I am an avid Toronto Blue Jays fan. I have grown up watching them, starting just before the glory days of two world series victories and sticking with them through the hard times ever since.
Much of Toronto's struggle, after leading the league in payroll and attendence for some time, boils down to the ownership. Labatt once owned the Blue Jays, and the brewery had no qualms with spending big money on big names and talented men to run the front office.
Then, the company was picked up by the Belgian beer giant Interbrew (now InBev), who seemed puzzled by the fact that they owned a Honkbal club in Canada. They slashed payroll and the top management left for greener pastures. What was left of the Blue Jays organization desperately tried to hold things together, but little could be done as New York and Boston quickly filled the big-spender void and began a new bidding war for the MLB's finest talent.
Finally, Interbrew managed to unload the Jays to Rogers Communications, who immediately put their own man, JP Ricciardi, at the helm. Famous for being the protege of the Oakland A's Billy Beane, who pioneered Moneyball. Ricciardi made promises about a five year plan that would see the team make the playoffs.
Instantly, he was hamstrung by his corporate overlords. Rogers had developed a marketing strategy based on the Blue Jays, and owning the team was only step one. The next phase was to own the SkyDome as well. However, the $85 million the holding company had picked it up for was just too steep. And if the team went back to being a winner and drawing over 4 million fans a year, the price would sky-rocket. Rogers couldn't take the risk that Ricciardi wasn't a snake-oil salesman and actually could do what he said he could.
That's right, Rogers wanted to do what was done in the movie Major League. Except move the team to Miami, they wanted to move the team to the Rogers Centre. And they succeeded. Ricciardi fielded a crappy team with a hack manager and the team drove down the price of the SkyDome to 25 million dollars. Note that in 1989, the SkyDome cost $600 million to build, with the government footing the largest chunk of the bill and the land being given away for free.
Deal of the motherfucking 21st century, and it was only the year 2005.
Well, back to Ricciardi. Now that the corporation unshackled him, he set about building a contender. In the end, he failed the task, but to be fair, the job he did wasn't as bad as some would contend. The Wall Street Journal contends, when you re-weight the team rankings to eliminate the heavy bias towards playing division rivals like New York, Boston and Tampa Bay, the AL East's 4th place Toronto Blue Jays of 2008 would actually have finished 7th overall in the MLB. The 2nd place Jays team of 2006 would have finished fifth overall.
(They mainly credit the NL's weakness on the DH rule, but I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry as a factor in the AL's strength. Every contender in the AL will likely have to go up against them often, while the NL guys really only have to get lucky in the World Series final. And even if they lose, being an NL champion is good for business.)
Put in those terms, the Blue Jays under Ricciardi were a good crew, but the affluence of New York and Boston, as well as the arrival of the Rays as real contenders, proved to be too much. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Ricciardi may not have been a complete fraud, but he sure was an arrogant prick.
Now, my father has a saying that I hold more true every day I get older: "You don't need to know everything about someone to know enough."
Here's my "all I need to know" moment about JP: while pestered by the callers on a radio talk show about the availability of a Reds outfielder named Adam Dunn, Ricciardi unleashed a wicked tirade against the man's character, saying, "Do you know the guy doesn't really like baseball that much? Do you know the guy doesn't have a passion to play the game that much?"
Yes, JP, a man has spent his entire adult life playing baseball, going through years of making virtually nothing while playing games no one watches in the minor leagues even though he "doesn't really like baseball." What kind of bullshit thought process must anyone have to think of that to say? Unless they're making it up to cover from the fact that they barely know who Adam Dunn is.
Basically, I contend that JP never liked to admit his shortcomings or mistakes.
Another example was the clash between Shea Hillenbrand and Lyle Overbay. JP had signed Hillenbrand and have given him decent playing opportunities in the 2005 season, where Hillenbrand batted over 290 with 18 HR and over 80 RBI. In the off season, JP had brought on Overbay, an overpriced 1st basement who was a career 270 hitter and topped out at about 19 HR the year before, assuming Hillenbrand wouldn't mind playing DH.
Hillenbrand, displeased that he was being replaced at first even though he came off of a strong season, caused trouble to brew in the Blue Jays clubhouse. He was rightfully upset for a pretty good reason; he felt that he was a better first baseman than Lyle Overbay (and I'm inclined to agree). He also had a less good, but understandably upsetting, reason to be angry: DH's don't make as much money as position players. On the negative side, I heard that Hillenbrand was a bit of a drama queen and an asshole to boot, so I'm not saying he's either a good guy or completely innocent.
Anyway, Ricciardi prepared to dig his heels in and he began the lie that lingers to this day: Lyle Overbay is an excellent fielder. And so, as the Great Leader haveth spoken, it became the law. The Jays broadcasters, employed by the very same Rogers Communications that owns the team, parroted the party line, since they had long learned that critical thought would be punished. The local sports beat reporters, few of them more interested in Baseball than a sack of lawn trimmings, lacked the expertise to question the assertion.
You see, it's the perfect lie. There are no reliable statistics for fielding, especially when it comes to first base. Add to that, most errand throws that might have been caught by a particularly adept first baseman are charged as errors to the thrower instead of the first baseman and verification beyond anectodal evidence is impossible. The various sabermatricians that follow the Jays would have no way to refute the claim, and with enough repetition would come to believe it themselves.
I, however, have some intuition about the game and know what I'm looking at when I watch a first baseman field an incoming throw. And, I can say without a doubt that Overbay consistently plays it an unnecessarily risky manner. He tries to pick up one/two-hoppers late after the bounce even when he could trap the ball just after the bounce instead. Anyone who's played on a public field can tell you the problem with this: a bad hop, which is unlikely but not impossible on a big league field, means a wild throw.
This is one of the simplest mistakes a first baseman can make, but one that is often ignored in player development. Overbay's decent bat and the top-quality fields he has played on for years allowed him to get away with it, as the blame for this kind of error almost always falls on the fielder who made the poor throw.
You see, a great fielder doesn't just catch the throws he's supposed to. A great fielder also makes the plays he's not supposed to. And, for a first basemen, being able to scoop a poor toss in the dirt reliably is part of the ideal. Overbay is bad at this, even by amateur standards. I don't care, nor do I wish to comment on, about his other strengths and attributes as a fielder, you cannot say he is a great fielder when he doesn't even understand a basic theory of the position.
And so, after Hillenbrand was run out of town, we were stuck with Overbay. He ended up getting a 4-year deal worth an average of 6 million dollars a season after a career year at the plate he has failed to replicate since.
So, while enjoying myself at a home game, I give our man Overbay a hard time. In fact, it has nothing to do with his current suck level. It has more to do with the lie his career is currently based on, and the evil corporate machine that facilitated it.
Now don't get me wrong, Rogers is probably the best owner the Blue Jays could hope for or expect. However, just as being competant and moderately successful didn't make JP Ricciardi any less of a douchebag, being a relatively generous/supportive owner doesn't make Rogers any less evil.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
A Lesson in Stonewalling
Almost every day for the last few months, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail print stories about the Afghan Detainee Scandal. They produce weekly scathings of the Federal Government, and call on them to come clean.
Funny thing is that while they are busy recriminating the government and their delaying tactics, they have failed to explain one thing: why the issue is a big deal at all.
To my knowledge, here's a run down of the facts that are known:
Handing off detainees to the Afghans seemed to be the least of all evils. And it certainly is. The Prison at Guantanimo Bay has been a sources of nothing but headaches for American authorities, and if we sent our prisoners there, we'd have to deal with them as well - with absolutely no ability to dictate policy on how the prisoners were treated. Opening our own gulag somewhere on Baffin Island would disgrace the country and damage our collective soul.
Yes, the prisoners we handed off to the local authorities were at risk of being tortured. However, that's the only risk worth taking. If we are to build a stable government in Afghanistan, then we must trust our allies in the country. We must let them build their own institutions.
And when torture allegations broke, what exactly was our government to do? Send in more "observers" - which are undoubtedly seen by locals as condescending, high-handed foriegners who have no idea what it's like to be at war for generations? That is no way to win hearts and minds.
I think most Canadians understand this. It is why this issue isn't ressonating at the polls, even as the country's top two newspapers continue to beat the war drum. The only parties to press the issue in the House of Commons are the NDP and the Bloc, two parties who cannot help themselves when it comes to scoring cheap political points against the Conservatives.
This is also a good example of why governments stonewall investigations. Here we have a situation where most people are either apathetic or understanding of the government position, and yet we have two major newspapers feverish with the scent of blood in the water.
What good could possibly come out of a full investigation? Political opponents will refuse to accept the logical explanation of why the course taken was taken. And likely they will find something that will force an perfectly good minister to resign. Perhaps even the resignation of an experienced CF officer - the last thing our exhausted Army needs.
While the bad press will blow over and the hit in the polls will be temporary, there is no benefit to being transparent on this issue - there too many people out to nail the Conservatives to this cross. Just ask any defense attourney of any worth; they'll tell you to never talk to the police when you're a suspect. No good can come from it.
Funny thing is that while they are busy recriminating the government and their delaying tactics, they have failed to explain one thing: why the issue is a big deal at all.
To my knowledge, here's a run down of the facts that are known:
- Combatants and suspects captured by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan were transferred to local Afghan authorities
- While in custody, these detainees were likely tortured
- The government, led by the Conservatives, were aware of allegations of torture, but neither investigated nor changed Canadian Forces protocol with respect to handling detainees
- Concerns over the treatement of detainees can be traced as far back to the Liberal Government
Handing off detainees to the Afghans seemed to be the least of all evils. And it certainly is. The Prison at Guantanimo Bay has been a sources of nothing but headaches for American authorities, and if we sent our prisoners there, we'd have to deal with them as well - with absolutely no ability to dictate policy on how the prisoners were treated. Opening our own gulag somewhere on Baffin Island would disgrace the country and damage our collective soul.
Yes, the prisoners we handed off to the local authorities were at risk of being tortured. However, that's the only risk worth taking. If we are to build a stable government in Afghanistan, then we must trust our allies in the country. We must let them build their own institutions.
And when torture allegations broke, what exactly was our government to do? Send in more "observers" - which are undoubtedly seen by locals as condescending, high-handed foriegners who have no idea what it's like to be at war for generations? That is no way to win hearts and minds.
I think most Canadians understand this. It is why this issue isn't ressonating at the polls, even as the country's top two newspapers continue to beat the war drum. The only parties to press the issue in the House of Commons are the NDP and the Bloc, two parties who cannot help themselves when it comes to scoring cheap political points against the Conservatives.
This is also a good example of why governments stonewall investigations. Here we have a situation where most people are either apathetic or understanding of the government position, and yet we have two major newspapers feverish with the scent of blood in the water.
What good could possibly come out of a full investigation? Political opponents will refuse to accept the logical explanation of why the course taken was taken. And likely they will find something that will force an perfectly good minister to resign. Perhaps even the resignation of an experienced CF officer - the last thing our exhausted Army needs.
While the bad press will blow over and the hit in the polls will be temporary, there is no benefit to being transparent on this issue - there too many people out to nail the Conservatives to this cross. Just ask any defense attourney of any worth; they'll tell you to never talk to the police when you're a suspect. No good can come from it.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Republicans need a "Secret Speech"
After the Soviet Union emerged victorious from the Great Patriotic War and Stalin's death, a great deal of turmoil swirled around the new leader of the Red Empire.
The extent of the repression, brutality and stupidity of Stalin's rule were only beginning to dawn on select members of the Communist Party, Nikita Khrushchev one of them. He was locked in a struggle for the future course of the Soviet Union with the hard-line Stalinist faction led by Molotov and Melenkov. The popular opinion of party members was that it was difficult to critize Stalin and the job that he did. If the Stalinist view persisted, the Soviet Union would continue down a dark road of repression and terror, with the support of the rank-and-file Communist Party member.
In early 1956, at the 20th Communist Party Congress, or Party Convention, Krushchev delivered a speech entitled On the Personality Cult and its Consequences, in which he exposed and denounced many of Stalin's worst crimes and excesses to a closed audience, hence it being referred to the Secret Speech. Even in that era, however, a speech of this magnitude could not be kept secret, and its contents were leaked across the world. Later that year, a summary of Krushchev's four-hour-long speech became required reading at all Communist Party meetings, and was open to non-members.
This led to an era in Soviet history known as the Krushchev Thaw, which saw a renaissance of communistic ideological thought and discussion throughout the Eastern Bloc.
Now that the eight year reign of Republican era is over, we see that the Republican party is now mirred in the same ideological quagmire that the Soviets were in fifty four years ago. And they are having the same trouble breaking free of the ideological mistakes that had brought them down in the first place.
Republicans cling to these repressive and anti-democratic tenants, like warrentless wiretapping, indefinitely detaining terrorist suspects in Gitmo, and denying classifying detainees as "enemy combatants" so as to deny them the right to habeas corpus, even though these acts either have nothing to do with or are completely antithetical to the traditional Regean-esque small-c conservativism that many of them say they believe. The rank-and-file Republican fails to change his opinions, as wrong as they are, because no high-ranking Republican dares to diminish the legacy of the Bush-era, such as it is.
Now, I don't mean to dump on Bush. I think he was the victim of falling into a bad crowd of people with their own agendas to push more than anything else. He tried to make up for this in his second term, but by then the damage to his legacy had been done. But none of the Republican bigwigs have come out to denounce the mistakes of his administration. Instead, they cowardly defend the inexcusable acts. This intellectual inflexibility is a reason why the Republicans have such a hard time gaining traction with the educated of America.
It will require someone from the Republican Party to dare to make a speech that properly exposes and refutes the illegal, anti-democratic actions undertaken by the Republican administration of 2001-2008 to finally end the intellectual stagnation in the party and allow them to engage the American people once again. The Republicans need their own Secret Speech to save themselves.
Isn't it ironic that the example set by a Communist is what could save the Republican Party?
The extent of the repression, brutality and stupidity of Stalin's rule were only beginning to dawn on select members of the Communist Party, Nikita Khrushchev one of them. He was locked in a struggle for the future course of the Soviet Union with the hard-line Stalinist faction led by Molotov and Melenkov. The popular opinion of party members was that it was difficult to critize Stalin and the job that he did. If the Stalinist view persisted, the Soviet Union would continue down a dark road of repression and terror, with the support of the rank-and-file Communist Party member.
In early 1956, at the 20th Communist Party Congress, or Party Convention, Krushchev delivered a speech entitled On the Personality Cult and its Consequences, in which he exposed and denounced many of Stalin's worst crimes and excesses to a closed audience, hence it being referred to the Secret Speech. Even in that era, however, a speech of this magnitude could not be kept secret, and its contents were leaked across the world. Later that year, a summary of Krushchev's four-hour-long speech became required reading at all Communist Party meetings, and was open to non-members.
This led to an era in Soviet history known as the Krushchev Thaw, which saw a renaissance of communistic ideological thought and discussion throughout the Eastern Bloc.
Now that the eight year reign of Republican era is over, we see that the Republican party is now mirred in the same ideological quagmire that the Soviets were in fifty four years ago. And they are having the same trouble breaking free of the ideological mistakes that had brought them down in the first place.
Republicans cling to these repressive and anti-democratic tenants, like warrentless wiretapping, indefinitely detaining terrorist suspects in Gitmo, and denying classifying detainees as "enemy combatants" so as to deny them the right to habeas corpus, even though these acts either have nothing to do with or are completely antithetical to the traditional Regean-esque small-c conservativism that many of them say they believe. The rank-and-file Republican fails to change his opinions, as wrong as they are, because no high-ranking Republican dares to diminish the legacy of the Bush-era, such as it is.
Now, I don't mean to dump on Bush. I think he was the victim of falling into a bad crowd of people with their own agendas to push more than anything else. He tried to make up for this in his second term, but by then the damage to his legacy had been done. But none of the Republican bigwigs have come out to denounce the mistakes of his administration. Instead, they cowardly defend the inexcusable acts. This intellectual inflexibility is a reason why the Republicans have such a hard time gaining traction with the educated of America.
It will require someone from the Republican Party to dare to make a speech that properly exposes and refutes the illegal, anti-democratic actions undertaken by the Republican administration of 2001-2008 to finally end the intellectual stagnation in the party and allow them to engage the American people once again. The Republicans need their own Secret Speech to save themselves.
Isn't it ironic that the example set by a Communist is what could save the Republican Party?
Monday, March 8, 2010
McGuinty Moves to Exploit Foreigners at the Cost of Ontario's Future
Premier Dalton McGuinty will announce in his Throne Speech a plan to open up Ontario to more foriegn students, following an Australian Education Model.
Never mind that Australia produces next to no academics worth the paper on which their degrees were printed, while Canadian academics sit as part of disguinished faculties across the world. Never mind that Ontario has eight of the country's top ten research universities, if you still consider McGill an elite institution (I do to be generous), and three of the top one hundred in the world.
Since the push to nearly double available spaces at Universities in Ontario for the arrival of the dreaded double-cohort, there has been absolutely no shortage of spots for qualified applicants in Ontario's univerisities. Generous financial aid programs that currently exist mean only those with a pathological fear of accumulating debt (no more than $28 000 for a four year degree, because OSAP does NOT allow you to accumulate more than $7 000 a year) are unable to go to university.
So, let's review: we have a system in place where we swing above our weight in terms of quality, and we have a generous subsidization and financial aid system in place and more than enough spots for qualified applicants.
Clearly, our undergraduate education system is broken, and we need to learn from Australia, which has only one university in the top 100, because they properly exploit wealthy foriegners. In fact, educating international students is Australia's third largest industry.
The only price for it is the quality of education.
While the Premier plans to add even more spots to undergradute programs, faculties across the province are planning hiring freezes for tenured faculty. Some programs are giving the "Honours" designation meaning again, by streaming talented students into special classes while giving the rest a lower-quality, bulk-barn style education taught by sessionals and graduate students.
It's like Mr. McGuinty doesn't even talk to anyone before he comes up with a plan.
The Ontario Liberals will argue that more foriegn students will help subsidize tuition of local students. Pure nonsense. The market for foriegn students is competitive, and so tuitions set cannot be arbitary. A foriegn student will not pay the same to attend York University as he would to pay to attend Yale. A foriegn student will not pay a 50% premium to go to a public Ontario University, if a private institution will offer tuition at cost. This competitiveness will ultimately drive tuitions down to near-cost, meaning the subsidy for local students will be small as undergraduate programs grow more and more bloated.
Foriegn students have a place at universities. They help build a school's reputation abroad, and as graduate students they help bring new ideas and concepts over from other countries. However, the notion that we can exploit them to make a quick buck is not only incorrect, it will be counterproductive and lessen the quality of undergraduate education in Ontario.
Never mind that Australia produces next to no academics worth the paper on which their degrees were printed, while Canadian academics sit as part of disguinished faculties across the world. Never mind that Ontario has eight of the country's top ten research universities, if you still consider McGill an elite institution (I do to be generous), and three of the top one hundred in the world.
Since the push to nearly double available spaces at Universities in Ontario for the arrival of the dreaded double-cohort, there has been absolutely no shortage of spots for qualified applicants in Ontario's univerisities. Generous financial aid programs that currently exist mean only those with a pathological fear of accumulating debt (no more than $28 000 for a four year degree, because OSAP does NOT allow you to accumulate more than $7 000 a year) are unable to go to university.
So, let's review: we have a system in place where we swing above our weight in terms of quality, and we have a generous subsidization and financial aid system in place and more than enough spots for qualified applicants.
Clearly, our undergraduate education system is broken, and we need to learn from Australia, which has only one university in the top 100, because they properly exploit wealthy foriegners. In fact, educating international students is Australia's third largest industry.
The only price for it is the quality of education.
While the Premier plans to add even more spots to undergradute programs, faculties across the province are planning hiring freezes for tenured faculty. Some programs are giving the "Honours" designation meaning again, by streaming talented students into special classes while giving the rest a lower-quality, bulk-barn style education taught by sessionals and graduate students.
It's like Mr. McGuinty doesn't even talk to anyone before he comes up with a plan.
The Ontario Liberals will argue that more foriegn students will help subsidize tuition of local students. Pure nonsense. The market for foriegn students is competitive, and so tuitions set cannot be arbitary. A foriegn student will not pay the same to attend York University as he would to pay to attend Yale. A foriegn student will not pay a 50% premium to go to a public Ontario University, if a private institution will offer tuition at cost. This competitiveness will ultimately drive tuitions down to near-cost, meaning the subsidy for local students will be small as undergraduate programs grow more and more bloated.
Foriegn students have a place at universities. They help build a school's reputation abroad, and as graduate students they help bring new ideas and concepts over from other countries. However, the notion that we can exploit them to make a quick buck is not only incorrect, it will be counterproductive and lessen the quality of undergraduate education in Ontario.
Friday, February 19, 2010
We need to cool it
It seems as though whenever Canada is mentioned on American TV, it is big news here. Whether its the Simpsons visit Toronto or a comedy roundtable that airs at 4am on FOX News, it always is a topic of conversation. Just being mentioned by our big brothers to the south seem to make our hearts go aflutter.
Usually, we end up raging and bemoaning American ignorance. But really, people, we all need to cool it and ask ourselves the following question:
Why exactly do we know so much about the US?
I'll tell you a couple of reasons that don't apply. Our education system doesn't require us to take American History; in fact, I know only a handful of people who ever take a course on the subject throughout their entire academic careers. Also, it's not because we read about it. Books about Omaha Beach or the Battle of Gettysburg that top the New York Times Bestseller List rarely crack the Toronto Star's Canadian Equivalent.
So, given up? The answer should not swell our national pride. The reason we know as much about America that we do is... that we watch primarily American television, and that even most Canadian content on air is kept as location unspecific as possible so it might be exported South.
I know when the Americans signed the Declaration of Independence because I've seen it on American TV. As for when the Americans concluded peace with Britain, which is something people who actually spent some time researching the subject would know, completely escapes me. I know American politics because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, not because I watch CSPAN for fun.
I doubt this is a phenomina that most Canadians, particularly of my generation, can claim they are not a part of. Given this, how can we, with any sense of intellectual or personal honesty, think lowly of an American's Ameri-centric view? Particularly when you factor in the fact that America does more to educate its citizens about us than ours does about them?
That's right, most American students in the last twenty or thirty years in the border states are required to learn about Canada. They are forced to learn about our provinces, our weather, or hobbies and our economy, while we learn most of our information through the filter of media - either ours or Hollywood's.
So, my fellow Canadians, let's all get off our high horses and stop critizing people who have as much interest in learning about other countries as we do and acknowledge that we only know a damn thing about America is because we watch TV.
Usually, we end up raging and bemoaning American ignorance. But really, people, we all need to cool it and ask ourselves the following question:
Why exactly do we know so much about the US?
I'll tell you a couple of reasons that don't apply. Our education system doesn't require us to take American History; in fact, I know only a handful of people who ever take a course on the subject throughout their entire academic careers. Also, it's not because we read about it. Books about Omaha Beach or the Battle of Gettysburg that top the New York Times Bestseller List rarely crack the Toronto Star's Canadian Equivalent.
So, given up? The answer should not swell our national pride. The reason we know as much about America that we do is... that we watch primarily American television, and that even most Canadian content on air is kept as location unspecific as possible so it might be exported South.
I know when the Americans signed the Declaration of Independence because I've seen it on American TV. As for when the Americans concluded peace with Britain, which is something people who actually spent some time researching the subject would know, completely escapes me. I know American politics because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, not because I watch CSPAN for fun.
I doubt this is a phenomina that most Canadians, particularly of my generation, can claim they are not a part of. Given this, how can we, with any sense of intellectual or personal honesty, think lowly of an American's Ameri-centric view? Particularly when you factor in the fact that America does more to educate its citizens about us than ours does about them?
That's right, most American students in the last twenty or thirty years in the border states are required to learn about Canada. They are forced to learn about our provinces, our weather, or hobbies and our economy, while we learn most of our information through the filter of media - either ours or Hollywood's.
So, my fellow Canadians, let's all get off our high horses and stop critizing people who have as much interest in learning about other countries as we do and acknowledge that we only know a damn thing about America is because we watch TV.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
An End to the Bloc
Americans I meet who live here in Canada and take some time to learn about our political system are always surprised to find out about the Bloc Quebecois. They're amazed at the notion that a party whose stated goal is to end Confederation as it is today and establish Quebec as an independent nation is allowed to exist. Indeed, many Canadians, too, ponder if their goal is not literally treasonous.
I am quick to defend the Bloc, although I neither agree with their policies nor their principles. It is a strength of Canadian democracy that all ideas about the improvement of the Confederation, and the Bloc do not believe succession would be a bad thing for either party, are tolerated, so long as the advancement of said ideas are peaceful and respect our democratic system. For those who would claim that appeasement of separatists would lead to escalation until it became a violent rebellion, I'll note that the Quebec separatist movement has been completely peaceful since Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau crushed the nascent FLQ in 1970.
Still, the continued existence of the Bloc has proven to be a problem in the modern structure of our democracy. This large regional party holds a disproportional number of seats in the House of Commons and this makes it difficult for a national party to achieve the majority required to properly run the country. This deadlock show no signs of ending, and until it does any attempt at fundamental governmental reform is impossible. Thus, a more roundabout method must be used to break it. A key to ending the stalemate is crushing the Bloc.
With consistent support in Quebec, one may wonder how it would be possible to achieve such a feat without re-orientating the house. It is simple, we must exploit the Bloc's biggest weakness: their complete dependence on Federal Political Party subsidies. (And yes, the fact that a separatist party's existence is wholly dependent on Federal subsidies is even pushing my ideals on enlightened democracy.)
The Conservatives proposed last year to end Federal subsidies to political parties. This, of course, is completely antithetical to democratic principle, particularly since the Conservatives knew this would be a crippling blow to Liberal finances, but it did raise the question of what the subsidies are for. Are they to allow political parties to work nationally, to build a coalition of Canadians from across the country who are behind a set of policies they believe will help the Confederation? Or are they to fund the vehicle of anyone who can convince 5% of Canadian voters to vote for them?
It is the Federal government's responsibility to use taxpayer money in a manner that will benefit as many Canadians as possible. The general consensus outside of Quebec is that separation is not a good idea. And furthermore, the Bloc have made positively no attempt to sell their message outside of their province. I argue that if the Bloc want Federal money, they should have a national presence.
So, I would propose a change in the conditions required to receive a government subsidy. To be eligible for Federal money, a party must:
a) run a candidate in at least 205 (2/3s) of Canada's 308 ridings
b) receive 5% of the national vote
c) receive at least 5% of the vote in 154 (1/2) of Canada's 308 ridings
These conditions would force parties who wished to be eligible for funding to not only have a token candidate in 2/3s of Canadian ridings, but to also be mildly successful in most of them. This would prevent any regional movement from being eligible for Federal subsidy, and force those parties to run strictly on private donation.
And yes, this formulation does tip the table in favor of the main three national parties, but to that I ask so what? Any kind of regional party that can't get at least some support outside of its core area doesn't deserve it. Even the Reform Party, which had been criticized as a "Western Protest Party," managed to run candidates everywhere apart from Quebec and did garner 10-20% of the vote everywhere in Ontario save Toronto. If they could do it, then what excuse does Regional Party X have? Oh, you want to destroy the Confederation of which your ancestors were integral founding members of? Tough beans, start going door-to-door then.
The hope is that this change, properly timed, would force the Bloc on its heels and susceptible to bleed support to the national parties who could out-advertise the Bloc. This would need to be done so that the Bloc wouldn't have time to gear up its fundraising to ensure the desired effect. However, shady tactics aside, the difficulties of fundraising without experience in doing so alone should be sufficient to put the Bloc in a difficult position to fight an election.
Then perhaps we can end the stalemate in the Commons and it can get back to governing the country again.
I am quick to defend the Bloc, although I neither agree with their policies nor their principles. It is a strength of Canadian democracy that all ideas about the improvement of the Confederation, and the Bloc do not believe succession would be a bad thing for either party, are tolerated, so long as the advancement of said ideas are peaceful and respect our democratic system. For those who would claim that appeasement of separatists would lead to escalation until it became a violent rebellion, I'll note that the Quebec separatist movement has been completely peaceful since Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau crushed the nascent FLQ in 1970.
Still, the continued existence of the Bloc has proven to be a problem in the modern structure of our democracy. This large regional party holds a disproportional number of seats in the House of Commons and this makes it difficult for a national party to achieve the majority required to properly run the country. This deadlock show no signs of ending, and until it does any attempt at fundamental governmental reform is impossible. Thus, a more roundabout method must be used to break it. A key to ending the stalemate is crushing the Bloc.
With consistent support in Quebec, one may wonder how it would be possible to achieve such a feat without re-orientating the house. It is simple, we must exploit the Bloc's biggest weakness: their complete dependence on Federal Political Party subsidies. (And yes, the fact that a separatist party's existence is wholly dependent on Federal subsidies is even pushing my ideals on enlightened democracy.)
The Conservatives proposed last year to end Federal subsidies to political parties. This, of course, is completely antithetical to democratic principle, particularly since the Conservatives knew this would be a crippling blow to Liberal finances, but it did raise the question of what the subsidies are for. Are they to allow political parties to work nationally, to build a coalition of Canadians from across the country who are behind a set of policies they believe will help the Confederation? Or are they to fund the vehicle of anyone who can convince 5% of Canadian voters to vote for them?
It is the Federal government's responsibility to use taxpayer money in a manner that will benefit as many Canadians as possible. The general consensus outside of Quebec is that separation is not a good idea. And furthermore, the Bloc have made positively no attempt to sell their message outside of their province. I argue that if the Bloc want Federal money, they should have a national presence.
So, I would propose a change in the conditions required to receive a government subsidy. To be eligible for Federal money, a party must:
a) run a candidate in at least 205 (2/3s) of Canada's 308 ridings
b) receive 5% of the national vote
c) receive at least 5% of the vote in 154 (1/2) of Canada's 308 ridings
These conditions would force parties who wished to be eligible for funding to not only have a token candidate in 2/3s of Canadian ridings, but to also be mildly successful in most of them. This would prevent any regional movement from being eligible for Federal subsidy, and force those parties to run strictly on private donation.
And yes, this formulation does tip the table in favor of the main three national parties, but to that I ask so what? Any kind of regional party that can't get at least some support outside of its core area doesn't deserve it. Even the Reform Party, which had been criticized as a "Western Protest Party," managed to run candidates everywhere apart from Quebec and did garner 10-20% of the vote everywhere in Ontario save Toronto. If they could do it, then what excuse does Regional Party X have? Oh, you want to destroy the Confederation of which your ancestors were integral founding members of? Tough beans, start going door-to-door then.
The hope is that this change, properly timed, would force the Bloc on its heels and susceptible to bleed support to the national parties who could out-advertise the Bloc. This would need to be done so that the Bloc wouldn't have time to gear up its fundraising to ensure the desired effect. However, shady tactics aside, the difficulties of fundraising without experience in doing so alone should be sufficient to put the Bloc in a difficult position to fight an election.
Then perhaps we can end the stalemate in the Commons and it can get back to governing the country again.
Liberals Confuse Social Justice with Social Ignorance
And just when you thought there was no good reason to vote Conservative anymore, Count Micheal Ignatieff gives us one. Declaring it "the number one social priority" of any possible Liberal government, Ignatieff has vowed to create a national child-care program no matter the fiscal situation, simultaneously throwing out the Liberal's recent record of fiscal responsibility and their de facto commitment to a responsible mix of laissez-faire and interventionist social policy.
Calling a single-system national day care program "an excellent investment" and a matter of "social justice," Ignatieff claims he will not let a deficit - one that his party has called structural - get in the way of finding the money to pay for it. I suppose we can find the money - from a bank in China.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Assuming Ignatieff's pledge is legitimate - and the Liberals have failed to deliver on a National Day Care Program (NDC, for short) during their last 12 year stint in power - I feel I should call "bullshit" on the entire premise of the so-called benefits of a National Day Care Program.
While there has been an increasing push for formalized early learning development, and while that certainly has some merit, many pro-interventionists forget the colossal problem with any national system: inflexibility. For anyone who's had experience with dealing with school boards or provincial boards of education, the sheer size of bureaucracy is daunting, and trying to talking to anyone who knows something - never mind anyone with any power to change something - is a remarkably frustrating and, ultimately, futile process.
These large government bureaucracies are primarily driven by a small brain-trust centered around the appropriate government minister. While there is sometimes a need for centralization, education - beyond the need of a minimum standard - is an area that has been shown to require experimentation to truly progress. What has driven progress in education the last two decades has been the introduction of charter schools - which have had both successes and failures, but have at least been far more dynamic and accountable than the traditional school system - which have been growing in number only by grudging support from governments.
The creation of a nationalized system of day care and early learning development will drive experimentation and adaptation to the wealthiest periphery of society. While the children of the rich see the benefits of a dynamic, competitive system, everyone that's upper-middle class or lower will be forced to accept a system that will quickly age and be simply one small group of "experts'" views on the subject.
And when it comes to "social justice," where in the plan for NDC is the justice for couples who choose to forgo the cottage in Orilla and keep a parent at home? In terms of investment, it is hard to believe a parent supervising two or three children can be, nine times out of ten, less successful than a community college graduate who has to supervise twenty or thirty children. (And I say this not to belittle college graduates but to note that the potential day care workers will not hold some kind of advanced degree that could make them arguably more qualified than the average parent.) One on one attention is very helpful for a child's development, and any national program would not be able to provide it as a stay-at-home parent almost certainly could.
I do not mean to argue the benefits of a "traditional" family for its own sake, but merely to point out that a nationalized system will punish certain people's lifestyle choice and potentially damage a child's development while claiming it to be an investment. Do not be fooled into thinking that it is, as it is simply pigeon-holing people into choosing a lifestyle approved by the government.
Any day care or early learning strategy must therefore be multifaceted and designed to help people with a variety to lifestyles, instead of supporting only the nation's "mode" lifestyle: two working parents and 1.5 children.
Therefore, a more rationally-coherent proposal would include subsidies for child care for the working poor or single parents to choose their own child care strategy, income splitting for married/common-law couples with children to lessen the financial blow of a stay-at-home parent and government grants for further research into early childhood development. This approach would help the needy, promote experimentation in day care techniques, and take the pressure off existing day care spots by encouraging single-worker families, all the while not relying on tired 1970s doctrine that suggests that "Father knows best."
Father doesn't know best. We, as individuals, do.
Calling a single-system national day care program "an excellent investment" and a matter of "social justice," Ignatieff claims he will not let a deficit - one that his party has called structural - get in the way of finding the money to pay for it. I suppose we can find the money - from a bank in China.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Assuming Ignatieff's pledge is legitimate - and the Liberals have failed to deliver on a National Day Care Program (NDC, for short) during their last 12 year stint in power - I feel I should call "bullshit" on the entire premise of the so-called benefits of a National Day Care Program.
While there has been an increasing push for formalized early learning development, and while that certainly has some merit, many pro-interventionists forget the colossal problem with any national system: inflexibility. For anyone who's had experience with dealing with school boards or provincial boards of education, the sheer size of bureaucracy is daunting, and trying to talking to anyone who knows something - never mind anyone with any power to change something - is a remarkably frustrating and, ultimately, futile process.
These large government bureaucracies are primarily driven by a small brain-trust centered around the appropriate government minister. While there is sometimes a need for centralization, education - beyond the need of a minimum standard - is an area that has been shown to require experimentation to truly progress. What has driven progress in education the last two decades has been the introduction of charter schools - which have had both successes and failures, but have at least been far more dynamic and accountable than the traditional school system - which have been growing in number only by grudging support from governments.
The creation of a nationalized system of day care and early learning development will drive experimentation and adaptation to the wealthiest periphery of society. While the children of the rich see the benefits of a dynamic, competitive system, everyone that's upper-middle class or lower will be forced to accept a system that will quickly age and be simply one small group of "experts'" views on the subject.
And when it comes to "social justice," where in the plan for NDC is the justice for couples who choose to forgo the cottage in Orilla and keep a parent at home? In terms of investment, it is hard to believe a parent supervising two or three children can be, nine times out of ten, less successful than a community college graduate who has to supervise twenty or thirty children. (And I say this not to belittle college graduates but to note that the potential day care workers will not hold some kind of advanced degree that could make them arguably more qualified than the average parent.) One on one attention is very helpful for a child's development, and any national program would not be able to provide it as a stay-at-home parent almost certainly could.
I do not mean to argue the benefits of a "traditional" family for its own sake, but merely to point out that a nationalized system will punish certain people's lifestyle choice and potentially damage a child's development while claiming it to be an investment. Do not be fooled into thinking that it is, as it is simply pigeon-holing people into choosing a lifestyle approved by the government.
Any day care or early learning strategy must therefore be multifaceted and designed to help people with a variety to lifestyles, instead of supporting only the nation's "mode" lifestyle: two working parents and 1.5 children.
Therefore, a more rationally-coherent proposal would include subsidies for child care for the working poor or single parents to choose their own child care strategy, income splitting for married/common-law couples with children to lessen the financial blow of a stay-at-home parent and government grants for further research into early childhood development. This approach would help the needy, promote experimentation in day care techniques, and take the pressure off existing day care spots by encouraging single-worker families, all the while not relying on tired 1970s doctrine that suggests that "Father knows best."
Father doesn't know best. We, as individuals, do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
