.

In addition, the suggestion that the federal government is on the verge of funding or re-funding any specific organization is inaccurate. CIDA has neither called for, nor received applications from any organizations for funding under Canada’s G8 initiative, therefore no applications have been considered.

Thing is, it’s not entirely clear what the second sentence here has to do with the first sentence.

Planned Parenthood applied to have its funding renewed in June 2009, a full six months before the Prime Minister announced an intention to focus the G8 on maternal health. Ms. Oda, in an interview with Citizen, confirmed that her department has a proposal from Planned Parenthood. And Planned Parenthood has said that there are presently “active discussions” taking place between it and CIDA.

There may ultimately be two votes on C-391. Two days after the House returns, there will be a vote on a Liberal motion to scrap C-391. If that fails, C-391 will proceed to a vote at some point later this session.

On that note, an update. New Democrat Bruce Hyer says he won’t vote to scrap C-391 on the initial vote, though he reserves the right to ultimately change his mind on the bill before it comes to a final vote. Meanwhile, John Rafferty, another of the NDP dozen, says he intends to vote in favour of C-391. As does Nathan Cullen.

That shifts the advantage back to supporters of C-391 by a count of 151 to 149.

Four NDP votes (Allen, Ashton, Gravelle and Hughes) remain undeclared. One no vote (Jean-Yves Roy) remains in question.

With an official request now on record that the federal government contribute public money for the purposes of building a hockey arena that would conceivably aid in returning an NHL team to Quebec City, here is the text of two media advisories which were issued, three days apart, in January 2000.

The first was sent out January 18. That day, industry minister John Manley announced a subsidy plan meant to aid Canada’s struggling NHL franchises. Three days later, amid much consternation, the Liberal government of the day scrapped the proposal. The second release was issued in response to that reversal.

To wit. Continue…

I never talked to him and knew him only by reputation, so anything I say about the man might sound trite, but here goes. You realize, when a 41-year-old father of four dies of cancer, the extent to which politics is a trifling game in comparison. And yet, it is a measure of that man that he took the game so seriously that he literally played it until he was on his deathbed, giving it up only to die. That is heart, folks. I’m sorry he’s gone.

Here’s Shout! Factory’s press release for the complete Larry Sanders Show collection. It looks like it will carry over the extras Shandling created for the “Not Just the Best of the Larry Sanders Show” collection, including those awkward “personal visits” with guest stars — but those might be easier to watch this time around, without the annoyance of feeling that they’re taking up time that could be devoted to more of the episodes.

I was talking about Carrie Fisher with someone the other day (regarding the fact that she’s bringing out another book and that HBO is doing a documentary behind the scenes of her one-woman stage show), which somehow led to my finding this clip of her appearance on Laverne and Shirley in the infamously terrible 1982-3 season — aka “The One Without Shirley.” As befits a show whose co-star had left and that was struggling to stay on the air, the producers tried to compensate with lots of gimmicky guest stars and plots. But having a plot about the Playboy Club, with Hugh Hefner playing himself (badly) and a singing Carrie Fisher in a Playboy Bunny outfit, may place an episode on the top 10 list for most last-ditch gimmicks in one episode: guest star as himself; guest star from movies; guest star singing for no good reason.

Throw in the fact that the episode was directed by Michael McKean — who wasn’t even a regular any more — and it’s a reminder that whatever The Office does without Steve Carell, they’ll… no, wait, if they replace him with Hugh Hefner and have a singing Carrie Fisher episode, I’ll watch, as will we all.

Set the new shadow cabinet against the government’s frontbench, while keeping in mind the issues that have arisen these last few months, and one can piece together a general idea of how Question Period is to be played when the House returns in two weeks. And on the half dozen major files, the match-ups will be entirely new (and vaguely intriguing). To wit. Continue…

The resignation of Maurizio Bevilacqua became official last week. Postmedia reports Inky Mark’s departure will follow this week. That subtracts a single vote from each side of the C-391 debate. The declarations of Charlie Angus and Glenn Thibeault though add two votes to the no side.

From our last update then, the count has flipped: 149 votes against C-391, 148 votes in favour.

Seven NDP votes (Malcolm Allen, Niki Ashton, Nathan Cullen, Claude Gravelle, Carol Hughes, Bruce Hyer and John Rafferty) remain undeclared. And one no vote (Jean-Yves Roy) might soon be vacated.

As the U.S. midterm elections approach, it’s becoming clear that, as election analyst Charlie Cook says, “The Senate is in play.” Because the Democrats have a big Senate majority and because there aren’t all that many competitive seats, the Republicans would essentially have to win all the winnable races in order to gain control of the Senate. But it’s quite possible that they could do that. One thing to remember is that while the U.S. Senate has sometimes changed hands without the House flipping, every time the House changes control, so does the Senate. A “wave” big enough to sweep out a large number of Congressmen will usually mean that the winning party also takes most of the Senate seats that can be won: that’s what happened in 2006, when the Democrats kept all the Senate seats they had already and won most of the close races (Virginia, for example).

Of course this could be the year House control changes without Senate control following along; just because something has never happened before doesn’t mean it never will happen. But the very fact that the Democrats are worried about losing the Senate is a reminder of something that several commentators have been pointing out since 2009: most of President Obama’s political troubles have had to do with the Senate (where it’s much harder to get anything passed), and at least some of those troubles were self-imposed by his decision to pull a number of people out of the Senate. Obama’s own seat is vulnerable, and Delaware, which Vice President Biden represented for decades, is a likely Republican pickup unless GOP candidate Mike Castle loses his primary. Those can’t be helped, of course. But Obama compounded the problem by appointing Colorado Senator Ken Salazar to be Secretary of the Interior; Salazar would probably have had a better chance of defending the seat than his appointed replacement (who is slightly behind). Then there are the people who weren’t Senators but could have been. Obama’s appointment of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to the department of Homeland Security allowed Republican Jan Brewer to become governor of Arizona, which in turn led to the Arizona immigration law. But from a crassly political point of view, Napolitano could have made a go of it in the Senate race against the vulnerable John McCain; she might not have won, but she could have made the race more competitive — and forced McCain to worry about challenges from his left. Others have pointed to Tom Vilsack (Iowa) and Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) as governors who might have run credible Senate races in their home states; if Sebelius had run in the open Senate race in Kansas, the GOP would as least have had to put some resources into defending the seat, whereas they’re going to hold it without any trouble. The net result has been a situation where nearly all the pressure is on the Democrats.

Not that the Senate problems all come from Obama’s appointments. (At least one appointment, of Hillary Clinton, has worked out fine: the replacement, Kristen Gillibrand, was seen as vulnerable at first, but the GOP hasn’t been able to find a credible challenger.) Robert Byrd and, most especially, Ted Kennedy made things worse by staying in the Senate until they died, rather than leaving beforehand. Imagine how different things would have been for the Democrats if Kennedy had retired in 2008 when his health started to worsen. And as David Weigel points out, one of the biggest factors in the Democrats’ problems was the delay in seating Al Franken, which meant that the Republicans found it fairly easy to filibuster for most of 2009 — and by the time Franken was seated and the Democrats had their theoretical filibuster-proof majority, it was too late to do much with it before their political position became weaker.

Still, I get the impression that the Democrats acted as if their Senate majority was secure and that they could afford to open up a tough race here or there. It’s what Bill James called the Law of Competitive Balance: the team that’s ahead gets frozen by success, while the team that’s behind fights with everything it’s got. I don’t want to make too much of that, since the main reason the Democrats are in trouble is well-known to all — unacceptably high unemployment. (Hardly anyone seems to think the Republicans will fix this with their insistence on tax cuts as a solution to everything, but that’s the party political system for you; the only way to show disapproval of the party in power is to elect somebody else.) They’d have been in trouble no matter what. But in 2009, they seemed to proceed from the premise that the economy was bound to get better and that they wouldn’t be in any more than the usual mid-term trouble in 2010. So much for that.