I have been so busy with consulting work lately that blog writing and even movie watching has become a bit of a luxury for me. So it was last night that my fiance ordered up The Ides of March on Pay Per View.
As quite some time has passed since it's initial release, I feel okay including some major plot spoilers in my analysis, so feel free to stop reading if you don't want to miss out on the suspense.
The Ides of March is a movie that manages to be cynical and breathtakingly naive at the same time. Yes there is the machiavellian interplay between the political staffers played by Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti. But it is in the character of Governor Mike Morris that we get to see George Clooney's wet dream of what a Democratic presidential candidate should be.
In addition to being a Catholic turned agnostic, which I know would be a big deal in the US but not really here in Canada, Morris earnestly campaigns on a variety of jaw droppingly insane ideas like outlawing all internal combustion engines in vehicles within ten years. That is a policy that even Ralph Nader might consider to be overreaching.
Then of course he tells one interviewer don't even get me started on the gun issue, which I assume means he's going to take on the gun lobby. Good luck with that, but in the context of the movie it actually might make sense given the number of farmers and ranchers who would want to shoot Morris for trying to tell them they had to ditch their pick up trucks and start moving hay bales around their property with a plug in Prius.
But of course the big kicker comes when a young hottie intern played by Evan Rachel Wood makes the moves on Ryan Gosling's character, Stephen Meyers, who up til then has regarded candidate Mike Morris as the next coming of Jesus Christ. Meyers ends up having sex with the intern then gets his panties in a bunch when he discovers that this intern has also had sex with Governor Morris.
Up till this point Morris has been such a principled (and completely non pragmatic) politician that he won't even do a deal with another candidate Senator Thompson played by Jeffrey Wright, that would secure him the democratic nomination.
The even bigger shocker comes when the intern revels she is pregnant and that *gasp* Governor Mike Morris is the daddy. Again my eyes rolled. America's puritanical obsession with who else might be getting laid comes to the fore ground. In countries like France powerful male politicians are expected to have both wives and mistresses, only in America do they see it as such a huge deal. Given that Clooney lives most of the time in his luxury villa in Italy I am sure he is well aware of this significant cultural difference.
In any event political staffer Meyers dutifully arranges to provide the money the intern needs to get an abortion (in Canada it would be freely provided) so that's a nice shot at America's lack of public health care. But then bad timing results as instead of picking her up from the clinic he gets canned by Hoffman's character.
So now it's payback time and when word reaches the nubile intern that Meyers is bent on revenge she desperately tries to reach him and for a reason that is never explained in the movie he never answers his cell phone. I'm sorry but a political operative getting fired or not, is not simply going to blow off the one person who is the political bomb he may or may not wish to set off.
Meyers confronts Governor Mike Morris and blackmails him into taking him back, firing Hoffman's character and accepting Senator Thompson's request to make him the Vice-Presidential running mate. This then locks up the nomination for the Governor. At this point I felt almost relieved at Meyers forcing some modicum of political pragmatism onto the far too idealistic and inflexible Governor Morris.
But Meyers by then has discovered to his horror that the nubile intern, assuming the worst, has killed herself and all the feelings of angst and guilt start to well up. The movie ends on a dramatic cliff hanger where the audience is supposedly left wondering, will he do the right thing and spill his guts about the whole tawdry affair or will he do the cynical thing and simply proceed along?
Perhaps I came to this movie a little jaded having seen the money Hollywood has recently been pouring into Washington to get SOPA and PIPA passed. Those are both badly flawed pieces of legislation that would essentially break the freedom of the internet and could lead to the permanent closure of such sites as Wikipedia and Youtube. It is a reminder to all those who value personal freedom that the left is just as good as the right at passing laws that seek to curtail liberty.
But getting back to the movie which Clooney directed, starred in and wrote much of the screenplay for, the cliff hanger for me fell flat. The policies advocated by Governor Mike Morris may play well amongst the wealthy lefties living in tinsel town, but would get him laughed off stage in the real world. Such a candidate would confirm the very worst fears every Republican and Independent has about the Democrats and would ensure a Republican landslide.
Then there is Meyers. He screwed up by not being there for the intern as he had promised. He screwed up by not answering his phone, he also screwed up by taking a meeting with Giamatti's character which is what got him fired in the first place. So now after successfully blackmailing Governor Morris he is now going to do the ultimate screw up and blow up the entire situation by potentially spilling the beans and revealing all?
I am sure Clooney meant this as a morality tale and how things get complicated in politics. No it's not that complicated. From a real world perspective Governor Morris who is supposed to be a leading Democratic candidate would not be running on such an extreme left platform, Clooney's political fantasies notwithstanding.
Such a candidate would take the deal with Senator Thompson in order to secure the nomination, he would not dismiss it with righteous indignation. And yeah Meyers would get fired for being such an idiot. Or in reality an idiot like him would never get to that level in the first place on such a campaign. As for the intern the problem would get handled competently and with sufficient hush money to make damn sure no one let that particular cat out of the bag.
But even if there had been a tragic suicide due to Meyer's incompetence, is his response going to be to tell all? How does committing political suicide and taking Morris et al with him serve as any sort of restorative justice? Oh because it reveals Governor Morris to be a bit of hypocrite? So what welcome to the real world where we're all hypocrites, just ask Newt Gingrich, and yes there have always been young women who are sexually attracted to older men in positions of power, and it will always be thus.
In the end The Ides of March says more about the political world George Clooney wishes existed in America rather than the one that actually does.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Monday, September 26, 2011
Rise of BC Conservatives makes NDP win in 2013 likely
I recently had the opportunity to attend the BC Conservative Annual General meeting in Nanaimo. Joining me in observing the gathering of provincial Tories were long time political columnists Les Leyne of the Victoria Times-Colonist and Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun. Their presence spoke volumes about how after decades in the political wilderness the BC Conservatives seemed poised to make a historic come back.
The party’s new leader former federal M.P. John Cummins, has noted that they “are holding steady at 20% in the polls.” With such support a win by the BC NDP becomes extremely likely in 2013. This is because the NDP are likely to have at least 40% support while the Greens and other also ran parties collecting 10%. This would leave at most only 30% for the BC Liberals.
A non united right has always resulted in a BC NDP win. In 1972 when the non-socialist vote was split between Social Credit the Liberals and the Conservatives all three parties elected MLAs but the NDP with only 38% of the vote won a landslide majority. When the right re-coalesced under Social Credit the NDP was once again reduced to opposition status for the remainder of the 1970s and 80s.
In 1991 Social Credit which had imploded under the leadership of Bill Vander Zalm saw it go from government to just 7 MLAs. The NDP won a solid majority with 40% of the vote while an upstart Liberal party led by Gordon Wilson took the party to official opposition status.
In 1996 the BC NDP edged out the BC Liberals in part because the BC Reform Party took just enough votes to ensure an NDP win. Under the leadership of Gordon Campbell the BC Liberals were able to maintain the right wing coalition. But Campbell’s mishandling of the HST and the introduction of new carbon taxes had many wondering if the governing BC Liberals were any less tax and spend than the BC NDP.
Campbell resigned over the HST debacle and the party elected a new leader Christy Clark who is a federal Liberal. The federal Conservatives made no secret of the fact they would have preferred one of their own such as Kevin Falcon to have been the leader. But sour grapes aside, there is also a genuine desire by the Harper Conservatives to see the Liberals disappear as a viable political brand name in Canada.
During the recent federal election Stephen Harper was delighted to not only secure a majority government but seeing the Liberals (Canada’s naturally governing party of the 20th century) reduced to third party status. By facing an NDP opposition the Conservatives are in an ideal position to be Canada’s naturally governing party of the 21st century.
Contrary to popular belief a win by the BC NDP would not be that upsetting to them either. Every time the NDP have won power in BC provincially, support for the NDP has fallen in the next federal election. Some Conservative strategists are quite willing to see the NDP win the next provincial election in 2013 because they are confident that would result in the NDP losing seats to the Conservatives in the next federal election.
Finally a BC Liberal loss could potentially create a situation where the right re-coalesces under the BC Conservative banner, once again relegating the BC Liberals to the political wilderness.
So don’t be surprised if you see the BC Conservatives fielding a full slate of candidates in the next provincial election and Adrian Dix emerging as the next Premier of B.C. You read it here first.
Michael Geoghegan is a government relations consultant based in Victoria, BC be sure to visit my website at www.mgcltd.ca and follow me on twitter @BCLobbyist
The party’s new leader former federal M.P. John Cummins, has noted that they “are holding steady at 20% in the polls.” With such support a win by the BC NDP becomes extremely likely in 2013. This is because the NDP are likely to have at least 40% support while the Greens and other also ran parties collecting 10%. This would leave at most only 30% for the BC Liberals.
A non united right has always resulted in a BC NDP win. In 1972 when the non-socialist vote was split between Social Credit the Liberals and the Conservatives all three parties elected MLAs but the NDP with only 38% of the vote won a landslide majority. When the right re-coalesced under Social Credit the NDP was once again reduced to opposition status for the remainder of the 1970s and 80s.
In 1991 Social Credit which had imploded under the leadership of Bill Vander Zalm saw it go from government to just 7 MLAs. The NDP won a solid majority with 40% of the vote while an upstart Liberal party led by Gordon Wilson took the party to official opposition status.
In 1996 the BC NDP edged out the BC Liberals in part because the BC Reform Party took just enough votes to ensure an NDP win. Under the leadership of Gordon Campbell the BC Liberals were able to maintain the right wing coalition. But Campbell’s mishandling of the HST and the introduction of new carbon taxes had many wondering if the governing BC Liberals were any less tax and spend than the BC NDP.
Campbell resigned over the HST debacle and the party elected a new leader Christy Clark who is a federal Liberal. The federal Conservatives made no secret of the fact they would have preferred one of their own such as Kevin Falcon to have been the leader. But sour grapes aside, there is also a genuine desire by the Harper Conservatives to see the Liberals disappear as a viable political brand name in Canada.
During the recent federal election Stephen Harper was delighted to not only secure a majority government but seeing the Liberals (Canada’s naturally governing party of the 20th century) reduced to third party status. By facing an NDP opposition the Conservatives are in an ideal position to be Canada’s naturally governing party of the 21st century.
Contrary to popular belief a win by the BC NDP would not be that upsetting to them either. Every time the NDP have won power in BC provincially, support for the NDP has fallen in the next federal election. Some Conservative strategists are quite willing to see the NDP win the next provincial election in 2013 because they are confident that would result in the NDP losing seats to the Conservatives in the next federal election.
Finally a BC Liberal loss could potentially create a situation where the right re-coalesces under the BC Conservative banner, once again relegating the BC Liberals to the political wilderness.
So don’t be surprised if you see the BC Conservatives fielding a full slate of candidates in the next provincial election and Adrian Dix emerging as the next Premier of B.C. You read it here first.
Michael Geoghegan is a government relations consultant based in Victoria, BC be sure to visit my website at www.mgcltd.ca and follow me on twitter @BCLobbyist
Monday, September 19, 2011
Tucknott slams smart meters in speech to rally at BC Legislature
Tucknott slams smart meters in speech to rally at BC Legislature
September 19, 2011
For immediate release, Victoria, BC
Colwood Councillor and candidate for Mayor, Brian Tucknott, slammed BC Hydro over the imposition of smart meters. Speaking at a rally at the BC Legislature on Sunday, Tucknott stated, “In June, I introduced a motion to council recommending a letter be sent to the Provincial Government requesting a moratorium on the mandatory installation of wireless smart meters until their effects become better known and alternative solutions investigated. Colwood became the first of 16 municipalities to request a moratorium.”
Tucknott identified five areas of concern: Health, Safety, Security, Privacy, and Cost.
Worldwide, more people are becoming sensitive to electro-magnetic radiation from devices such as wireless smart meters and The World Health Organisation recently classified such radiation as a likely Class 2b carcinogen.
Many sufferers from electro-magnetic sensitivity are disabled by it and more are receiving disability benefits.
“Don’t look to Health Canada for protection, for it labours under an outdated ‘Safety Code 6’ laughable by world standards and of which our Federal Government should be ashamed,” said Tucknott.
“There are increasing reports of smart meters igniting,” noted Tucknott. “Not only are they a fire risk, they can also release mercury giving rise to another problem: hazmat contamination!”
After ‘smart meter’ installation, household appliances have been known to catch fire, or to self destruct with destruction not being limited to older appliances.
“There is also a privacy issue with ‘smart meters’ which will begin to record your personal use, time and duration of use, of everything electrical within your home. Security may be compromised as a result,” said Tucknott. “There may be a record of when you activate a security system and possibly which sensors are deactivated at any particular time. You will not benefit from any of this information, as you will not have access to it, but someone will!”
Finally, everywhere these ‘smart meters’ have been installed there have been complaints of increased charges for electrical power use.
“Please do not be fooled by the disingenuous claims of BC Hydro, and demand the Provincial Government put an end to this massive experiment using us as its guinea pigs in its $1 billion boondoggle,” concluded Tucknott.
For further information contact Brian Tucknott at (250) 474-8180 or email him at tucknott4mayor@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @tucknott4mayor
September 19, 2011
For immediate release, Victoria, BC
Colwood Councillor and candidate for Mayor, Brian Tucknott, slammed BC Hydro over the imposition of smart meters. Speaking at a rally at the BC Legislature on Sunday, Tucknott stated, “In June, I introduced a motion to council recommending a letter be sent to the Provincial Government requesting a moratorium on the mandatory installation of wireless smart meters until their effects become better known and alternative solutions investigated. Colwood became the first of 16 municipalities to request a moratorium.”
Tucknott identified five areas of concern: Health, Safety, Security, Privacy, and Cost.
Worldwide, more people are becoming sensitive to electro-magnetic radiation from devices such as wireless smart meters and The World Health Organisation recently classified such radiation as a likely Class 2b carcinogen.
Many sufferers from electro-magnetic sensitivity are disabled by it and more are receiving disability benefits.
“Don’t look to Health Canada for protection, for it labours under an outdated ‘Safety Code 6’ laughable by world standards and of which our Federal Government should be ashamed,” said Tucknott.
“There are increasing reports of smart meters igniting,” noted Tucknott. “Not only are they a fire risk, they can also release mercury giving rise to another problem: hazmat contamination!”
After ‘smart meter’ installation, household appliances have been known to catch fire, or to self destruct with destruction not being limited to older appliances.
“There is also a privacy issue with ‘smart meters’ which will begin to record your personal use, time and duration of use, of everything electrical within your home. Security may be compromised as a result,” said Tucknott. “There may be a record of when you activate a security system and possibly which sensors are deactivated at any particular time. You will not benefit from any of this information, as you will not have access to it, but someone will!”
Finally, everywhere these ‘smart meters’ have been installed there have been complaints of increased charges for electrical power use.
“Please do not be fooled by the disingenuous claims of BC Hydro, and demand the Provincial Government put an end to this massive experiment using us as its guinea pigs in its $1 billion boondoggle,” concluded Tucknott.
For further information contact Brian Tucknott at (250) 474-8180 or email him at tucknott4mayor@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @tucknott4mayor
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Tucknott announces no tax increases if elected Mayor of Colwood
Tucknott announces no tax increases if elected Mayor of Colwood
Affordability and Accountability twin pillars of campaign
September 15, 2011
For immediate release, Victoria, BC
Colwood Councillor Brian Tucknott, a retired airline captain and union leader today announced that he is running for Mayor of Colwood with a pledge of no further municipally generated tax increases if elected.
Colwood is a community of working families and retired people that have been hit hard with over 30% in municipal tax increases in the last three years. The result has been seniors, the unemployed and those on fixed incomes struggling to make ends meet and families both renters and homeowners facing increased housing costs.
“Given the misplaced priorities that have occurred in Colwood, I have consistently voted against these tax increases but have found myself in the minority time after time. Colwood has ignored the financial turmoil facing the world and has acted as though it was immune, giving rise to claims from at least one accountant that Colwood is operationally bankrupt,” said Tucknott.
“It is my hope that as Mayor I will have a working majority of councillors who recognize that government has to live within the means of its taxpayers, many of whom have not seen any increase in their real income in years,” he added.
Tucknott, who prior to becoming an airline captain served as a British Bobby (police officer) also intends to bring much greater fiscal discipline and accountability to Colwood. “For far too many years economic development opportunities have passed our community by as our municipal government has been embroiled in lawsuits and crises of its own making. It is time to bring in a new era of affordability and accountability to Colwood,” declared Tucknott.
”I want a community where seniors and young families can afford to live and where our tax dollars go to providing infrastructure that enhances our community. I want every dollar of taxpayers` money to be properly accounted for so that voters know what it is being spent on and why,” he pledged.
“It is for that reason that I commend the provincial government for wanting to provide an Auditor General for municipal governments through B.C. I have little doubt that an Auditor General would have much to say about what has happened in Colwood,” noted Tucknott.
”A sustainable community cannot just be a green one that caters only to a select few. It must also serve the needs of working families and those seeking employment. We need to make genuine affordable housing a key component of our community and we need to encourage businesses that will broaden our tax base and provide employment opportunities,” he said.
“As Mayor I will represent the entire community not just special interest groups. Every resident deserves equal representation not just those with certain political affiliations or connections. It is for this reason that I ask all residents of Colwood for their vote on November 19th,” Tucknott concluded.
For further information contact Brian Tucknott at (250) 474-8180 or email him at tucknott4mayor@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @tucknott4mayor
Affordability and Accountability twin pillars of campaign
September 15, 2011
For immediate release, Victoria, BC
Colwood Councillor Brian Tucknott, a retired airline captain and union leader today announced that he is running for Mayor of Colwood with a pledge of no further municipally generated tax increases if elected.
Colwood is a community of working families and retired people that have been hit hard with over 30% in municipal tax increases in the last three years. The result has been seniors, the unemployed and those on fixed incomes struggling to make ends meet and families both renters and homeowners facing increased housing costs.
“Given the misplaced priorities that have occurred in Colwood, I have consistently voted against these tax increases but have found myself in the minority time after time. Colwood has ignored the financial turmoil facing the world and has acted as though it was immune, giving rise to claims from at least one accountant that Colwood is operationally bankrupt,” said Tucknott.
“It is my hope that as Mayor I will have a working majority of councillors who recognize that government has to live within the means of its taxpayers, many of whom have not seen any increase in their real income in years,” he added.
Tucknott, who prior to becoming an airline captain served as a British Bobby (police officer) also intends to bring much greater fiscal discipline and accountability to Colwood. “For far too many years economic development opportunities have passed our community by as our municipal government has been embroiled in lawsuits and crises of its own making. It is time to bring in a new era of affordability and accountability to Colwood,” declared Tucknott.
”I want a community where seniors and young families can afford to live and where our tax dollars go to providing infrastructure that enhances our community. I want every dollar of taxpayers` money to be properly accounted for so that voters know what it is being spent on and why,” he pledged.
“It is for that reason that I commend the provincial government for wanting to provide an Auditor General for municipal governments through B.C. I have little doubt that an Auditor General would have much to say about what has happened in Colwood,” noted Tucknott.
”A sustainable community cannot just be a green one that caters only to a select few. It must also serve the needs of working families and those seeking employment. We need to make genuine affordable housing a key component of our community and we need to encourage businesses that will broaden our tax base and provide employment opportunities,” he said.
“As Mayor I will represent the entire community not just special interest groups. Every resident deserves equal representation not just those with certain political affiliations or connections. It is for this reason that I ask all residents of Colwood for their vote on November 19th,” Tucknott concluded.
For further information contact Brian Tucknott at (250) 474-8180 or email him at tucknott4mayor@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @tucknott4mayor
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Christy Clark triumphant
After three dramatic rounds of vote counting Christy Clark emerged as the new Premier elect of B.C. Her swearing in by the Lieutenant Governor of B.C. is but a formality. Her immediate challenge is two-fold to get elected in a by-election to the legislature and to keep the BC Liberal coalition united.
Complicating matters still further is the fact that Premier Clark and many of her key supporters are staunch federal Liberals while the candidate she narrowly defeated Kevin Falcon is very much a federal Conservative.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office made no secret of the fact that they would have much preferred to have seen Kevin rather than Christy win. This in part is due to the fact that Christy Clark’s ex-husband, Mark Marissen was then Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin’s right hand man in British Columbia.
But Prime Minister Harper and Premier Clark need each other. A federal election this April is likely and it will be British Columbia that will determine whether or not Harper is finally able to achieve a majority government. Harper thus needs to quickly mend fences with Premier Clark in order to ensure she does not do anything implicit or otherwise that is seen as endorsing the federal Liberals.
Any such move by Premier Clark would of course cause huge dissension within the BC Liberal caucus, which despite its name is made up of a majority of federal Conservative Party supporters. Clark already has her work cut out for her as prior to winning she had only received the endorsement of one sitting MLA. The rest had been fairly evenly divided between cabinet ministers Kevin Falcon and George Abbott.
But having known Christy Clark since she was 18 years old, I can tell you that few have ever prospered by underestimating the tenacity of this life long political warrior. The political left first felt threatened by her when she was elected President of the Simon Fraser Students’ Society back in the mid 1980s. This was a campus where historically the political divisions ran between the left (the NDP) and the extreme left (various forms of Communist sympathizers). To have a Liberal elected President was all but unheard of.
But elected she was and then when the BC Liberals emerged from political obscurity under the leadership of Gordon Wilson, she went to work at the legislature as a research officer. A few years later she then ran as an MLA under the leadership of Gordon Campbell and eventually served as Education Minister and Deputy Premier.
But as many people, especially women, found working for Premier Campbell was not an easy task. If you did too well and took too much attention away from him you could incur his wrath. But if you didn’t do well enough or made a mistake that also would put you in the political doghouse. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t is not a very tenable political situation to be in and so five years ago Christy bowed out of provincial politics.
Christy Clark was soon back in the spot light seeking the nomination from the NPA to be the candidate for Mayor of Vancouver. Both Mike Harcourt and Gordon Campbell had served first as Mayor of Vancouver before becoming Premier of B.C. and as most people surmised Christy was intent on following the same path.
In that instance she came up short in terms of support and it was Sam Sullivan who would instead win the nomination and go on to be a one term Mayor of Vancouver. Christy then landed on her feet as a radio talk show host at CKNW. It was there she not only remained in the public spotlight but more importantly was able to be in an environment where she was inundated on a daily basis with the concerns of British Columbians.
And nothing concerned British Columbians more after the last provincial election than the sudden and wholly unexpected imposition of a 12 per cent HST by Gordon Campbell. Although the HST has some benefits to it, the complete lack of consultation thoroughly alienated voters. In the end Premier Campbell resigned and called for a leadership vote.
During her time at CKNW Christy had not only become much more attuned to the concerns of voters she had also earned the respect of many long serving journalists. Pamela Martin who had for years served as a nightly news anchor actively campaigned on Christy’s behalf while other scribes wrote glowingly about her.
But the biggest ace that Christy Clark had up her sleeve was that she had not been in government when the much hated HST was rammed through by Premier Gordon Campbell. Kevin Falcon, George Abbott or Mike deJong had all been in cabinet when that fateful decision was made and although it is doubtful that they had much input on Premier Campbell’s decision, they all had to answer for it.
Unless another MLA volunteers to step aside, the most likely constituency that Christy Clark will run in will be Premier Campbell’s Vancouver Point Grey riding. Assuming as is likely that she wins that by-election her triumphant return to the legislature in Victoria will be complete.
Michael Geoghegan is a government relations consultant based in Victoria, BC He has known Christy Clark since they were both 18 years old.
Complicating matters still further is the fact that Premier Clark and many of her key supporters are staunch federal Liberals while the candidate she narrowly defeated Kevin Falcon is very much a federal Conservative.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office made no secret of the fact that they would have much preferred to have seen Kevin rather than Christy win. This in part is due to the fact that Christy Clark’s ex-husband, Mark Marissen was then Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin’s right hand man in British Columbia.
But Prime Minister Harper and Premier Clark need each other. A federal election this April is likely and it will be British Columbia that will determine whether or not Harper is finally able to achieve a majority government. Harper thus needs to quickly mend fences with Premier Clark in order to ensure she does not do anything implicit or otherwise that is seen as endorsing the federal Liberals.
Any such move by Premier Clark would of course cause huge dissension within the BC Liberal caucus, which despite its name is made up of a majority of federal Conservative Party supporters. Clark already has her work cut out for her as prior to winning she had only received the endorsement of one sitting MLA. The rest had been fairly evenly divided between cabinet ministers Kevin Falcon and George Abbott.
But having known Christy Clark since she was 18 years old, I can tell you that few have ever prospered by underestimating the tenacity of this life long political warrior. The political left first felt threatened by her when she was elected President of the Simon Fraser Students’ Society back in the mid 1980s. This was a campus where historically the political divisions ran between the left (the NDP) and the extreme left (various forms of Communist sympathizers). To have a Liberal elected President was all but unheard of.
But elected she was and then when the BC Liberals emerged from political obscurity under the leadership of Gordon Wilson, she went to work at the legislature as a research officer. A few years later she then ran as an MLA under the leadership of Gordon Campbell and eventually served as Education Minister and Deputy Premier.
But as many people, especially women, found working for Premier Campbell was not an easy task. If you did too well and took too much attention away from him you could incur his wrath. But if you didn’t do well enough or made a mistake that also would put you in the political doghouse. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t is not a very tenable political situation to be in and so five years ago Christy bowed out of provincial politics.
Christy Clark was soon back in the spot light seeking the nomination from the NPA to be the candidate for Mayor of Vancouver. Both Mike Harcourt and Gordon Campbell had served first as Mayor of Vancouver before becoming Premier of B.C. and as most people surmised Christy was intent on following the same path.
In that instance she came up short in terms of support and it was Sam Sullivan who would instead win the nomination and go on to be a one term Mayor of Vancouver. Christy then landed on her feet as a radio talk show host at CKNW. It was there she not only remained in the public spotlight but more importantly was able to be in an environment where she was inundated on a daily basis with the concerns of British Columbians.
And nothing concerned British Columbians more after the last provincial election than the sudden and wholly unexpected imposition of a 12 per cent HST by Gordon Campbell. Although the HST has some benefits to it, the complete lack of consultation thoroughly alienated voters. In the end Premier Campbell resigned and called for a leadership vote.
During her time at CKNW Christy had not only become much more attuned to the concerns of voters she had also earned the respect of many long serving journalists. Pamela Martin who had for years served as a nightly news anchor actively campaigned on Christy’s behalf while other scribes wrote glowingly about her.
But the biggest ace that Christy Clark had up her sleeve was that she had not been in government when the much hated HST was rammed through by Premier Gordon Campbell. Kevin Falcon, George Abbott or Mike deJong had all been in cabinet when that fateful decision was made and although it is doubtful that they had much input on Premier Campbell’s decision, they all had to answer for it.
Unless another MLA volunteers to step aside, the most likely constituency that Christy Clark will run in will be Premier Campbell’s Vancouver Point Grey riding. Assuming as is likely that she wins that by-election her triumphant return to the legislature in Victoria will be complete.
Michael Geoghegan is a government relations consultant based in Victoria, BC He has known Christy Clark since they were both 18 years old.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Reason versus Force
It is ironic that in Canada many would consider me a Conservative while in the United States many would consider me a Liberal. That I believe says more about the politics of those two respective countries than it does about me. One thing I do agree on though is the right to bear arms. Sadly that is a right we do not have in Canada. In fact, despite the steady increase in gang violence, as a Canadian you are no allowed to arm or defend yourself in any way. In fact it is now illegal for you to even own Kevlar.
The only people who are legally allowed to arm themselves and wear Kevlar are the police. Do the police represent the cream of our society? The most mentally stable, the most altruistic, the most intelligent, the most honest, the least likely to abuse their authority, uh no.
Police, like our politicians, are just as good and just as bad as the rest of society. Many police and many politicians are extremely hard working honest and decent. Others are corrupt thugs who routinely abuse their authority, some are even sociopaths.
A well educated population (something the US tends to lack given their poorly funded public school system) and a well armed population (something we are legally prevented from being in Canada) is I believe the best combined defence against an abusive state government. This is where my Libertarian streak tends to come into play.
As Mao wrote all authority is derived from the end of a gun. He should know, this man slaughtered 60 million of his fellow Chinese making him the most prolific mass murderer of the 20th Century.
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
The only people who are legally allowed to arm themselves and wear Kevlar are the police. Do the police represent the cream of our society? The most mentally stable, the most altruistic, the most intelligent, the most honest, the least likely to abuse their authority, uh no.
Police, like our politicians, are just as good and just as bad as the rest of society. Many police and many politicians are extremely hard working honest and decent. Others are corrupt thugs who routinely abuse their authority, some are even sociopaths.
A well educated population (something the US tends to lack given their poorly funded public school system) and a well armed population (something we are legally prevented from being in Canada) is I believe the best combined defence against an abusive state government. This is where my Libertarian streak tends to come into play.
As Mao wrote all authority is derived from the end of a gun. He should know, this man slaughtered 60 million of his fellow Chinese making him the most prolific mass murderer of the 20th Century.
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Woolly Headed Academics
As both an economist and an Alumni of the University of Victoria I was appalled by a recent study that suggested that already sky high taxes on alcohol here in British Columbia should be increased further. That prompted me to write a letter, not to the editor, but the academic Tim Stock who came up with this drivel. I have posted my letter below but first a timely editorial on the subject from my good friend Mike Smyth courtesy of CKNW
Hello Michael,
You often hear people complain that liquor prices are too high in British Columbia. WAY too high. Just go into any grocery store in Washington state and check their prices on beer and wine for proof.
But could it be that B.C. booze prices are actually too low? That's what University of Victoria researcher Tim Stockwell argued in a study this week. The addictions specialist says the B.C. government should raise liquor prices to stop people from drinking so much and turning into alcoholics.
To which I say: You're kidding, right? Please tell me this is a joke!
British Columbia already has some of the highest booze prices in North America, yet our rates of alcoholism are roughly the same as lower-priced jurisdictions. Consider Washington state again: Their booze is way cheaper, and you can buy their cut-rate grog in corner stores to boot. But is everyone from Seattle to Bellingham walking around in a constant drunken stupor? No, their rates of alcoholism are roughly the same as ours.
We talked about this issue on The Mike Smyth Show this week, and it sure provoked a lively discussion. I just hope this doesn't give the government any bright ideas to jack up our already sky-high liquor prices. That would be truly Grinch-like.
Merry Christmas everybody! See you on the radio.
Mike Smyth
And now for my letter sent to timstock@uvic.ca ....
Dear Tim:
Locked in your ivory tower do you have any concept of the real world? Are you aware that here in BC we pay with taxes and mark ups amongst the highest prices for wine anywhere in North America?
The long suffering middle class and working poor struggle to make ends meet in a province where substandard housing costs a fortune and you think it would be a good idea to jack taxes up even further on alcohol. God forbid a couple in Surrey might want a bottle of wine with dinner in order to soothe their nerves after a hard days work, a hellish commute and narrowly avoiding another murderous gang shoot out.
But according to your study we should all pay more money for alcohol for the sake of our kids. So instead of parents teaching their children how to drink responsibly, those kids will increasingly turn to marijuana and other illegal drugs which will be supplied to them by the aforementioned drug gangs.
Bravo for upholding the stereotype of the woolly headed academic who wastes our tax dollars on social engineering shenanigans. If you love high taxes on alcohol so much then move to Sweden. Then you can see first hand the waves of young Swedes who travel to other European countries and instead of drinking responsibly indulge in insane bouts of binge drinking before they return home puking drunk to their high tax homeland.
Michael Geoghegan
www.mgcltd.ca
Hello Michael,
You often hear people complain that liquor prices are too high in British Columbia. WAY too high. Just go into any grocery store in Washington state and check their prices on beer and wine for proof.
But could it be that B.C. booze prices are actually too low? That's what University of Victoria researcher Tim Stockwell argued in a study this week. The addictions specialist says the B.C. government should raise liquor prices to stop people from drinking so much and turning into alcoholics.
To which I say: You're kidding, right? Please tell me this is a joke!
British Columbia already has some of the highest booze prices in North America, yet our rates of alcoholism are roughly the same as lower-priced jurisdictions. Consider Washington state again: Their booze is way cheaper, and you can buy their cut-rate grog in corner stores to boot. But is everyone from Seattle to Bellingham walking around in a constant drunken stupor? No, their rates of alcoholism are roughly the same as ours.
We talked about this issue on The Mike Smyth Show this week, and it sure provoked a lively discussion. I just hope this doesn't give the government any bright ideas to jack up our already sky-high liquor prices. That would be truly Grinch-like.
Merry Christmas everybody! See you on the radio.
Mike Smyth
And now for my letter sent to timstock@uvic.ca ....
Dear Tim:
Locked in your ivory tower do you have any concept of the real world? Are you aware that here in BC we pay with taxes and mark ups amongst the highest prices for wine anywhere in North America?
The long suffering middle class and working poor struggle to make ends meet in a province where substandard housing costs a fortune and you think it would be a good idea to jack taxes up even further on alcohol. God forbid a couple in Surrey might want a bottle of wine with dinner in order to soothe their nerves after a hard days work, a hellish commute and narrowly avoiding another murderous gang shoot out.
But according to your study we should all pay more money for alcohol for the sake of our kids. So instead of parents teaching their children how to drink responsibly, those kids will increasingly turn to marijuana and other illegal drugs which will be supplied to them by the aforementioned drug gangs.
Bravo for upholding the stereotype of the woolly headed academic who wastes our tax dollars on social engineering shenanigans. If you love high taxes on alcohol so much then move to Sweden. Then you can see first hand the waves of young Swedes who travel to other European countries and instead of drinking responsibly indulge in insane bouts of binge drinking before they return home puking drunk to their high tax homeland.
Michael Geoghegan
www.mgcltd.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
