Who is paying for the Blogging Tory ads and why?

Ads on election prediction project link to the Blogging Tories website. http://www.electionprediction.org/2007_on/r_9.html Click on "Dion of the Dead" and you are directed to http://www.bloggingtories.ca/ That begs the question; who is paying for these ads and why?

"Outspoken blogger received Tory contract The Harper government gave a
contract for communications consulting on Parliament Hill, worth up to $20,000,
to an outspoken Conservative Internet blogger.

Privy Council Office records show Joan Tintor, author of a popular weblog or "blog," in June received the one-year contract for "communications professional services not elsewhere specified."

....

“In his new book, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, party strategist Tom Flanagan notes the Tories' innovative use of blogs in the 2006 election campaign.

He cites in particular two members of the Blogging Tories, Steve Jank and Stephen Taylor, who write highly partisan blogs on federal politics.

Mr. Flanagan writes that campaign manager Doug Finley "appointed people to monitor the blogosphere and to get out stories that were not quite ready for the mainstream media."

These bloggers "amplify and diversify our message," he wrote.”

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0eaa136e-6faf-4245-ac4a-6fd84cf8f174


The ad reads in full “Dion of the Dead Conservative majority? A New and improved Canada ”

I do not know where the title comes from but this seems to be candidate

“Dion of the Living Dead

The Liberal leader is fighting against new worries that he's not up to the job

JOHN GEDDES October 1, 2007

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20071001_110045_110045


By the way, are they charged by the hit.

Update: The "Dion of the dead" ad is still there. For example: http://www.electionprediction.org/2007_on/r_sw.html However, I now find a second ad linking to the Blogging Tories. This one is one is upfront though. The ad reads in full "The Blogging Tories proudly Canadian proudly conservative bloggingtories.ca." For example: http://www.electionprediction.org/2007_on/riding/024.php Finally, ads are found on other websites such as Calgary Grit http://www.calgarygrit.blogspot.com/ When you are over at Grit's site be sure to hit on the link.

Bernier is no JFK

He later made an awkward attempt to adapt one of the most famous lines of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy. "Today I am asking Canadians: Don't ask what Afghanistan can do for you, but what we Canadians can do for the Afghan people," Bernier said. "What we can do for them is to help rebuild the country."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=ce74ffb8-b19e-4c70-9011-d8094568ddf6&k=6578

You sir are no JFK.

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier Ready for Duty Sir

Maxime, “real positive momentum”, Bernier says this is not a photo op. No sir.

ht Far and wide

Is Bernier a Liar or is he just Grossly Uninformed?

THE AFGHAN MISSION
Upbeat Bernier contradicts UN reports
Foreign Affairs Minister declares Kandahar more secure despite statistics that say situation is worsening
GRAEME SMITH
October 8, 2007

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier contradicted all publicly available assessments of security in southern Afghanistan yesterday with a bold claim that insurgent attacks have decreased in Kandahar, leaving the province more secure for humanitarian work.

"The territory is more secure now today, here in Kandahar than it was a year ago," Mr. Bernier said. "Look just a year ago what happened, there were many attacks, and the attacks have diminished."

Canadian officials have often pointed to hopeful developments in southern Afghanistan, but they rarely challenge the statistics cited by the United Nations and private security analysts that suggest an overall worsening trend.

"The security situation in Afghanistan is assessed by most analysts as having deteriorated at a constant rate through 2007," said a paper by the UN Department of Safety and Security in August. That report showed violent incidents increased almost 25 per cent this year, although the authors noted that the figure may be conservative.

Kandahar was among only three provinces listed in the United Nations report as places where the security situation has fallen into its worst category - "Extreme Risk/Hostile Environment" - across most of the province. This rating causes less accessibility to UN programs, the report notes.

These statistics fit with those collected by other analysts. The respected security firm Vigilant Strategic Services Afghanistan found that Kandahar suffered more anti-government attacks than any other province, in a tally of incidents from the beginning of the year to Sept. 30.

....

He also claimed that it's getting easier for aid workers to travel the province.
"We have improvement because our civilians, our humanitarian workers are able to go out there and do their work," Mr. Bernier said.

In fact, the growing risk of kidnapping among aid workers has prompted the UN to develop a new map assessing the likelihood of capture by insurgents in districts across the country. Almost the entire province of Kandahar is shown as "high abduction risk."

In a survey this year, Afghan government employees said they have limited ability to visit the majority of Kandahar's districts without armed escort; across the south, local officials said their access was decreasing because of the rising insecurity.

Another measure of aid workers' ability to work is the UN's internal security map.
This summer the map showed about one-third Afghanistan in the highest-risk category for travel, representing a deterioration from the summer of 2006, when only 15 per cent of the country earned the same rating.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071008.AFGHAN08/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/

The Canadian Press also makes note of this.

"The territory is more secure today here in Kandahar than it was a year ago," he said.
Last year there were many attacks, he added.

"Those attacks have diminished," Bernier said. "It's still difficult. I saw that it's still difficult. But the situation has greatly improved."

A recent review by the UN Department of Safety and Security described the situation in Kandahar as "volatile."

Across the country, 2007 has been the bloodiest year since the Taliban was ousted from power in a U.S. invasion six years ago.

So far this year, there have been an average of 525 violent incidents a month, compared with 425 last year.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/264483

The fact this is the most violent year since Afghanistan was invaded is evidence according to Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier of “real positive momentum”

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071007/coderre_afghanistan_071007/20071007?hub=World

Liberals Need to Again Become the Party of Generational Change

Part of what made for Trudeaumania was Trudeau's Omnibus Bill. http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-538/politics_economy/omnibus/ It proved that he was in tune with the times if not slightly ahead of them, history on horse back as Hegel would say. The bill formed the backbone of Trudeau’s advant guard image. The population wanted change and everything about the bill spoke to Trudeau’s willingness to provide just that.

Now to be sure, Dion is no Trudeau. However, the Liberals badly need to reestablish their bona fides as champions of generational change. They need to propose something akin to Trudeau’s Omnibus Bill.

Indeed, the Liberals are not going to build any kind of grass roots movement unless they are willing to step on some toes the way Trudeau did in 1968. They are not going to attract anyone by trying to be all things to all people. Canadians feel no loyalty to the party anymore and quite frankly the Liberals bore most of them silly. The Liberals must seek out controversy rather than run from it. They must propose readily understandable policies that cut to heart of various hot button issues and they can not wait for an election to do so. They must trot out these policies as soon as possible. They can not afford to slave away in obscurity while the Conservatives dominant the headlines. They can not afford to be merely reactive. They must seize the initiative. They must adopt the motto Trudeau adopted in 1968. “If you are on the Liberal side, you should take risks on the side of progress. If you are going to be beaten, you should be beaten because you have been too progressive. Rather then take risks on not moving and be beaten because you have not moved fast enough.”

The Liberals Should Use The Perception of a Divided Caucus and Party to Unleash Policy Trail Balloons

The Liberals should take advantage of a spilt in their ranks to send up policy trail balloons. Have the “rebels” send up trail balloons disguised as criticism. Naturally I think one of those trail balloons should be a suggestion to legalize marijuana.

Psychology of a Drug Warrior explained

"The defining characteristic of the drug war is that it enable[s] people to form a self-concept, based not on the quality of their character, but through disparaging the morality of others."

Vancouver police member Gil Puder

HT: Un femme verte http://femmeverte.blogspot.com/2007/10/phishing-expedition.html

The New Conservative Drug Policy Will Achieve Just What It is Designed to Achieve

The new Tory plan to target marijuana is aimed squarely at suburbanites, particularly, in Vancouver in the 905 belt and in the outer suburbs of Montreal and unless the Liberals do an about face on the issue it is going to work to the Conservatives advantage. The Liberals current policy of decriminalization plays right into the Conservative hands.

The problem is this. The Liberals have long maintained that Canadians should not be saddled with a criminal record for consuming something that is, after all, less harmful than alcohol. It is this light that Chrétien famously joked about having a joint in one hand and the money to pay for the fine of having it in the other. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” At the same time as they have downplayed the affects of smoking marijuana they have stressed the importance of stiff penalties for trafficking. Taken in isolation such bipolar position has a certain superficial appeal. However, the Liberal policy of decriminalization is inherently incoherent; it is political position; it is an attempt to appeal to both sides of the political divide at the same time and it will not take too much time and effort to show how conflicted the Liberal position is. Indeed, image how ridiculous it would have sounded if this is what Chrétien said? “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand. Having paid my fine I would hope the cops find the person who sold it to me and put him in jail for a very long time.” This is essentially the Liberal’s current position. The problem is if it not already obvious by now that if the act of consumption is not deemed overly ruinous then the whole punitive rationale for trafficking comes crashing down. Add to the mix an acknowledgment that marijuana can serve a medical purpose and you have a conceptual train wreck as a policy.

All of this plays right into the Conservatives hands. The public is concerned about the growing number of grow ups and wants something down about it. The Conservatives not only promise action, but are going to blame the Liberals for the increase in grow ups. They are going to say that the Liberals have long sent out mixed messages about marijuana. This has led to increased demand for the product and as a consequence an increased number of grow ups to meet the demand. In order to boaster their case the Conservatives are going to force feed the Liberals their own words. One can count on them repeatedly bringing up the Chrétien quote and probably the 2002 senate report will be referred to but not quoted. Incidentally, I do not know if it matters to Harper and crew that such go hard approach will prove disastrous for the country. The Conservative position is first and foremost about politics.

Now, back in July Ontario’s marijuana possession laws were struck down by Judge Borenstein. Should the Ontario government loose its appeal and or the other similar discussions follow, the Conservatives will also launch new campaign a new campaign against “activist judges”. Such a campaign will not be aimed so much at suburbanites as the Conservatives social conservative base. Where he can, Harper will get his digs in about the Liberal senate and the 2002 report that recommened legalization.

The Liberals have only one effective counter. They can propose to legalize marijuana. They would then be in a position to actually use the senate report rather than having to look downward at the floor whenever the Conservatives mention it. I consider it very unlikely that the Liberals would be so bold though. I hope they prove me wrong.

Conservatives and Liberals both turn to the Beatles

I have heard through the grape vine that the Liberals, in order to encourage party unity, are going to use the Beatles With a Little Help From My Friends as their theme song during the next election

Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends

Mm, I get high with a little help from my friends

Mm, gonna try with a little help from my friends

Meanwhile, The Conservatives are claiming, based on the Liberals' choice of songs, that the Liberals will propose that marijuana be legalized. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUvLbSdjOyIsYKd90lMb5EPMonrQ According the Conservatives, “their motto for the upcoming campaign is ‘a friend with weed is a friend indeed.’”

Marcy Emery is a Double Edged Sword

I am of two minds about Marc Emery. On the one hand, his theatrics’ draw attention to the issue. On the other hand, it is talk like this that keeps it a fringe issue. Marc Emery:

"Marijuana won't kill you and we love marijuana. The five million Canadians who use marijuana cherish it like Christians cherish their religion, or a gourmand cherishes good food.”

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/10/04/drug-strategy.html

The advocates of legalization have made great strides over the years and according to an Angus Reid poll released in June 55% of Canadians favor legalization. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300 The next step for such advocates is to convince one or more of Canada's major political parties that it is in their political interest to pursue legalization.

The Liberal Plan to Decriminalize Marijuana is Conceptually Confused

Legalization is sexy and headline grabbing which is the whole point of my last post. Decriminalization is not sexy and it forces the Liberals to talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand the Liberals have long maintained that Canadians should not be saddled with a criminal record for consuming something that is, after all, less harmful than alcohol. It is this light that Chrétien famously joked about having a joint in one hand and the money to pay for the fine of having it in the other. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” On the other hand just as they are downplaying the affects of smoking marijuana they have stressed the importance of stiff penalties for trafficking. In other words, the Liberal policy of decriminalization is inherently incoherent; it is political position; it is an attempt to appeal to both sides of the political divide at the same time. One can not argue for tougher penalties for trafficking, which will inevitably lead one to reference the evils of marijuana, while at the same time arguing for the elimination of possession which will inevitably lead one to reference who harmless marijuana is in the greater scheme of things. Indeed, can you image how ridiculous it would have sounded if this is what Chrétien said? “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand. Having paid my fine I would hope the cops find the person who sold it to me in put him in jail for a very long time.” This is essentially the Liberal’s current position. The problem is that if the act of consumption is not deemed overly ruinous then the whole punitive rationale, not just part, comes crashing down. Add to the mix an acknowledgment that marijuana can serve a medical purpose and you have a conceptual train wreck as a policy.

The only good thing to be said about Liberal’s decriminalization policy politically or otherwise is that it could serve as a Trojan horse. Robbed of the ability to charge traffickers with the lesser charge of possession, police may not be able to keep up with the huge number of growers coming onto the market and the whole rotten prohibition edifice may come crashing down. Marc Emery may get his wish. The producers might over grow the system.

Needless to day, the Liberal approach plays right into the Conservatives hands. The Conservatives will argue, checked that they already have argued, that Liberal mixed messaging has real consequences and will repeatedly reference the recent UN report on marijuana use.

Sheila Copps' "Tory an inspiration for Dion"

Shelia Copps wrote recently that John Tory’s promise to fund religious schools is proof that policy can engage Canadians and so there is still hope for Dion yet. http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2007/10/03/4545774.php

“So what happened? Contrary to the usual post-modern, leader-driven campaign, an idea took centre stage.

An idea that could cost Tory his own seat.

In an ironic twist, he is facing down the education minister in a quasi-referendum on public education versus faith-based funding.

Was Tory on the wrong side of this one!

The last thing the public wants is a fragmentation of a functioning education system into multiple religious schools.

Tory's own base is eroding so fast that he was forced into a Hail Mary pass this week to save a campaign run aground.

What does all this have to do with Dion?

Well, when superficialities are scraped away, it proves the public can be engaged in more than the colour of the candidate's eyes.

When a powerful idea dominates the debate, Canadians demand more than simple leadership politics.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper thinks he can win a majority government because Dion is dead man walking.”

I responded to Copps thus;

I agree with you and I think if the Liberals would promise to legalize marijuana, they would have their issue. Harper has been trying to create distance between himself and his social conservative base and the Bush administration ever since he become Prime Minster. If the Liberals promised to legalize marijuana, not only would Harper find himself in lock step with Campaign for Life and Real Women, but Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Walters, Fox news, the Washington Times, James Dobson, Pat Robinson and the faculty at Bob Jones University will line up behind him. The Liberals could play the nationalist card and social conservative card all at once. The thought of being able to strike a fatal blow the US ’s war on drugs will make Canadians giddy with excitement. If that was not enough, on the flip side of things, a legion of rock stars, intellectuals, movie stars, and high brow magazines, such as the New Yorker and Harper’s will line up behind the Liberals. Imagine a hundred and fifty thousand people or more at a pro legalization concert in Vancouver in the midst of an election campaign. Seattle ’s Hempfest regularly draws over a 100,000 and in terms of significance such a concert would, how should I put this, smokes it. It would not be possible to organize anything now, but should the Liberals announce such a policy now and stave off an election for say another 6 months it is possible. Dion would certainly not lack for name recognition anymore. Overnight he would become a household name, not just in Canada but abroad as well. Continuing on, such a promise would tear the Right apart. Libertarians and social conservatives would be at each other’s throats and the National, Post and great swaths of the Sun Media chain will side with the Liberals on this one! Last but not least the Conservatives would left defending a bunch of talking points that are so discredited they are considered a form of “madness”, “reefer madness”.

Alan Ferguson, Vancouver Province Columnist, takes Dictation for Tony Clement

I responded to Alan Ferguson’s reprinting of Conservative drug war propaganda thusly. http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=ad7d5473-5bc8-4b17-aa73-fd91ae6523e1

And he had to consider that a mass of studies, albeit chiefly authored by those with vested interests, has claimed a great success for Insite, where addicts shoot up illegal drugs under supervision, using clean needles.

Who has vested interests and what are these vested interests? Spit it out.

These studies claim to show that Insite has directed addicts to treatment, and prevented overdose deaths, without jeopardizing public safety and while halting the spread of HIV/AIDS.

If you have any methodological criticisms to make, I would love to read them. A good laugh is good for the soul.

A handful of doubters who dared to question these claims has drawn much
scorn from the advocates of "harm reduction" -- around whom a small industry has
evolved.

Oh yes, the myth of the loan brave conservative wolf fighting against the scientific establishment with a little help from big oil and big tobacco in the case of Dr Singer or the RCMP in the case of Colin Mangham. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=fad6bd9a-7c00-47aa-a549-e4e0376603c7&p=1 In reality they are, of course, the apologists of ignorance in the service of the forces of reaction. History will piss on their corpse.

Many people apparently believe marijuana has already been decriminalized, although this imminent folly was mercifully abandoned when the Conservatives took power from the Liberals.

By golly I think you have plagiarized Tony Clement or perhaps you just taking diction and forget to mention him by name. Anyway, did you ever think to ask Clement what evidence he has for this belief? I will let you in on a little secret. Should the Liberal bill have passed and been enforced, it would have represented a crack down as far as Vancouver is concerned. As then Vancouver police spokesperson, Anne Drennan noted back in 2003 "in Vancouver, we very rarely arrest for simple possession of marijuana. There would have to be exigent circumstances."

You: “that no drugs are safe, no matter what we've been lulled into believing over the years.”

Tony Clement: Clement has said the new strategy would include an education program that warns young Canadians and their parents that "there are no 'safe' amounts," and no "safe drugs."

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=3e0b00a4-5331-4c20-9fea-c0c1a115abc0

Can you see difference? I can not see the difference. What kind of Columnist parrots government talking points and treats them as if they were holy scripture? The Province does not have the best reputation as it is. What do you want to do? Do you want to see it fully morph into the second coming of Pravda? If so, keep going as you are.

Trudeau's Omnibus Bill and a New Liberal motto

In arguing for his Omnibus Bill Trudeau http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-538/politics_economy/omnibus/ had this to say. “If you are on the Liberal side, you should take risks on the side of progress. If you are going to be beaten, you should be beaten because you have been too progressive. Rather then take risks on not moving and be beaten because you have not moved fast enough.” These are words present Liberals should live by. The days timidity and temperamental conservativism must come to an end.

83% of Quebecers and 75% of Canadians Want the Government to Mandate More Vacation Days

83% of Quebecers and 75% of Canadians want the government to mandate more vacation days. Wow for a party that is tanking in Quebec that would seem like a winning issue. So what hell is taking the Liberals so long? Get on it. The EU minimum is 4 weeks. Canadians deserve no less.

“Three-in-four Canadians want a longer minimum vacation time”

“Four-in-five Quebeckers (83%) say they want labour laws to be changed to provide more minimum vacation time to Canadians,”

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=122&page=1

Dion's 7 Do's and Don'ts

1) Dion’s Achilles heel is his English. He must continue to improve it if the Liberals are to have any chance.

2) Dion needs to introduce some new policy. Dion’s unwillingness to introduce new policy has meant the media have focused on the negatives when they have focused on the Liberals at all. Furthermore, Harper and crew have painted Mr. Dion as weak, indecisive and as “not a leader”. The Liberals lack of policy focus has played right into their hands.

3) The Liberals need to explore various hot button issues. Dion has chosen to focus on the big issues, global warming, the loss of the manufacturing jobs and poverty. However, there are no easy solutions to any of these problems and the public simply lacks the ability and more importantly time to tackle or understand the complexities involved. As the SSM debate and the debate over funding for faith based schools demonstrate, what galvanizes the public and the media alike are hot button issues. If the Liberals are to succeed they are going to have to tackle the big issues, but they are also going to have to push the envelope on various hot button issues. With regard to both they are going to have develop clear well thought out policy that is not watered down by political calculation. Good policy is good politics.

4) Dion has to break with the past both rhetorically and policy wise; this is vitally important when it comes to Quebec. Under his direction the party has too many of the hall marks of the Martin/Chrétien government. The Liberal government’s environmental record is bound the hurt his credibility during the next election. Dion is going to have to acknowledge the failures of some predecessors and promise to do better. In any such mea Culpa will have to attack Liberal’s previous reliance on an intensity based emission plan. This will then free the Liberals up to attack the Conservatives intensity based plan. Such admissions will help him put his stamp on the party.

5) Dion should under no circumstances try to appeal to soft separatists, or try to immolate Martin’s asymmetrical federalism. Rightly or wrongly Dion is viewed as a strong Federalist and the party lacks the resources, time and people to chance that perception. Besides, such a campaign would be dismissed as desperate pandering at this point. It would also undermine what his appeal in English Canada. The Liberals only hope of breathing life into their flagging Quebec fortunes is to appeal to socially democratic and socially liberal strains in Quebec society.

6) The Liberals need to rediscover universality. Until they do, major policy initiatives, such as Liberals early childhood education plan, are bound to fall flat on their face. Indeed, as with early childhood education, the more the Liberals talk up the need for such a program the more inadequate and lackluster their proposal will appear and the more attractive the Conservatives thousand and one ways to dress up tax cut or rebate, a la the universal baby bonus, will seem. Access to affordable child care was certainly a more attractive option than anything the Conservatives were offering. However, many voters hedged their bets. They figured that a $1200 bird in their hand was better than 15% chance of nailing two in the bush.

7) If they Liberals are going to continue to paint Harper as the second coming of Bush, they better inact some polices that are going to leave Harper and Bush on the same side. Stephen Harper has long since become wise to such talking points and has gone out of his way to distance himself from Bush and the Americans have been helpful in this regard. Moreover, Harper has all but put a stop to nut bars, such as, Gallant waxing poetic on issues near and dear to social conservatives and he has not openly courted the social conservatives in the way that he did before becoming PM.

Marijuana and Schizophrenia: A prelude to a Conservative Talking point

This summer a meta analysis of all articles dealing with marijuana and schizophrenia was published in the Lancet. That same day a score of sensationalist headlines appeared. Maia Szalavitz of States at George Mason University put those headlines following into context.

“A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don’t find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won’t publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that’s hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half!

By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women.

http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/will_one_joint_schizoid_july30_07.htm

Speaking of correlation that is precisely what epidemiological studies have consisted failed to show and there is no causation without correlation. Specifically, should there be a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, there should be a positive correlation between marijuana consumption and schizophrenia, but such a correlation is conspicuous by its absence. Despite a massive increase in the number of Australians consuming the drug since the 1960s, Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland found no increase in the number of cases of schizophrenia in Australia. http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking3/MJScience.html and Oxford’s Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/will_one_joint_schizoid_july30_07.htm According to Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University,

"If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the '50s,"

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/19/reefer_madness/index.html

As Szalavitz notes, this is marked contrast to what happened with cigarette consumption and lung cancer. “

When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.html

Much of the evidence linking marijuana to schizophrenia suggests not that it causes schizophrenia per say but rather that it causes the earlier onset of symptoms in people who would sooner or later develop schizophrenia. Much to Gordan Brown’s dismay, this is opinion of Dr Iddon.

Dr Iddon, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs misuse [Britain], said the study did not convince him it was time to return cannabis to class B. "I don't think the causal link has been proved. I think cannabis might - possibly for genetic reasons - trigger psychosis at an earlier age." The MP, who is also a member of the science and technology select committee, said there was a danger of criminalising "hundreds of thousands of young people" if the status of the drug was changed. "If Gordon Brown changes the class of the drug, it won't be evidence-based but for political reasons," he said.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2136479,00.html

Canadians want to dump the Monarchy and so should the Liberals

I have no time for monarchy and so the following warms my heart.


"Under the terms of the Canadian Constitution, Queen Elizabeth II holds the position of Canada’s head of state. Would you support or oppose Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy?

Support
53%

Oppose
35%

Not sure
12%"

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28442/half_of_canadians_would_cut_ties_to_monarchy

Media Coverage: The Liberals Have a Choice; Controversial Policy or Internal Strife.

Dogged by internal strife and haunted by the sponsorship scandal the Liberals badly need to change the channel and the only way of doing this is introduce controversial legislation. Talk of Dion being mischaracterized in Quebec is not going to interest the media for very long. There is a policy void at the center of the Liberal party and if the party does nothing to correct the situation the media will successfully define the Liberals as being a divided party with no clear direction or focus.

The party has long understand the importance of having ideological enemies, whether that the Bush administration or Canadian social conservatives. However, the party has always thought it could wage such ideological wars on the cheap. It could talk a good game, but it thought need not follow through with policy. It was never an entirely successful approach and since Stephen Harper took over the party the law of diminishing returns as set in. Indeed, Harper has all but put a stop to nut bars, such as, Gallant waxing poetic on issues near and dear to social conservatives and he has not openly courted the social conservatives in the way that he did before becoming PM.

I find the Liberal’s half ass approach baffling. SSM and the Liberal decision to stay out of Iraq were major Liberal victories and perhaps the only two of the last 4 years. If the Liberals are to avoid being defined by their own bickering, they have no choice but to goad social conservatives and or the Bush administration into open warfare and the only way of doing that is propose policies that neither likes. If the mountain won't come to Muhammad, Muhammad must go to the mountain.

As I have said repeatedly, if the Liberals promise to legalize marijuana, the social conservatives and the Bush administration will bite and Harper will be at the mercy of these two groups. The added bonus is if Dion promises to legalize marijuana, thereby imperiling the US War on Drugs, he will not lack for name recognition. Not only will Canadians know who he is, so too will Americans, and good number of Europeans and Australians.

Bob Rae on Federal Spending Powers

Bob Rae has a piece about Federal spending powers in today’s Globe and Mail. I think this approach has some potential, but the Liberals badly need to add flesh to what is still a bare bones idea. Indeed the programs and initiatives that Rae mentions are either still in planning stages or are recycled “beer and popcorn”.

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20071001/CORAE01/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/2/2/7/

Canadians who want their federal government to support early childhood education, decent housing, cities that work, a healthy environment, new initiatives in health care, more mobility for students, better research and stronger universities should be appalled at this emasculation.

The Liberal’s early childhood education program is never going to be the vote getter they hope it be so long as it remains something far less than a universal program. After all, the more the Liberals talked up the desperate need for more child care the more inadequate and lackluster their proposal appeared and the more attractive the Conservatives universal baby bonus appeared. Many voters figured that a $1200 bird in your hand is better than 15% chance of nailing two in the bush.

I also think Rae and other Liberals are going about this backwards. The Liberals should first propose what is bound to be a popular universal program (e.g., public dental care) that would be administered by the provinces and note how Harper’s proposal to emasculate the Federal government would prevent such a program and others like it from being implemented. In politics it always best to go from the specific to general than from general to specific. That is why it is nearly impossible to talk about violent crime with any intelligence. The starting point is always going to be some violent crime. Lastly, some Canadians, particularly in Quebec, are not likely to favor everything on the list and may be willing to sacrifice a particular federal program if it means that Federal government will stay out of others.