Be_rad's Comments

Macleans.ca : 'Thank you'

Mon, 9 May 2011 13:42:40 +0000

Thank you, Holly, but there is more than enough silliness to go all the way across the spectrum.

Macleans.ca : 'Thank you'

Thu, 5 May 2011 20:03:35 +0000

I think a man who made a Hall of Fame impact in the professional sports world, who authored or co-authored commercially successful and award winning books, with a legal degree and ministerial career won't be begging for charity, regardless of a pension, as he could still walk out and earn cash you could never dream of earning. Because if your uncharitable, small minded whinging observationscan only aspire to that tired old line, then my guess is you are not in high demand by your own family.

Macleans.ca : This new Parliament

Thu, 5 May 2011 19:32:56 +0000

According to Samara, there hasn't been for some time, not just recently or in the immediate future.

Macleans.ca : This new Parliament

Thu, 5 May 2011 19:32:14 +0000

Actually it was serious. From what I can tell, the only thing MPs can act upon in a meaningful way are the bills before them. They speak to people and groups that are impacted by the bill. They speak to departmental officials about wording in the bill and test the intended meaning of the words against how they might really be interpreted or acted upon. MPs do not, at least in any public way, have meaningful impact on developing public policy.

Macleans.ca : This new Parliament

Thu, 5 May 2011 17:44:01 +0000

I have read about how opening up the Commons to a "more diverse background" is a good thing. How do we measure the truth of that statement? How much direct input do backbenchers have into public policy? Allison and Samara have also pointed out that this is a concern expressed by past MPs. If public policy isn't being crafted by MPs or significantly influenced by MPs, why do we care if they are of a diverse background? Instead, why don't we care instead that they understand how public policy impacts complex economic, social or legal systems? Why don't we care that they are capable of looking at a bill and accurately analysing its effectiveness in translating public policy into legal expression?

Macleans.ca : What just happened? (IV)

Wed, 4 May 2011 17:01:50 +0000

As the patron saint of conservatives everywhere, Don Cherry, would say, "Act like you've been there before."

Macleans.ca : Did torture nab bin Laden?

Wed, 4 May 2011 16:55:59 +0000

My favourite line: "Leave aside the horrifying fact that Republicans, seeking to score some ownership of this triumph, would look to torture as their contribution. Why not the beefed up on-the-ground intelligence from 2005 on? That's Bush's legacy that Obama built on. Besides, there is no evidence that it played any part whatsoever"

Macleans.ca : Meet the new kids

Wed, 4 May 2011 16:15:53 +0000

So long as Quebec remains in Canada could be an unfortuante linguistic formulation from an ESL speaker, or it could be a very important insight into the mindset of those who ran.

Macleans.ca : Michael Ignatieff resigns

Tue, 3 May 2011 18:46:47 +0000

I honestly don't think you are right when you say the Reform Party has accepted that they are Tory conservatives. Tory conservatives have either accepted their new bedfellows for who they are or are fooling themselves. Look at who is in the center ring of power: Harper is surrounded by Harris core politicians and backroomers and all Tories are either completley won over or marginalized. Regardless, soem pretty hard core beliefs, regardless of superficial brands, have been swallowed even by the Reformers to make that coalition work. The only difference is that the Right wing of the right wing is supreme rather than being the butler. The NDP brand is a shell. Socialism is a joke. Is Jack going to nationalize stuff? Is he going to successfully turn Canada into a true socialist state? Of course not. It's a broken model and not one Canadians believe in, regardless if election results. If they stay divided instead of uniting, the "left" will watch the CPC transform Canadian society in their image of what it should be.

Macleans.ca : Michael Ignatieff resigns

Tue, 3 May 2011 16:17:38 +0000

Umm, the Reform/CA were of completely different traditions from that of the PCs. They held deeply seated animous for each other, personally and as parties. They came together after it became painfully obvious that while they stood around arguing over points of doctrine, the Liberals were blithely sailing away to victory on the stregth of their disunity. In other words, their general objectives as parties were being subverted by their own stubborness. At some point inthe future, the Liberals and NDP will either come to the same conclusion, as they see a robust CPC government rolling over and turfing out the institutions they despise and that the Liberals and NDP cherish. The Left will follow the example of the Right and unite under a modified banner and modified credo in order to counteract the overall course they see the country taking. Failing that, the Right will eventually be left with the country they envision and no meaningful opposition in sight.

Macleans.ca : The hunt for bin Laden

Mon, 2 May 2011 13:51:15 +0000

If I recall correctly, there was much speculation about whether there would be charges laid against key members of the Bush Administration, based on their contravention of the Constitution. Not only were there no charges, as you say, there have been no significant announcements or changes to reverse systemic weaknesses. Very disappointing about the latter, regardless of the former.

Macleans.ca : Bin Laden killed by U.S. forces

Mon, 2 May 2011 13:43:36 +0000

Pakistan has been denying his existence within their borders for some time, claiming he was in a cave in Afghanistan. How the forces that be choose to gild this thing will point to how they will be working things going forward. The Pakistani airforce was involved, therefore they knew what was up. They made a conscious choice not to blow the mission or warn Osama. What inducements were used to achieve this? This compiound was, apparently, in a city heavily fortified by and occupied by State security forces. A large, heavily guarded compound in its midst should have been an open secret.

Macleans.ca : Projecting backward

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:52:26 +0000

My experience is that personal incumbency only matters in a very small handful of cases. Ridings that are rock solid for one party can run a rotting log and expect a positive result. In swing ridings excellent constituency-oriented, popular incumbents frequently get turfed in national or regional shifts in voter preference, often to rotting logs.

Macleans.ca : Probing the NDP surge: middle-class credibility and more

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:12:32 +0000

Well, if you've said it several times, it must be true. Except it isn't. Go to 308.com and read some of their more recent articles. Polls in Quebec ridings from before the surge were already reflecting the move. This is a clear example of " a pox on both your houses" voting and it is real. It has nothing whatsoever to do with makebelieve ideology held by the three main parties and everything to do with lasting images from the two most recent governing parties' failings and the sense that this other guy, gamely fighting on, cane in hand, smiling through the pain, is "authentic" somehow. Read the wikipedia entry for Bob Rae and his election victory in 1990 and identify the many ways in which the storyline fits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae#Election_vic... : Canada may not go all in, the way Ontario did, but the dynamics feel the same. This isn't a positive choice of the NDP brand or policies, this is a rejection of the CPC and LPC on the part of average, every day Canadians who don't follow this stuff closely, don't have strong party loyalty and don't have particular policy principles.

Macleans.ca : 'Smiles and snake oil'

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:11:06 +0000

sign me up!

Macleans.ca : No excuse for apathy

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:17:22 +0000

"Congrats on your +6 (now +13) though, which is easy to get if you just trash all the politicians and parties out there." How is GBS' comment a terashing of parties anymore than your comment - "people expect anything and everything from the government, whether to tuck them into bed at night, to ensure there's food on the table and to ensure there's a roof over our heads" - is a trashing of voters? You extrapolated a conclusion form the article that imputes and maligns voter motivation.

Macleans.ca : What Harper has planned for Ottawa

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:13:58 +0000

On reflection, it might just be that I find her avatar fetching. I'm a sucker for a pretty face.

Macleans.ca : What Harper has planned for Ottawa

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:53:27 +0000

I agree about Wells, and you may well be right that Claudia may have a tendency to prefer good news about Harper than bad, but I find there is a broad gulf between hyper-partisan blindness and genuine support of a party or leader. Claudia, to my mind, falls in the latter category and has never, in my experience, been anything but cheerful about admittign as much and giving her best effort to defend why she feels the way she does. I kind of think your experience in ferocious partisan battles has perhaps desensitized you to the difference and that not all those who do not share your views deserve to be treated harshly as they would treat you harshly in kind. The Macleans blog roll and posting community is one of the more sane examples in a sea of hyper partisan flame wars. It has its share of villains, to be sure, but also has a greater than normal share of thoughtful readers willing to exchange civilly their sincere opinions and to listen to what others have to say. Even if their bias may predispose them to holding on to their previous beliefs, I htink the ones who make an effort to be civil and to listen to others deserve some slack. My experience is that Claudia deserves that slack.

Macleans.ca : The onus is on who?

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:15 +0000

Conservatives, however, face the opposite conunudrum: if they argue that a combined majority of the House can't declare a ministry, because it would be a betrayal of their voters' expectations, then they can't accept floor crossers immediately after an election, which they have already done.

Macleans.ca : The onus is on who?

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:07 +0000

The CPC lost their minds when Stronach crossed the floor well in to a mandate, ostensibly because she lost faith in the leadership of her old party and had hopes for what the leadership of her new party had in mind. Emerson was induced to cross the floor seconds after he won his riding as a Liberal candidate, but his party lost power. Fresh from the battles, having excoriated the CPC. Both of these examples caused quite a bit of debate over floor crossing generally. Liberals right now would say your proposal would be an affront to how our system works. However, they are also arguing at the same time that their leader can be considered a potential PM, if he can demonstrate he has the confidence of the House after the election. To my mind, you can't have it both ways. For Ignatief to claim he has the confidence of the House, MPs from two other parties that have just fought a battle against him will have to stand and be counted as having confidence in him.